Nazi's, What is the appeal? I read in another place where someone said the best ten generals of WW2 were 'german'.
Another topic mentions Nazi tactics as being superior and another how Nazi weapons were better.
What is the appeal of the Nazi's?
It just seems to me that the Nazi's murdered thousands of children and woman in a cruel way, attacked unprepared countries, lost a war and got their country occupied by the enemy for half a century!
Because some of the German generals were very good, German weaponry was often excellent, and the overall fighting record of the German soldier in that conflict was exemplary.
I can state these facts while still being apalled by the Nazi ideology and actions.
It seems to me that a normal man would be ashamed to laud any part of the Nazi effort. That the Nazi's were only really good at torturing children, woman and those unprepared!
That when confronted with superior armies they not only lost the war, got killed but got their country taken over.
the German army, and the Nazi war machine were very well run. despite their often horrific tactics, it is impossible to argue that they were effective. their superior weaponry and training made running over their closer opposition pretty easy giving them confidence, which can make or break an army.
the Nazi's would most likely be running Europe if we hadnt intervened. most people were too scared to stand up to them, however, thankfully, there were many who were not.
I'd venture that any man who faced the German in combat in either world war has a high respect for his fighting abilities, his weapons and his generalship.
Like Birdwatcher said, the ideology of the Nazi and their genocidal tendencies were deplorable.
Given the fact that we WERE allied with a far worse butcher that pov is less than sterling. Ability and skill was a hallmark of the German Military. I assure you that Germany was beaten more by absolutely overwhelming numbers of everything than any superiority in skills and weapons.
*I* was the somebody that mentioned German military prowess and technological acumen. All the posts have pretty much beat down the idiocy of the question. BTW you might want to brush up on your grammar. Nazi's {sic} illustrates the possesive case and you meant the plural-Nazis.
Probably more to do with their being German than being Nazi. Germans were big on the martial tradition, and tend to be highly focused on quality design and equipment, similar to the Swiss on the latter point.
I seem to recall that some of our U.S. military organizational structure was heavily influenced by the German model, and that the 1939 German attack and quick victory in Europe became a model for our combined arms assaults.
Appeal of the Nazi? Not at all. Respect for the organization,and fighting abilities of the WWII German military? Absolutely.
Probably more to do with their being German than being Nazi. Germans were big on the martial tradition, and tend to be highly focused on quality design and equipment, similar to the Swiss on the latter point.
Breeding dogs, brewing beer, building machinery, engineering damn near anything, ... what ever.
Once you can mobilize those traditions and package it with pride for homeland (even for nefarious reasons), watch out.
Really tough to nearly conquer a large corner of the world from a country about the size of Wisconsin with out superior effort and brains.
Maybe you should look at Werner Von Braun. After WW 2 the US and Russia fought over German scientist. We got the best. Led our race to the moon and missile systems. Hasbeen
Lets not give the NAZIS too much credit. They were themselves often surprised at how well their tactics and weapons worked. The 88 was designed as an anti-aircraft weapon. As the French-British used relatively few air craft against them in the invasion of France, the Germans turned it against tanks and were surpised at how well it worked. Turned out to be the best artillery weapon of the war.
The Nazis are not one and the same as the German/Prussian officer caste. Many of these generals were in the German military prior to World War One and stayed in through the Weimar era into the Nazi era. Some were fascist Nazis ideologically, but not all. The Germans were superior tacticians, but their strategy, thanks to Adolf, stunk. You should read the Stalingrad trilogy. The first two books are out and it's just incredible how the Krauts could be so brilliant and so stupid at the same time. And thank God they were stupid.
It is difficult for some people to mentally separate the German Army from the National Socialist (Nazi) Party - especially after 65 years. Or the German people from the Party, for that matter.
Perhaps that is because the Nazi Party was like a horrific wreck: you can't take your eyes off it BECAUSE it is horrific.
In my opinion, people who are filled with hate like to identify with the nazi ideology as they feel it gives credence to their own feelings and desires.
The german army of WWII is highly regarded by a lot of folks into military history, and I believe for the most part those folks are more admiring the pure military aspects (training, equipment, tactics, etc) and not really the nazi ideology.
Given the fact that we WERE allied with a far worse butcher that pov is less than sterling. Ability and skill was a hallmark of the German Military. I assure you that Germany was beaten more by absolutely overwhelming numbers of everything than any superiority in skills and weapons.
German weapons and tactics were good, but I do not believe that they were as superior or original as everyone thinks. The Germans biggest asset was that they could adapt to the situation well. Their biggest weapon/technology advantage was to put radios in tanks. While the west was using hand signals in armored warfare, the Germans used radios. The French tanks were superior to German tanks in armor and firepower so the Germans adapted and used the 88 to eliminate French tanks. They may have actually picked this up from the Pole's who used 40mm Bofors guns against German tanks in September of 1939. The Germans made use of dive bombers for ground support but this was a tactic that was pioneered by the United States Marine Corps. US Navy and Marine Corps dive bomber pilots were the best in the world. While the German 88 was good, The US 90mm, British 3.7" and Soviet 85mm AA guns were just as good. When the Allies ran into superior German tanks they adapted and countered with rocket armed P-47 Thunderbolts, Hawker Typhoons and Ilysuion Stormivks. The US P-80 was superior to the ME-262 and if the war had lasted longer they would have met in combat. The US M26 Peshing was capable of taking on the Panther and Tiger on equal terms. The M4 Sherman and T34 were equal to the German MkIV panzer. American artillery was actuall the best in the world. For all of its prowess and techincal ability on land, the Germans lagged behind the Allies and Japan and Italy on the seas.
I have doubts about the superiority of German weapons; most German soldiers carried the 98K, I would prefer a Garand any time. The high cyclic rate of the vaunted MG42 simply used up ammo rapidly and made it difficult to control and hit anything.
German weapons and tactics were good, but I do not believe that they were as superior or original as everyone thinks. The Germans biggest asset was that they could adapt to the situation well. Their biggest weapon/technology advantage was to put radios in tanks. While the west was using hand signals in armored warfare, the Germans used radios. The French tanks were superior to German tanks in armor and firepower so the Germans adapted and used the 88 to eliminate French tanks. They may have actually picked this up from the Pole's who used 40mm Bofors guns against German tanks in September of 1939. The Germans made use of dive bombers for ground support but this was a tactic that was pioneered by the United States Marine Corps. US Navy and Marine Corps dive bomber pilots were the best in the world. While the German 88 was good, The US 90mm, British 3.7" and Soviet 85mm AA guns were just as good. When the Allies ran into superior German tanks they adapted and countered with rocket armed P-47 Thunderbolts, Hawker Typhoons and Ilysuion Stormivks. The US P-80 was superior to the ME-262 and if the war had lasted longer they would have met in combat. The US M26 Peshing was capable of taking on the Panther and Tiger on equal terms. The M4 Sherman and T34 were equal to the German MkIV panzer. American artillery was actuall the best in the world. For all of its prowess and techincal ability on land, the Germans lagged behind the Allies and Japan and Italy on the seas.
You just pegged their advantage in generals and command.
As to lagging behind on the seas... Bismarck, anyone? U-boats?
Given the fact that we WERE allied with a far worse butcher that pov is less than sterling. Ability and skill was a hallmark of the German Military. I assure you that Germany was beaten more by absolutely overwhelming numbers of everything than any superiority in skills and weapons.
Yep. In a war of attrition, it ain't good to be outnumbered nearly 10:1.
