Germans in WW1 and WW2

[Tietäjä]

I cannot understand how Hitler (and the Germans) managed to repeat so many mistakes in the 2nd world war they already did in the first. The WW2 was like the chronicle of all mistakes ever done in warfare.

-Severe underestimation of one's enemy (The USSR front).
-Idiotic schedules on conquering zones (WW1 went long, even if they thought it'd be a short war, same happened in WW2).
-Not remembering what happened to Napoleon when he attacked Russia.
-> resulting losses in Stalingrad (winter, lack of supplies).
-Stupid ways of handling armies (if you wish to move your army fast, the front shouldn't hurry, but the supplies and the backside (I dunno how to say it 'correctly' in English) should hurry.
-Underestimating difficulties of fighting two opposite fronts (USSR front and France front).
-> severe losses on both sides
-Ineffective bombardments, underestimating enemy endurance on air bombardments (57 days bombarding London, with no significant results).

I could list more, but I can't be arsed to.
Correct me if I have something wrong here, and do add if you think it lacks something critical.

I was just wondering.
Why didn't the Nazis manage to avoid repeating the same mistakes all over, or did their nationalism make them blind for seeing potential mistakes? Did the nationalism, the reason for the rise of the nazis, also caused their fall? Ignorant nazis didn't pay attention to their own weaknesses.

Stupid people.
With a bit less arrogance and bit better strategies, and avoiding repeating mistakes, they could have won the war. Imagine. Stupidity.

If Rommel was in charge, 'ze germans' would have won

[Tietäjä]

Too bad Rommel started to oppose the nazism in the midway.

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Too bad Rommel started to oppose the nazism in the midway.

That and the senior officers disregarded him completely. He could have won Normandy.

[Tietäjä]

Yes. but at that stage it was already too late.

starting a war against USSR was the mistake of the war.

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Yes. but at that stage it was already too late.

starting a war against USSR was the mistake of the war.

Personally I'd nominate Pearl Harbour, but you do have a good point. HItler should have neutralised Britain before thinking about attacking USSR. If he had, it would have been very difficult for the allies to make any progress in Europe whatsoever, and Hitler could have invaded Russia later with a much greater chance of success. But then Hitler was a right arrogant sod, and a vegetarian to boot. (I could make a point here, but I won't)

If Rommel was in charge, 'ze germans' would have won

Rommel and his "Afrika Corp" got their asses kicked without much of a fight, relatively speaking.

He could have won Normandy

Maybe he could have won Omaha, but not all of Normandy. Omaha was the only place with formidable defenses. Others parts of Normandy were only fortified with run-down houses and guys inside with guns.

[ChubbyChecker]

Hitler was in charge of fighting WWII for Germany. If his generals had been in charge maybe they would have been a lot more successful. He was also quite mad, and got madder as time went on. He was mad enough to think he could beat the Russians and just got madder after that.

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Too bad Rommel started to oppose the nazism in the midway.

too bad??

dont you mean luckyly??

Originally posted by ELeeming


Personally I'd nominate Pearl Harbour, but you do have a good point. HItler should have neutralised Britain before thinking about attacking USSR. If he had, it would have been very difficult for the allies to make any progress in Europe whatsoever, and Hitler could have invaded Russia later with a much greater chance of success. But then Hitler was a right arrogant sod, and a vegetarian to boot. (I could make a point here, but I won't)

It would have taken years of build up to 'neutralise' Britain and even then an invasion would be extremely risky,by which time the USSR would be fully prepared for war and Germany wouldn't stand a chance

Originally posted by ELeeming


Personally I'd nominate Pearl Harbour, but you do have a good point. HItler should have neutralised Britain before thinking about attacking USSR. If he had, it would have been very difficult for the allies to make any progress in Europe whatsoever, and Hitler could have invaded Russia later with a much greater chance of success. But then Hitler was a right arrogant sod, and a vegetarian to boot. (I could make a point here, but I won't)

Pearl Habour wasnt the germans you uneducated baboon!!