German weapons and tactics were good, but I do not believe that they were as superior or original as everyone thinks. The Germans biggest asset was that they could adapt to the situation well. Their biggest weapon/technology advantage was to put radios in tanks. While the west was using hand signals in armored warfare, the Germans used radios. The French tanks were superior to German tanks in armor and firepower so the Germans adapted and used the 88 to eliminate French tanks. They may have actually picked this up from the Pole's who used 40mm Bofors guns against German tanks in September of 1939. The Germans made use of dive bombers for ground support but this was a tactic that was pioneered by the United States Marine Corps. US Navy and Marine Corps dive bomber pilots were the best in the world. While the German 88 was good, The US 90mm, British 3.7" and Soviet 85mm AA guns were just as good. When the Allies ran into superior German tanks they adapted and countered with rocket armed P-47 Thunderbolts, Hawker Typhoons and Ilysuion Stormivks. The US P-80 was superior to the ME-262 and if the war had lasted longer they would have met in combat. The US M26 Peshing was capable of taking on the Panther and Tiger on equal terms. The M4 Sherman and T34 were equal to the German MkIV panzer. American artillery was actuall the best in the world. For all of its prowess and techincal ability on land, the Germans lagged behind the Allies and Japan and Italy on the seas.
True on all points but The German weapons were superior at the BEGINNING of the war, We developed superior weapon During the war. American USE of artillery was far superior.
The Bismarck was sunk by British battle ships Rodney and King George V. The Bismarck was a decent battleship, but among 1930's designed and built battleships she inferior to the American North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa class battle ships, the British King George V class, the Japanese Yamato class and the French Richelue class. She was probably equal to the Italian Vitterio Veneto class. While German subs were very good, they did ultimately lose the battle of the Atlantic. US subs were able to decimate the Japanese merchant shipping and strangle Japan.
The Bismarck was sunk only because the sea planes got VERY lucky and landed exactly one torpedo in the rudder assembly. You might want to consider re-examining exactly how much damage she took (and withstood), what her capabilities were, and how it stacked up against the other ships of the day.
As for the German subs losing, again, in a war of attrition, you can't afford to be outnumbered that greatly.
US subs vs. Japanese merchant vessels, is a very, very poor comparison.
I dissagree that there fighter planes were superior. Up to the battle of Britian the Luftwaffe was the undisputed master of the skies, in numbers quality and tactics. In the battle of Britian the had superior numbers, equal aircraft and inferior tactics. The lost the battle of Britian due to stupidity in tactics and poor intelligence. If they had knocked out the British radar and continued to pund fighter command bases they would have won through attrition. Instead they gave up on radar installations after two weeks and just as they had fighter command on the ropes, they let up and started bombing cities. Their helmet was the best, as was their gpmg, the MG42. The British helemt evolved and was much better toward the end of the war. The British paratrooper helmet was very good, similar to the German one.
I dissagree that there fighter planes were superior. Up to the battle of Britian the Luftwaffe was the undisputed master of the skies, in numbers quality and tactics. In the battle of Britian the had superior numbers, equal aircraft and inferior tactics. The lost the battle of Britian due to stupidity in tactics and poor intelligence. If they had knocked out the British radar and continued to pund fighter command bases they would have won through attrition. Instead they gave up on radar installations after two weeks and just as they had fighter command on the ropes, they let up and started bombing cities. Their helmet was the best, as was their gpmg, the MG42. The British helemt evolved and was much better toward the end of the war. The British paratrooper helmet was very good, similar to the German one.
Okay, so if they had air supremacy prior to the Battle of Britain, and lost it only because of poor tactics and intel, HOW does that negate the fact that even the Brits (who engaged them in that battle) were of the mind that the German aircraft were superior?
The Bismarck was sunk only because the sea planes got VERY lucky and landed exactly one torpedo in the rudder assembly. You might want to consider re-examining exactly how much damage she took (and withstood), what her capabilities were, and how it stacked up against the other ships of the day.
As for the German subs losing, again, in a war of attrition, you can't afford to be outnumbered that greatly.
US subs vs. Japanese merchant vessels, is a very, very poor comparison.
He is absolutely right regarding the Bismarck Sean. It was an upgrade of a WWI design and the US and Brit BBs mentioned were better armored and superior guns, particularly the US BBs. Yes she received a lucky hit enabling the RN to catch her. The reason she took so much to sink is because the RN was anxious (and low on fuel) and closed the range, effectively shooting through and over the armored belt. It is important to note, the first salvo from HMS Rodney(16" guns) completely penetrated Bismarck's "B" turret and combined fire from her and KGV (14" guns) had no problem defeating the Bismarck's turret armor. Incidentally, the Bismarck's armored belt was 12" of Krupp AAA nickel-chrome steel and top of the line but KGV's 16" belt afforded better protection. a similar thing happened to the Prince Of Wales of Malaya, but the Bismarck has been overly hyped throughout the years.
Their fighter planes were superior, so was their unequaled rocket technology and they were close to developing the A bomb.
Small details count too : their infantry helmet was the best, while the British helmet was the worst.
Nope, when comparing apples to apples (piston engines). The Spitfire evolved and always stayed ahead of comparable German fighters. For example, when the FW 190 first came out, it was superior to the Spitfire V, but the Brits developed the IX and subsequesnt Marks that always stayed ahead. The P-51 Mustang was far and away much better than anything the Germans fielded. And during the Battle OF Britain, the Spitfire was slightly superior to the 109 and blew by it with subsequent models which the 109 was never able to keep up.
Sometimes improved technolgy is a disadvantage. The Bi-winged planes that torpedoed the Bismarck couldn't be tracked be the German weapons systen because the planes flew so SLOW.
And her AAA armament was also lacking and of a WWI design. For example, the secondary armament on contemporary British and American BBs was "dual purpose," i.e, it also served as great AAA whereas the Bismarck's secondary (6.1") guns could only engage sea targets.
I believe if they had the access to raw materials and the relative safety of our at home manufacturing war machine things might have been different. Nobody in the world could keep up with the overwhelming output of ships, tanks, planes, etc. that the US was able to put into battle.
Don't know where ar15 is getting his "facts" but they need to be checked.
Germany's loss was due more to bad strategic decisions than tactical. Even a cursory study will reveal the German's superiority in almost every facet of weaponry and training. However, numbers trump technology everytime, at least in that pre-atomic age.
The US was able to conquer more through manufacturing than anything else (not taking anything away from many excellent Allied soldiers). When you had the nearly inconceivable production capability that we had, with no fear of anyone bombing our factories, victory was inevitable. Course, it's more comforting to believe in the myth of American Exceptionalism.
As to the OP, as others have stated, many of the German generals can be admired militarily w/o condoning their ideology (and many were members of the National Socialist party 'in name' only and not staunch supporters of the Der Maniac).
German weapons and tactics were good, but I do not believe that they were as superior or original as everyone thinks. The Germans biggest asset was that they could adapt to the situation well. Their biggest weapon/technology advantage was to put radios in tanks. While the west was using hand signals in armored warfare, the Germans used radios. The French tanks were superior to German tanks in armor and firepower so the Germans adapted and used the 88 to eliminate French tanks. They may have actually picked this up from the Pole's who used 40mm Bofors guns against German tanks in September of 1939. The Germans made use of dive bombers for ground support but this was a tactic that was pioneered by the United States Marine Corps. US Navy and Marine Corps dive bomber pilots were the best in the world. While the German 88 was good, The US 90mm, British 3.7" and Soviet 85mm AA guns were just as good. When the Allies ran into superior German tanks they adapted and countered with rocket armed P-47 Thunderbolts, Hawker Typhoons and Ilysuion Stormivks. The US P-80 was superior to the ME-262 and if the war had lasted longer they would have met in combat. The US M26 Peshing was capable of taking on the Panther and Tiger on equal terms. The M4 Sherman and T34 were equal to the German MkIV panzer. American artillery was actuall the best in the world. For all of its prowess and techincal ability on land, the Germans lagged behind the Allies and Japan and Italy on the seas.
The M4 Shermans that had gas engines�which was most of them�called Ronson lighters by the troops.
Called cordite ammo fires by the designers�
Cheaper and more reliable than the German tanks�so was the Russian T-34 which many say was the best tank of the war.
Well most of the appeal and fascination with that period of time was really about how the German Army could take a huge pounding and in short order go on the offensive. For the most part they were well lead, but poorly served by the political leadership of the time. And many in side of German undermined that leader from the very start. Some here said the German Navy was not to successful at sea, I beg to differ. The Submarine force dam near won it, they for a time turned the Gulf of Mexico into a German Lake. It was so bad that 100 % of the Steel Production in 1942 went into building a pipe line for oil from the gulf of mexico to North East. Those Submariners called it "The Happy Time". We were loosing ships are a rate we could not sustain. Things like Radar turned the tide but with heavy losses. The Germans in Sept 1. 1939 has just 24 subs at sea. The Nazis were a horror by any way you wish to look at it, and so was the Soviet Union, they were worst by any measure you want to look at that too. But as the proverb goes, "The enemy of my Enemy, is my Friend" the only people in world war two to get it from both were the Poles. The Soviets planted the seeds for there own downfall, in places like Katyn Forrest.
The Germans lost the battle of the Atlantic due to superior technology and tactics. Radar, sonar and hunter killer groups based around an escort carrier along with destroyers were able to prosecute contacts to a finish.
As far as the Bismarck, she was the most overrated battle ship of the war. If you think that she took a lot of punishment, study up on what it took to sink the Yamato and Mushashi. She was inferior to the modern US, British and Japanese battleships in armor, guns and especially fire control. She was used as a commerce raider and was under orders not to engage convoys if they were escorted by old British WW1 battleships. The Bismarcks sister ship was so impressive that she never ventured into the Atlantic. The smaller German battleship Scharnhorst was also sunk in combat on the open seas.
Nope, when comparing apples to apples (piston engines). The Spitfire evolved and always stayed ahead of comparable German fighters. For example, when the FW 190 first came out, it was superior to the Spitfire V, but the Brits developed the IX and subsequesnt Marks that always stayed ahead. The P-51 Mustang was far and away much better than anything the Germans fielded. And during the Battle OF Britain, the Spitfire was slightly superior to the 109 and blew by it with subsequent models which the 109 was never able to keep up.
True to some extent, but the technological edge was never great enough to offset pilot skill. Most planes had their own edge that could be exploited by pilots (P-47's dive and roll rate, 109's fuel injection early in the war, etc). The main Allied and Axis planes were close enough throughout the war to make it pilot vs. pilot thing rather than machine (course, that's always been pretty much true).
What really hurt the Germans, then, was attrition of their experienced pilots. They didn't get to be rotated back home when they reached a certain score or level of fame. While our top guys were sent home to sell bonds and recuperate, the German pilots (and their ground troops) just had to keep going. And combat takes a murderous toll on even the young and talented. It's amazing so many of their top aces survived the war whether they were on the Eastern or Western front.
I never said that they didn't lose to bad strategic descisions. I agree that they did. Thay were also out produced. I stand by my facts. I stated that while they were good, they were not the technological and tactical end all be all that many think they were.
Tactically our aircooled Browning .30 cal. MG was more the equivalent to the MG42. The Sturmgewehr 44 came in too late to be an important factor. I'll take the .45 cal grease gun over the MP40 any time. Our pistols, grenades and heavy machineguns (.50 Cal) were better also.
It is interesting to note that the Germans developed a number of brilliant weapons during wartime and while under siege (2 fronts and under heavy bombardment). Germany is not a large nation and was largely agricultural with a number of exemplary engineers. I once worked for a man who had been Chief Engineer on the V-2 at Peenemunde; we had a number of interesting discussions of the war and some interesting alternative outcomes!
Among the weapons developed under these adverse conditions were: Me-162 Dornier 335 V-1 V-2 StG 44 (Sturmgewehr) Type XXII submarines Panzer V "Panther" tank Panzer VI "Tiger" tank Panzer VII "King Tiger" tank Etc.
By contrast most (not all � the Atom bomb was one exception) of the US weapons were developed before (or very early into) WW2, though there were refined as the war progressed. But this was an advantage; mass production (quality) will generally trump new developments (quality). Consider the Russian T-34 tank; it was crude and inferior to many German tanks, but produced in great quantity, and it just kicked the heck out of the German tanks.
The German Generals were very good, officers better than ours. The problem being that at the time those skills were most needed they were overruled by a corporal.
The weapons were the best, but that worked against them as they were too complicated and German standards too high. The might of the American and Russian industry produced lesser quality weapons but a whole bunch more of them.
There are two factors I consider key, but I don't hear much about. One is the American Garand, which raised our firepower by several orders of magnitude. The other is the 4 engine heavy bomber, or Germany's lack of it. Had Germany been able to reach across the Ural mountains to Russian industry the war on the eastern front might have been completely different. Just like wars fought from our Whitehouse, dictating every detail of battle and maneuver, Hitler lost the war for Germany.
I have doubts about the superiority of German weapons; most German soldiers carried the 98K, I would prefer a Garand any time. The high cyclic rate of the vaunted MG42 simply used up ammo rapidly and made it difficult to control and hit anything.
The late father of a friend who landed in the first wave at Normandy might beg to differ with you. The Germans did not seem to lack ammo and a lot of Americans would question how difficult it was to be hit!
Their fighter planes were superior, so was their unequaled rocket technology and they were close to developing the A bomb.
Small details count too : their infantry helmet was the best, while the British helmet was the worst.
I don't know how "close to developing the A bomb" the Germans were. They did have a program underway, but were never able to sustain criticality of the fuel.
The M4 Shermans caught fire because of ammo storage issues, not necessarly gasoline. Once they started using wet storage for the ammo, the fires decrerased. The Tiger 88 and Pather 75 were still able to penetrate a Sherman at will.
our projection of blitzkreig during the Iraqi massacre worked pretty well. obviously, there's good ideas that live on forever no matter which Country chooses to house them.
Yes the German army was resilient, I agree that they could take a pounding and counter attack. They were well lead, and their tactics on occasion were better, but I don't believe that they were the end all, be all supermen that some claim. From a tactical stand point, look at the battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle the world has ever known, they were beaten by superior tactics, not technology. Yes, I agree that the did have early sucesses in the battle of the Atlantic, but damn near winning is still losing. What did the German submariners call the time from late 1943 on, it was not "The Happy Time" By mid 1944 the battle of the Atlantic was lost. After mid 1944 goin out to sea for a German sub was a death sentence. My mother is Polish and lived under German occupation as a little girl. My father was also Polish and spent WW2 in a Siberia labor camp as a little boy. His older teenage sisters had cut lumber in the Siberian forests. I understand very well what it meant to be Polish in WW2.
I suppose that it was fairly accurately assessed after the war.
The post WW2 Strategic Assessments described both Germany and Japan's nuclear efforts. They did refine uranium and had working reactors, but were never able to sustain criticality of the fuel, even experimentally. These reactors were very small, not at all like the large Y-12 and K-25 reactors at Oak Ridge TN. These plants were very large and produced enough fissile material for about 6 weapons.
The Germans were the first to practice blitzkreig because they started the war. The theory of combined arms mechanized warfare was first written about by British generals Liddel and Hart. The Soviets also practiced it before Stalin's purges. The tank was actually developed by the British Navy in WW1 under the direction of the First Lord of the Admirality Winston Churchill.
I do not know if the German Air was better or their pilots were better than ours. My father flew in the skies over Germany in a B-17 and he came home. I do know that German craftsmanship was and in some cases still is top notch.
On the other hand, I detest anything doing with Nazism. There is nothing worthwhile in it. Fortunately the German people had little to do with the real Nazi movement. It is an idea the should never be forgotten just so that it can never rise again.