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Cocaine


Pearl Habour wasnt the germans you uneducated baboon!!

If you can read, then you will clearly see that my comment was a reply to the statement

starting a war against USSR was the mistake of the war.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO GERMANS/GERMANY/HITLER IN THE COMMENT I WAS REPLYING TO. Although the thread title states only Germany, since when has any GD thread ever stuck to the topic?

Now who looks a right pratt, you illiterate monkey turd?

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Insane Badger


It would have taken years of build up to 'neutralise' Britain and even then an invasion would be extremely risky,by which time the USSR would be fully prepared for war and Germany wouldn't stand a chance

You think so? Personnally I think that if Hitler had invaded right after Dunkirk he would have had a good chance of victory against a fairly demoralised UK. Of course he wanted air superiority, didn't get it, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Originally posted by ELeeming


You think so? Personnally I think that if Hitler had invaded right after Dunkirk he would have had a good chance of victory against a fairly demoralised UK. Of course he wanted air superiority, didn't get it, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Hitler didn't have any viable means of invading directly after Dunkirk.The invasion fleet would have been sunk in the channel

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Insane Badger


Hitler didn't have any viable means of invading directly after Dunkirk.The invasion fleet would have been sunk in the channel

It was still his best chance. By waiting on air superiority he lost all chance of invading. Of course, Hindsight is 20:20, as they say.

Originally posted by ELeeming


It was still his best chance. By waiting on air superiority he lost all chance of invading. Of course, Hindsight is 20:20, as they say.

just because it was his best chance doesn't mean it was a good chance.It would take 20 hours for the landing craft to cross the channel in which time most of it would be sunk by the RAF/RN.Then even if they did get to shore they'd have to stay supplied while fighting without air superiority or signifcant armoured support

[Vermillion]

Greetings:

Ok, a few things.

1) The Germans did make a lot of mistakes in the war on the strategic level, but these mistakes were not unique to MittelEuropa. The Allies held exactly the same opinions about the effectiveness of mass bombing raids, it was quite common. Everyone was wrong, not just the Germans. Furthermore, when the Germans invaded the USSR, after the first 6-weeks of the war, everyone, including the British and Americans, were sure that the USSR was done for. Plans were being drafted to rescur parts of the Red Army so they could fight on other fronts, or to counter-invade Russia from the east. Nobody in the world (notably, including Stalin) though the Russians had a shot in hell of coming back after the first 6 weeks of the war.

The German military plan in 1941 was an excellent one, and it had every chance of succeeding. Too much is made of Hitler's interference, when in fact the Generals agreed or suggested almost every decision he made. The 'Hitler interfered with his generals and prevented them from winning' argument was put forward by those same generals after the war who were doing everything they could to blame the evils and defeats of the war on Hitler.

What nobody counted on, even Stalin, was the refusal of the Soviet peasantry to lay down and die. They delayed the german advance long enough to make them assault Moscow in the winter. The battle of Moscow in winter 1941-42 lost the war for the Germans.

2) faults of supply: Again, I think you underestimate the logistical nightmare of moving such a huge army across such a massive expanse of land. Every nation in the world had massive logistical problems, the Allies ran into a logistics blockade in september 1944, when they ran out of supplies in France, and had to halt their offensive. Hitlers plan to push through to Antwerp (The battle of the Bulge) was actually an excellent one, and it was the primary port of supply for the allies, who were already low. Britain ran out of tank shells in North Africa, Russia ran out of artillery ammunition at Kharkov. Logistics difficulties are a universal problem of massive armies at the time, and frankly I always though too much was made of the logistics problems the Germans faced, and too little was made of how brillianty they managed to overcome most of these problems.

3) Stalingrad was a battle of circumstance. At any other time in the war the germans would have simply done on of their patented envelopments, as they had done thousands of times, but they lacked the resources after the Summer drive south to cross the Volga in force. There was no expectation on either side of what the battle of Stalingrad would turn into.