The Germans were the first to practice blitzkreig because they started the war. The theory of combined arms mechanized warfare was first written about by British generals Liddel and Hart. The Soviets also practiced it before Stalin's purges. The tank was actually developed by the British Navy in WW1 under the direction of the First Lord of the Admirality Winston Churchill.
good info. thanks. just goes to show that blitzkreig is not owned by any particular country.
it just goes to show that good strategy, tactical responses, Ldrshp, and technology all interplay into a dance of sorts. and of course, ideology/philosophy also has an important role to play also.
ar-Perhaps you can help me here. What was the name of the ranking Admiral in the U.S. navy who for six months refused to provide escorts for convoys because he felt maritime losses were a civilian, not a naval concern?
In other news, whatever you want to attribute it to, they held off the combined arms might of the US, England, Canada and a whole bunch of other countries for about 3 1/2 years with 1/3 of their Army.
The other 2/3 were fighting the Russians. Thank goodness for Operation Barbarossa, otherwise who knows how long it would have taken to beat them?
Their fighter planes were superior, so was their unequaled rocket technology and they were close to developing the A bomb.
Small details count too : their infantry helmet was the best, while the British helmet was the worst.
I don't know how "close to developing the A bomb" the Germans were. They did have a program underway, but were never able to sustain criticality of the fuel.
General Patton got into some hot water for basically following that concept mentioned in the last panel.
He was allowing former Nazis to run local government, and when told to remove them, his words were to the effect that they were the only ones who knew how to run local government.
The Germans lost the battle of the Atlantic due to superior technology and tactics. Radar, sonar and hunter killer groups based around an escort carrier along with destroyers were able to prosecute contacts to a finish.
As far as the Bismarck, she was the most overrated battle ship of the war. If you think that she took a lot of punishment, study up on what it took to sink the Yamato and Mushashi. She was inferior to the modern US, British and Japanese battleships in armor, guns and especially fire control. She was used as a commerce raider and was under orders not to engage convoys if they were escorted by old British WW1 battleships. The Bismarcks sister ship was so impressive that she never ventured into the Atlantic. The smaller German battleship Scharnhorst was also sunk in combat on the open seas.
Good post, I'd also add two very key tools we had to defeat the Germans in the Battle of the Atlantic; ULTRA and HF/DF. They never quite figured out how we managed to find them.
The Germans had been perparing for war for years. Their technological development was geared to make more and better weapons, their production was geared toward producing war materials, they had been stock piling fuel and supplies in preparation for war. They had been developing war experience, starting in the Spanish Civil War,in officers and troops.
The Allies were doing everything to avoid even the thought of war. Only in naval technology was the British investing in development. The only development the French spent anything on was the defensive emplacements on the border, which was fighting WWI again, a failed strategy.
The French were deeply divided, between the right and the left (sound familiar?) and distrusted each other more then they did the Germans. Crippled their ability to perpare for war and respond to the attacks that came.
The German generals look good, but a lot of that is due to the above, and due to the absolute political hacks that the Allies had in place before the war. The French were particularly fascinating, politics put the worst in place (again, sound familiar?)and they paid for it.
And the early gains that the Germans made gave them some of the most defendable borders that any general could hope for, except on the eastern front.
The Allies also were fighting the Japanese and their forces were split.
American soldiers, once they gained the experience that the Germans already had, and got improved weaponry to match the Germans, were better, more flexible and more dedicated and more capable. Only elite German units who got the best of everything could match them.
By the end of the war, the Allies had better equipment in every area, except missile technology.
The German as a supersoldier is a myth, pure and simple.
not so. they held unto a belief that was later overcome.
i'm not a Nazi simplifier, but i do know they were strong belivers, much like the xtrians of this day and age. they believe they are right. and they could be, but they lost the war.
now, we're trying to make sense of where we are, and what are the common interests of all Humans.
not so. they held unto a belief that was later overcome.
i'm not a Nazi simplifier, but i do know they were strong belivers, much like the xtrians of this day and age. they believe they are right. and they could be, but they lost the war.
now, we're trying to make sense of where we are, and what are the common interests of all Humans.
The Germans had been perparing for war for years. Their technological development was geared to make more and better weapons, their production was geared toward producing war materials, they had been stock piling fuel and supplies in preparation for war. They had been developing war experience, starting in the Spanish Civil War,in officers and troops.
The Allies were doing everything to avoid even the thought of war. Only in naval technology was the British investing in development. The only development the French spent anything on was the defensive emplacements on the border, which was fighting WWI again, a failed strategy.
The French were deeply divided, between the right and the left (sound familiar?) and distrusted each other more then they did the Germans. Crippled their ability to perpare for war and respond to the attacks that came.
The German generals look good, but a lot of that is due to the above, and due to the absolute political hacks that the Allies had in place before the war. The French were particularly fascinating, politics put the worst in place (again, sound familiar?)and they paid for it.
And the early gains that the Germans made gave them some of the most defendable borders that any general could hope for, except on the eastern front.
The Allies also were fighting the Japanese and their forces were split.
American soldiers, once they gained the experience that the Germans already had, and got improved weaponry to match the Germans, were better, more flexible and more dedicated and more capable. Only elite German units who got the best of everything could match them.
By the end of the war, the Allies had better equipment in every area, except missile technology.
The German as a supersoldier is a myth, pure and simple.
We never did put our men into decent tanks during WWII.
The Sherman was as good as any of the German tanks except the Tigers. The Tigers were superior in armament and armor, but couldn't stay in service and ran out of gas.
The Centurian was also days away at the end of the war, and would have beaten Tigers.
All Germans were not Nazis. All Nazis were not Germans. The Nazis were Socialists, like we will be in the next few years. The Communists were also Socialists, like we will be in the next few years. The German people have a remarkable history of culture & achievements, spanning over centuries, as do many other nationalities. The "father" of the Nazi Party (Hitler), was actually Austrian born. The rise of the Nazi Party was the fault of the Allied Powers from the first World War. If they had allowed the German people to retain at least some dignity after the first war, Nazi extremism would not have had an opportunity to fester into the horror of a second world war.
The Germans had been perparing for war for years. Their technological development was geared to make more and better weapons, their production was geared toward producing war materials, they had been stock piling fuel and supplies in preparation for war. They had been developing war experience, starting in the Spanish Civil War,in officers and troops.
The Allies were doing everything to avoid even the thought of war. Only in naval technology was the British investing in development. The only development the French spent anything on was the defensive emplacements on the border, which was fighting WWI again, a failed strategy.
The French were deeply divided, between the right and the left (sound familiar?) and distrusted each other more then they did the Germans. Crippled their ability to perpare for war and respond to the attacks that came.
The German generals look good, but a lot of that is due to the above, and due to the absolute political hacks that the Allies had in place before the war. The French were particularly fascinating, politics put the worst in place (again, sound familiar?)and they paid for it.
And the early gains that the Germans made gave them some of the most defendable borders that any general could hope for, except on the eastern front.
The Allies also were fighting the Japanese and their forces were split.
American soldiers, once they gained the experience that the Germans already had, and got improved weaponry to match the Germans, were better, more flexible and more dedicated and more capable. Only elite German units who got the best of everything could match them.
By the end of the war, the Allies had better equipment in every area, except missile technology.
The German as a supersoldier is a myth, pure and simple.
We never did put our men into decent tanks during WWII.
Actually, the French strategy regarding the Maginot fortifications was a complete success. The goal was to prevent the Germans from advancing quickly across favorable terrain, and seizing the coal and industrial areas in eastern France. It envisioned forcing any invasion to come through Belgium & the Ardennes. The Germans considered offensive operations against the CORF fortifications pointless, and when they finally tried, they were unsuccessful (despite the absence of supporting artillery and interval troops). Every major Maginot fort was still operational, under French control, at the armistice.
Keep in mind that the forts were largely paid for from pre-1935 budgets. Had that money been spent on tanks or planes, it would have been a waste; well obsolete by the time war broke out. The fortifications were a simple solution to difficult problem: France has a far smaller population; has a far lower birthrate, a situation compounded by the proportionately higher casualties taken by the French Army in WW1 than by the Germans. The Maginot Line allowed the the defense of a large portion of the French frontier, with a fraction of the manpower that would have otherwise been required. On the downside, it did result in a boatload of highly technically trained soldiers being pinned down, and contributed the sluggish development of offensive planning in the French Army. On the other hand, that distaste for offensive operations was also a result of the French trying to reclaim ground in WW1.
The end problem was that the French Army wasn't properly organized, or positioned (and had an obsolete infantry doctrine, although DeGaulle and others were changing that) when the Maginot Line did what it was supposed to: channel the Germans elsewhere.
On the subject of American Tanks... the M-26 was a match for any tank of the war. But for the sluggishness of the US Army high command, and doctrinal shortcomings, it could have been available in quantity by Normandy. As it was, a few made it into action during the last weeks of the war, with impressive results.
In Kursk the Russians had received information that the Germans had a plan for attack. They built defenses 250km deep and heavily mined approaches. The Germans attacked with about a 1:1 force ratio because they had trouble getting tanks and supplies before the battle. A ratio of 1:1 is bound to defeat the attacking force. Blitzkrieg in design was to concentrate forces in such a manner as you achieve a 5:1 superiority in a localized area. That only really works with an element of surprise.
Hitler lost that battle, mostly because he wasted his forces on an ego trip by the siege of Stalingrad. That costly ego trip cost him his 6th army.
The Sherman was as good as any of the German tanks except the Tigers. The Tigers were superior in armament and armor, but couldn't stay in service and ran out of gas.
The Centurian was also days away at the end of the war, and would have beaten Tigers.
Read Death Trap for a diffferent view on the Sherman.
The Sherman was as good as any of the German tanks except the Tigers. The Tigers were superior in armament and armor, but couldn't stay in service and ran out of gas.
The Centurian was also days away at the end of the war, and would have beaten Tigers.
The M-4 Sherman�s were the best we had, but not as good as the Tigers or Tiger IIs. They were outgunned (75mm vs. HV 88mm guns), thinner armor and, used gasoline vs. diesel. All in all, they were an inferior tank. They did make up for this in numbers; we cranked them out like peanuts and could overwhelm the Germans - same as the Russians did with their T-38's.
He was there, and "Did That" in Shermans, and I'd give creedence to his evaluations.
Here's a Good Nazi, ...or at least about to be.
German Wehrmacht General Anton Dostler is tied to a stake before his execution by a firing squad in a stockade in Aversa, Italy, on December 1, 1945. The General, Commander of the 75th Army Corps, was sentenced to death by an United States Military Commission in Rome for having ordered the shooting of 15 unarmed American prisoners of war, in La Spezia, Italy, on March 26, 1944. (AP Photo)
It was Patton who had the final say on the M-26. He had trained his men for 2+ years with the Sherman and didn't want to spend time retraining. RE: Tanks radios. The U.S. and Britian had radios in their tanks but they were AM, good long range but subject to interference and static. The Germans used FM radios, shorter range but much better reception RE: French defences. The oringial plans called for the marginot line to extend to the Atlantic. It was Belgium objections that halted it at their border(remember the Germans had attack thru Belgium in WW1)
He was there, and "Did That" in Shermans, and I'd give creedence to his evaluations.
Here's a Good Nazi, ...or at least about to be.
German Wehrmacht General Anton Dostler is tied to a stake before his execution by a firing squad in a stockade in Aversa, Italy, on December 1, 1945. The General, Commander of the 75th Army Corps, was sentenced to death by an United States Military Commission in Rome for having ordered the shooting of 15 unarmed American prisoners of war, in La Spezia, Italy, on March 26, 1944. (AP Photo)
Yes, he's the one.(Belton I think) Said our losses in tanks were 500 percent over expected losses. The Army only considered it a loss to be if the tank was unrepairable. Tanks where a shot had pierced the armour and the crew burned alive was not a loss as the bodies were removed, wiring replaced, hole welded over, and new paint applied. The smell of death could not be removed.
The Sherman was as good as any of the German tanks except the Tigers. The Tigers were superior in armament and armor, but couldn't stay in service and ran out of gas.
The Centurian was also days away at the end of the war, and would have beaten Tigers.
Nope, the Panther was vastly superior and the PkW IV with the 75mm High Velocity gun was also superior. Now the T-34 is a different story
Death Trap notes the inability of the Sherman to face the larger Tigers and their 88s. It was superior or par to Panzers. The delay in the Pershing was bad, no doubt, but not Patton that did that. The Pershing was not available when the US entered the war, its prototype, the T20, didn't appear until 1942.
Death Trap notes the inability of the Sherman to face the larger Tigers and their 88s. It was superior or par to Panzers. The delay in the Pershing was bad, no doubt, but not Patton that did that. The Pershing was not available when the US entered the war, its prototype, the T20, didn't appear until 1942.
I disagree. My source said Eisehhower left the final decision to Patton. Mid 1944 was plenty of time to get production up to anticipated needed levels. Shermans didn't face just Tigers and 88s.
Maybe you should look at Werner Von Braun. After WW 2 the US and Russia fought over German scientist. We got the best. Led our race to the moon and missile systems. Hasbeen
Von Braun was very respected. In Huntsville, AL. the home of Redstone Arsenal, which was very much involved in the space race and missle developement he was remembered. The city of Huntsville name a big sportscenter downtown after him.
Ok, so Patton entered the war in mid-1944? What was he supposed to use before that? In North Africa the Sherman was superior. The decision to delay production was done by General Lesley McNair. Belton blames Patton, but there is little evidence that this is true.
Death Trap notes the inability of the Sherman to face the larger Tigers and their 88s. It was superior or par to Panzers. The delay in the Pershing was bad, no doubt, but not Patton that did that. The Pershing was not available when the US entered the war, its prototype, the T20, didn't appear until 1942.
I disagree. My source said Eisehhower left the final decision to Patton. Mid 1944 was plenty of time to get production up to anticipated needed levels. Shermans didn't face just Tigers and 88s.
McNair may have been just as responsible, given the logistical problems. The M-26 handled the Panthers and Tigers fine, and handled the T-34 fine in Korea. Production could have been going in mid-43, and we would have been well-stocked by June '44. Would have saved a lot of lives.
I have doubts about the superiority of German weapons; most German soldiers carried the 98K, I would prefer a Garand any time. The high cyclic rate of the vaunted MG42 simply used up ammo rapidly and made it difficult to control and hit anything.
The late father of a friend who landed in the first wave at Normandy might beg to differ with you. The Germans did not seem to lack ammo and a lot of Americans would question how difficult it was to be hit!
Having personally fired a mg42 a number of times plus the american versions of the period, there is no comparison. Among other things the 42 has a quick change barrel, and is still in use today and is the father of some of our m.g.'s in use today.
Yes the German army was resilient, I agree that they could take a pounding and counter attack. They were well lead, and their tactics on occasion were better, but I don't believe that they were the end all, be all supermen that some claim. From a tactical stand point, look at the battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle the world has ever known, they were beaten by superior tactics, not technology. Yes, I agree that the did have early sucesses in the battle of the Atlantic, but damn near winning is still losing. What did the German submariners call the time from late 1943 on, it was not "The Happy Time" By mid 1944 the battle of the Atlantic was lost. After mid 1944 goin out to sea for a German sub was a death sentence. My mother is Polish and lived under German occupation as a little girl. My father was also Polish and spent WW2 in a Siberia labor camp as a little boy. His older teenage sisters had cut lumber in the Siberian forests. I understand very well what it meant to be Polish in WW2.
I believe numbers of russian tanks and air cover might have had a little to do with kursk. I lost family members to the gestapo in WWII with the irony being i am half north german/danish. But i would have been classified as a untermenchen in that period. By the way, I once had a client, now deceased, that was a officer in the polish calvary and wal full familar with the Katryn forest, a sorry event well hidden for many years. If you want to talk big ones, talk about polish calvary charging tanks on horseback.
THe Katryn Forest Massacre was perpetrated by the Soviets and for years blamed on the Germans. On the tanks, the Sherman was only able to beat the Germans by sheer numbers.
not so. they held unto a belief that was later overcome.
i'm not a Nazi simplifier, but i do know they were strong belivers, much like the xtrians of this day and age. they believe they are right. and they could be, but they lost the war.
now, we're trying to make sense of where we are, and what are the common interests of all Humans.
That is a load of poop. I personally know two men, one is now dead, and the other other almost so. The first one was drafted into the wermacht at age 15, it wasn't optional. The other one at about 17 into the S.S. in the fall of 44. About a month in combat, and got shot and was in a hospital at the end of the war. Neither one was anywere near a nazi or national socialist but you didn't have the option of squawking in those days.
Would you call a U.S. serviceman machine gunning shipwrecked japanese in the ocean true believers? It happened, and i have talked to those who did it. War is war, you do what you are told, and try to stay alive.
Germans held 10 of the 58 major fortifications of the line at the Armistice.
Nope. a "petit ouvrage" is not a "major" fortification. By definition, they had no artillery, and typically only 2 combat blocks (compared with the gros ouvrage, which had 10-20 blocks, with artillery) They took La Ferte, the westernmost "petit ouvrage," a two-block work, outside of supporting range, that wasn't part of the line proper (and they devoted parts of two divisions to doing it, with every one of the 107 men inside the work dying). They also took four other petit ouvrages in the Saar gap, a month after the attack began. The French abandoned 4 of the petit ouvrages in the extension (near Le Ferte), once it became clear that they could not be held without artillery. By 22 June, the Germans had been able to grab only 9 of the small interval works, and all 57 major forts were still operational. Stopping the Hearsay about the Maginot Line
Given the population and wealth disparity between France and Germany, it was a perfect strategy. Unfortunately, the high command was unprepared for it to succeed.
A little late to the party here, and haven't read every post, but Nazi ideology put US Physics on the map when the brightest Europeans physicists, some Jewish, some not, fled their mother countries and set up shop here in the US. Bethe, Einstein, Szilard, emigrated from Germany, Teller from Hungary, Fermi from Italy. Fermi pulled off the first pile reactor under the gymnasium at U. of Chicago. It all went pretty fast from there, although some historians like to claim that Heisenberg in Germany dragged his feet.
To be sure, we had plenty of smart home grown physicists, but these emigre's really made it possible to blow up the world if we wanted to.
I guess my point is that ideology had everything to do with it.
Ok, so Patton entered the war in mid-1944? What was he supposed to use before that? In North Africa the Sherman was superior. The decision to delay production was done by General Lesley McNair. Belton blames Patton, but there is little evidence that this is true.
The first five hundred production Shermans went to the Brits in North Africa while we still had those miget scout tanks and that tank with the offset turret until production caught up. McNair was and idiot who slowed DEVEOPEMENT and producton of the M-26. As noted Patton had been training with the Sherman for 2 years and didn't want to retrain.
Actually, the French strategy regarding the Maginot fortifications was a complete success. The goal was to prevent the Germans from advancing quickly across favorable terrain, and seizing the coal and industrial areas in eastern France. It envisioned forcing any invasion to come through Belgium & the Ardennes. The Germans considered offensive operations against the CORF fortifications pointless, and when they finally tried, they were unsuccessful (despite the absence of supporting artillery and interval troops). Every major Maginot fort was still operational, under French control, at the armistice.
Keep in mind that the forts were largely paid for from pre-1935 budgets. Had that money been spent on tanks or planes, it would have been a waste; well obsolete by the time war broke out. The fortifications were a simple solution to difficult problem: France has a far smaller population; has a far lower birthrate, a situation compounded by the proportionately higher casualties taken by the French Army in WW1 than by the Germans. The Maginot Line allowed the the defense of a large portion of the French frontier, with a fraction of the manpower that would have otherwise been required. On the downside, it did result in a boatload of highly technically trained soldiers being pinned down, and contributed the sluggish development of offensive planning in the French Army. On the other hand, that distaste for offensive operations was also a result of the French trying to reclaim ground in WW1.
The end problem was that the French Army wasn't properly organized, or positioned (and had an obsolete infantry doctrine, although DeGaulle and others were changing that) when the Maginot Line did what it was supposed to: channel the Germans elsewhere.
A few things to keep in mind.
1. The vast majority of Maginot line forts were small bunker/pillbox complexes. When you say "Every major Maginot fort was still operational, under French control, at the armistice", that was largely because they were of little use or threat to the the Germans after they had taken France. The majority are only effective against threats coming from the North/Northeast and were hardly worth expending manpower to clear out.
2. They may have resulted in the Germans going around, but the end result is that it had little negative effect on Germany. They weren't slowed. England entered the war because of Poland, not Belgium and it did not protect Frances industrial region.
It's ironic that a defensive wall intended to prevent WWI re-occuring, neglected to protect where Germany attacked first in WWI. Call it the "Britain will save us" defensive game plan.
Gen. McNair was responsible for the crazy doctrine that tanks don't fight tanks. This doctrine was one of the reasons the M-26 didn't get sent to Europe in time to save the lives it could have.
Retrain when? How many Pershings were there in England or available at D-day or whenever he didn't retrain? Remember, Patton was in the [bleep] until when?
Why weren't they used in Italy? Pershings did enter the war in 1945, so they were held out until then because of Patton? Seem much more likely that production had finally occurred.
It certainly isn't impossible, since Patton was stubborn, but it seems unlikely. He loved innovation, he had seen the potential of the tank in WWI in the first place. He would have been much more likely to have been in trouble for complaining he wasn't getting the best tank.
And I have a hard time believing that Belton had knowledge of what Eisenhower and his generals talked about in their planning of the war effort.
If there were factories set to produce the Pershings sitting idle (which could not have existed until development was done) or there are production figures that showed there were a bunch of Pershings sitting there for Patton to turn down, it would be more believable. Any production did not occur until 1944. The AGFC delayed all production and their minds were not changed until the December 1944 with the distruction in the Ardennes offensive when the tanks were finally shipped.
All evidence points away from Patton having any say in the situation.
And all tanks 'die' in combat. Hand held infantry weapons killed them then and kill them now.
Perhaps,it seems to be saying that Patton and the Generals on the ground in Europe choose to use Shermans instead of Pershings at some time during WWII. Yet the ruling to not using them came from the Army Brass in the US and the tanks were not produced at all until 1944 nor shipped until 1945. So what part am I misunderstanding? I can't deny that having a 90 mm gun and the better armor would have helped the cause, but they weren't available.
You keep saying Patton didn't want to retrain. Retrain when? That is my confusion. I can't figure out when he refused them in your discussion.
Gen. McNair was responsible for the crazy doctrine that tanks don't fight tanks. This doctrine was one of the reasons the M-26 didn't get sent to Europe in time to save the lives it could have.
I'm a WWII history nut & have read much about the technological achievements of the Germans before & during their attempt to conquer the world. One can only imagine what they could have achieved IF & obviously that's a big IF if the Nazi's had used peaceful means to better the world. With their advanced rocket & atomic research they would have been in space first & have developed the first atom bomb & eventually the first nuclear power generation system. We all know about their development with rifles (Mauser), high speed machine guns, & superior tanks. Its kind of ironic that a German/Austrian Jew helped the US develop an atom bomb. Thank God for the greatest generation of Americans, British, Canadians, Australians, & New Zealanders that helped stop world domination by the Germans, Italians, & Japanese.
The thing that gets me about the Germans in WWII was their sheer dedication and altruism in service to their cause.
It weren't cool uniforms or villanous accents that made 'em excellent, it was a general expectation of excellence on their part, that every man would give his all. The hardships they routinely withstood in the face of overwhelming numbers and ordinance were remarkable, to the very limits of human endurance and performance.
The mind-boggling irony being that all of that was in service to an almost-comically bad cabal of leaders and such an evil doctine.
websterparish47, It may have been Admiral Stark, but I am not sure. The USA was actually in an undeclared war in the Atlantic against the German subs before Dec. 7, 1941.
crosshair, I agree with everything you have said. Instead of fluid, flanking maneuver warfare, they attacked straight ahead into the strongest defenses of the war.
All Germans were not Nazis. All Nazis were not Germans. The Nazis were Socialists, like we will be in the next few years. The Communists were also Socialists, like we will be in the next few years. The German people have a remarkable history of culture & achievements, spanning over centuries, as do many other nationalities. The "father" of the Nazi Party (Hitler), was actually Austrian born. The rise of the Nazi Party was the fault of the Allied Powers from the first World War. If they had allowed the German people to retain at least some dignity after the first war, Nazi extremism would not have had an opportunity to fester into the horror of a second world war.
There was nothing remotely "socialist" about the Nazi's. Choosing that name for their party was part of the "big-lie" philosophy.
They were as anti-union as any one. They were - and are - "far right" in every respect. Not many real socialists are anti-union and pro-militarism.
websterparish47, "... The USA was actually in an undeclared war in the Atlantic against the German subs before Dec. 7, 1941.
Correct. When I lived in Los Angeles, I became friends with an older man who wore the nickname, "Seadog." He spent many years in the Merchant Marine and had two different ships shot out from under him in the North Atlantic by German submarines, previous to Dec. 7, 1941.
There was nothing remotely "socialist" about the Nazi's. Choosing that name for their party was part of the "big-lie" philosophy.
They were as anti-union as any one. They were - and are - "far right" in every respect. Not many real socialists are anti-union and pro-militarism.
The USSR and it's Warsaw pact nations were anti-Union. Remember Lech Walesa?
Gawd, the stupidity that comes off of your keyboard.
Hitler and Musslini sold socialism just like Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc., sold socialism, as a tool to achieve power by utilizing the working class as their willing pawns.
Funny how most political science texts disagree with your premise.
Fascism is considered to be far right - at least in most of the texts.
How many socialist countries today favour military intervention in foreign states, or consider union members to be their enemy?
Waiting...
Written by Socialists who will do anything to attempt to intellectually distance themselves from all those who have used Socialism to enslave and kill.
Tell you what, why don't you go to China, North Korea and Cuba and start some labor unions.
There was nothing remotely "socialist" about the Nazi's. Choosing that name for their party was part of the "big-lie" philosophy.
They were as anti-union as any one. They were - and are - "far right" in every respect. Not many real socialists are anti-union and pro-militarism.
Really? And how many labor unions were active in the Soviet Union? When the Polish labor unions surfaced, these people were taking their lives in their hands by speaking out. You seem to have a utopian vision of Socialism that has no basis in either history or fact.
JorgeI, The PkW IV had a Maybach V12 gasoline engine. The T34's had diesel engines, as did some Shermans that were sent to Russia anmd also used by the US Marine Corps in the Pacific. Stan
websterparish47, It may have been Admiral Stark, but I am not sure. The USA was actually in an undeclared war in the Atlantic against the German subs before Dec. 7, 1941.
Thats the one. State Dept. went around him to get the unofficial help. Stark made it his personal mission to destroy anyone he didn't like.
I'm an old tank officer with the 29th. Division & served with a few veterans of WWII & Korea. We used Sherman's until finally receiving the M60 which was long overdue. The only way the Sherman could defeat the German tanks was with numbers & tactics. Our nickname was "Ronson" since they were so prone to catch fire. The German tanks were produced on heavy equipment production lines which resulted in slow production. We produced the Sherman's in high production mostly automobile factories. As with most things German their tanks were very complex & as the war continued were very prove to mechanical failures. During training, I remember seeing movie footage of American tank crews shot by the Germans after surrendering. We were told that we would adhere to the Geneva Convention & treat any captured enemy accordingly. When several troopers asked our colonel what happened during WWII he replied "we shot the bastards".
I'm an old tank officer with the 29th. Division & served with a few veterans of WWII & Korea. We used Sherman's until finally receiving the M60 which was long overdue. The only way the Sherman could defeat the German tanks was with numbers & tactics. Our nickname was "Ronson" since they were so prone to catch fire. The German tanks were produced on heavy equipment production lines which resulted in slow production. We produced the Sherman's in high production mostly automobile factories. As with most things German their tanks were very complex & as the war continued were very prove to mechanical failures. During training, I remember seeing movie footage of American tank crews shot by the Germans after surrendering. We were told that we would adhere to the Geneva Convention & treat any captured enemy accordingly. When several troopers asked our colonel what happened during WWII he replied "we shot the bastards".
Their list of former Socialist countries includes such rousing success stories as:
USSR GDR North Korea Romania Poland Angola Albania Yemen Yugoslavia etc., etc.,
Norway is officially a Constitutional Monarchy and a Unitary parliamentary representative democracy, as is Sweden and Denmark.
As usual, you closet communists try to make up definitions to fit what you want the world to be, rather than attempting any semblance of intellectual honesty.
From Wikepedia (not considered a reliable source - for senior student's use - by the way) - but you mentioned it.
Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, revolutionary and stateless socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. Communism is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism.
Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, autonomous public ownership or state ownership.[2] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs. Social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
JorgeI, And thank you for reminding me of the ULTRA and HF/DF contributions to the battle of the Atlantic. Great intelligince always helps good tactics. As a former S-3 Viking pilot with much more knowledge of sub hunting than I could ever hope to have, thanks for posting on the subject. It's always great to hear from profesionals on a subject. Thanks for your service. Stan
Here's a little political science even Brian can get: Political Philosophies Explained in Simple "Two Cow" Terms Socialism
You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.
Communism
You have two cows. The government takes them both and provides you with milk.
Fascism
You have two cows. The government takes them and sells you the milk.
Bureaucracy
You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain.
Capitalism
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Corporate
You have two cows. You sell one, force the other to produce the milk of four cows and then act surprised when it drops dead.
Democracy
You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point that you must sell them both in order to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow which was a gift from your government.
A CHRISTIAN:
You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.
A SOCIALIST:
You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
A REPUBLICAN:
You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?
A DEMOCRAT:
You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.
A FASCIST:
You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.
DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of >four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.
A FRENCH CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
A GERMAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.
A RUSSIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
A MEXICAN CORPORATION:
You think you have two cows, but you don't know what a cow looks like. You take a nap.
A SWISS CORPORATION:
You have 5000 cows, none of which belongs to you. You charge for storing them >for others.
A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation declares bankruptcy.
A TALIBAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You turn them loose in the Afghan "countryside" and they >both die. You blame the godless American infidels and the Jews.
How many socialist countries today favour military intervention in foreign states, or consider union members to be their enemy?
Waiting...
Even if one accepted your premise that Sweden, Norway and Denmark are socialist (they're NOT but I'll humor you) - Sweden, Norway and Denmark have all put troops on the ground in Afghanistan since the late unpleasantness. They also were in Kosovo and Bosnia.
So ALL of your (sic) socialist countries definitely DO favour military intervention in foreign countries.
websterparish47, "... The USA was actually in an undeclared war in the Atlantic against the German subs before Dec. 7, 1941.
Correct. When I lived in Los Angeles, I became friends with an older man who wore the nickname, "Seadog." He spent many years in the Merchant Marine and had two different ships shot out from under him in the North Atlantic by German submarines, previous to Dec. 7, 1941.
(You should have seen his gun collection, too!!)
L.W.
The US destroyer USS Reuben James (DD-245) was sunk by a German sub in October 1941, prior to the US entering the hostilities. While we did not enter the war until December 7, 1941, we did escort convoys to the UK to ensure the cargo we sold the Brits arrived. The Ruben James was part of that effort.
Thanks for the kind words ar. I do know a little about ASW :), but I developed the platform more into the War At Sea Role when the S-3B came out with the ISAR radar and Harpoon missile. When the Soviets, (you know the Union of Soviet SOOCIALIST Republics) developed a "Blue Water" Navy, the S-3 became a great platform to strike their Surface Action Groups (SAGs) with long range strikes centered around us and with A-6s. As to the moron from across the border, one can only shake one's head in disgust and come to the realization that it is that kind of dangerous incompetence, depicted by academia is a central reason we find ourselves in the mess we are in. jorge
Nazi's, What is the appeal? What is the appeal of the Nazi's?
They were popular for the same reasons as their fellow travelers the Communists and Progressives. Manipulating, lying, preying on human weaknesses is standard fair for these groups.
Just look what Obama and his band progressive fascists do. The Nazis were not that much different. Right now he is using the same strategy as Hitler and the Communists used to gain political power. Hitler had the Jews and Obama has the 1%. Obama created the Occupy movement to focus the peoples anger away from him and on the 1%. He is counting on human weakness, envy and greed, to gain political power. He hopes that these people will come to hime to deal with the evil 1% and they will vote him in for a second term.
JorgeI, The PkW IV had a Maybach V12 gasoline engine. The T34's had diesel engines, as did some Shermans that were sent to Russia anmd also used by the US Marine Corps in the Pacific. Stan
I've never heard of the M-4 Sherman tank being equipped with a diesel engine. I know they were powered by Continental and Chrysler gasoline engines, but IO never heard of a diesel. Whose diesel?
JorgeI, The PkW IV had a Maybach V12 gasoline engine. The T34's had diesel engines, as did some Shermans that were sent to Russia anmd also used by the US Marine Corps in the Pacific. Stan
I've never heard of the M-4 Sherman tank being equipped with a diesel engine. I know they were powered by Continental and Chrysler gasoline engines, but IO never heard of a diesel. Whose diesel?
I'm no expert but here's the info off the wiki page.
Quote
While most Shermans ran on gasoline, the M4A2 and M4A6 had diesel engines: the M4A2 with a pair of GMC 6-71 straight six engines, the M4A6 a Caterpillar RD1820 radial. These, plus the M4A4, which used the Chrysler A57 multibank engine, were mostly supplied to Allied countries under Lend-Lease.
Quote
The U.S. Marine Corps used the diesel M4A2 and gasoline-powered M4A3 in the Pacific. However, the Chief of the Army's Armored Force, Lt. Gen. Jacob L. Devers, ordered no diesel-engined Shermans be used by the Army outside the Zone of Interior (the continental U.S.). The Army used all types for either training or testing within the United States, but intended the M4A2 and M4A4 (with the A57 Multibank engine) to be the primary Lend-Lease exports.
I may be wrong, but I believe our own M60 machingun was based on the German MG42 machinegun.
Yes, the M-60 was based on both the MG-42 and the FG-42 machine guns. The cartridge feed mechanism was from the MG-42 and bolt system was form the FG-42. When the Army asked General Motors (Inland guide Division) to design a copy of the MG-42 in 30-06 for test purposes, the neglected to accommodate the longer 30-06 case dimensions in their design; hence a lot of jams (W. H. B. Smith reference).
One interesting feature of the late war German designs is that they utilized a number of stampings (replacing expensive machined parts) and this innovation is with us today.
JorgeI, The PkW IV had a Maybach V12 gasoline engine. The T34's had diesel engines, as did some Shermans that were sent to Russia anmd also used by the US Marine Corps in the Pacific. Stan
I've never heard of the M-4 Sherman tank being equipped with a diesel engine. I know they were powered by Continental and Chrysler gasoline engines, but IO never heard of a diesel. Whose diesel?
I'm no expert but here's the info off the wiki page.
Quote
While most Shermans ran on gasoline, the M4A2 and M4A6 had diesel engines: the M4A2 with a pair of GMC 6-71 straight six engines, the M4A6 a Caterpillar RD1820 radial. These, plus the M4A4, which used the Chrysler A57 multibank engine, were mostly supplied to Allied countries under Lend-Lease.
Quote
The U.S. Marine Corps used the diesel M4A2 and gasoline-powered M4A3 in the Pacific. However, the Chief of the Army's Armored Force, Lt. Gen. Jacob L. Devers, ordered no diesel-engined Shermans be used by the Army outside the Zone of Interior (the continental U.S.). The Army used all types for either training or testing within the United States, but intended the M4A2 and M4A4 (with the A57 Multibank engine) to be the primary Lend-Lease exports.
I may be wrong, but I believe our own M60 machingun was based on the German MG42 machinegun.
Yes, the M-60 was based on both the MG-42 and the FG-42 machine guns. The cartridge feed mechanism was from the MG-42 and bolt system was form the FG-42. When the Army asked General Motors (Inland guide Division) to design a copy of the MG-42 in 30-06 for test purposes, the neglected to accommodate the longer 30-06 case dimensions in their design; hence a lot of jams (W. H. B. Smith reference).
One interesting feature of the late war German designs is that they utilized a number of stampings (replacing expensive machined parts) and this innovation is with us today.
Several countries did that. I think the Swiss MG51 is the top of that heap,
Nathanl & djs, I didn't get it from wiki, but the book I have at home says the same thing that you have quoted from wiki. I think that the US Army only wanted gasoline engine tanks to simplfy fuel supply. All of their jeeps, trucks, tanks and self propelled guns could use the same fuel. They could also use aviation gas in a pinch. The US Marine Corps was supplied by the US Navy which had plenty of diesel fuel, so it wasn't much of a problem for them. The Soviet Union got the majority of the diesel Shermans because thier entire tank fleet (T34s)was diesel powered.
I may be wrong, but I believe our own M60 machingun was based on the German MG42 machinegun.
Yes, the M-60 was based on both the MG-42 and the FG-42 machine guns. The cartridge feed mechanism was from the MG-42 and bolt system was form the FG-42. When the Army asked General Motors (Inland guide Division) to design a copy of the MG-42 in 30-06 for test purposes, the neglected to accommodate the longer 30-06 case dimensions in their design; hence a lot of jams (W. H. B. Smith reference).
One interesting feature of the late war German designs is that they utilized a number of stampings (replacing expensive machined parts) and this innovation is with us today.
The M60's feed mechanism is based on the MG-42 but the bolt/operating rod is actually based on the Lewis Gun. Take a look at a schematic sometime. As for the M60 being a poor MG that is a crock. I have also been shot at by an MG-42 and it ain't a pleasant thing. Good thing the Gooks were so small physically because the recoil of 7,9 at about 1500rpm threw them all over the place. As to the vulnerability of a Sherman, ammo and fuel yes but an overlooked factor was the fluid in the recoil/recovery mechanism of the main gun. HIGHLY inflammable and a rupture in the system (by a turret penetration) would light up the turret every time.
Just look at how successful the Democrats are in politics if you want to understand how the Nazis appealed to the Germans. Obama's use of the 1% and the Occupy movement mirrors Hitlers use of the Jews. They both preyed on human failings, anger, envy, greed and predjudices for political power.
The German military was the best in the world during WWII without a doubt.
They destroyed many superior armies with an operational strategy, Blitzkrieg, that the enemy was unable to deal with. The Poland was easily conquered. The vastly superior French and English armies were defeated in just a few weeks with few casualties. Germany easily conquered Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece. Huge armies in Russia were surrounded and defeated with only the vast size, weather, lack of roads of Russia preventing victory there. And the interference by Hitler helped the Russians also.
When the Germans lacked the resources to take the offensive the superiority of the German military organization and officers became readily apparent. They were more flexiable and resilient that their opponents and used superior tactics.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.substancenews.net/assets/images/885472241.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/su35/new%20rifles/GermanGun.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i721.photobucket.com/albums/ww211/compassrosefarms/PlateIV.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PSjEY9DHm0A/SXkFi5blj7I/AAAAAAAAACY/0VRGmHdyaqg/s400/il+nazi.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b115/robbinmyers/TitsUpNazi.jpg)