4) Germany handling their armies: I sez pardon? Germany invented the modern mobile military. Their creation of an operational level of strategy and emphasis on flexibility of attack and defence was sheer genius. By the end of the war every other nation fiad adopted German tactics, and the mission-style orders they pioneered are still used today in modern militaries. The Germany army was th best handled army of the war, and considering the newness of the tactics they developped, possibly the best on in history.

5) Lastly, it is a wonderful metaphor to compare Hitler and Napoleon in Russia, and by co-incidence they both made it to more or less the same distance (except Napoleon took Moscow, though it was not the capitol at the time) but it really is a co-incience. The reasons and the actions of the two armies were entirely different, as were the reasons for their losses. There were no lessons to be learned from Napoleon, except perhaps the fierceness of the Rusian winter. But the Germans knew that already, they just expected the war would not last into winter.

And before you say 'how silly an assumption was that', remember: in 1939, Russia was ranked by the international community as far below France in military effectiveness, and Germany took out france in 6 weeks, belgium and Holland in 10 days, Poland in 3 weeks. 5 Months seemed like a very reasonable timetable to take Moscow, then settle down for winter quarters.

[Vermillion]

Germany could certainly have landed in the UK had they done so right ater Dunkirk.

The RAF was still reeling from their heavy losses in the Battle of france. It would take almost 2 months for fighter wings to be at regular strength again. The British army was a non-force, there was only one combat-ready division in all of the UK, and that was 1st canadian. (Ignoring the home guard...) The RN was still vast, but to interfere with the invasion they would have had to go into the channel. Most people dont remember this, but during and after Dunkirk, the Germans owned the channel. The British pulled back all their fighters from patrols over the channel because losses were too high. German planes were sinking British shipping at will, The British could have contested the channel in the case of an invasion, they would obviously have sent everything air and naval south, but they would likely have been mauled. Fighting over the channel lost the British all the advantages of fighting over Britain: German planes on low fuel, advanced radar warning, immediate pilot recovery...

Much of the planned German invasion would have been areal, in gliders and paratroopers. They could easily have taken a port, and probably held it without heavy weapons for about 4 days. So the Germans had 4 days to forge acros the channel and wipe out the RN if it got in their way. The Germans landing craft and barges would have taken heavy casualties, but the RN would have been savaged from the air.

Could the Germans have held this toehold? Well... who knows, but the Germans soldiers were MUCH better than their UK counterparts, so you have to give them at least reasonable odds.

If they held the toehold and managed to supply, the UK was doomed, on the ground they would have been fodder for the wehrmacht.

Originally posted by Tietäjä
I cannot understand how Hitler (and the Germans) managed to repeat so many mistakes in the 2nd world war they already did in the first. The WW2 was like the chronicle of all mistakes ever done in warfare.

-Severe underestimation of one's enemy (The USSR front).
-Idiotic schedules on conquering zones (WW1 went long, even if they thought it'd be a short war, same happened in WW2).
-Not remembering what happened to Napoleon when he attacked Russia.
-> resulting losses in Stalingrad (winter, lack of supplies).
-Stupid ways of handling armies (if you wish to move your army fast, the front shouldn't hurry, but the supplies and the backside (I dunno how to say it 'correctly' in English) should hurry.
-Underestimating difficulties of fighting two opposite fronts (USSR front and France front).
-> severe losses on both sides
-Ineffective bombardments, underestimating enemy endurance on air bombardments (57 days bombarding London, with no significant results).

I could list more, but I can't be arsed to.
Correct me if I have something wrong here, and do add if you think it lacks something critical.

I was just wondering.
Why didn't the Nazis manage to avoid repeating the same mistakes all over, or did their nationalism make them blind for seeing potential mistakes? Did the nationalism, the reason for the rise of the nazis, also caused their fall? Ignorant nazis didn't pay attention to their own weaknesses.

Stupid people.
With a bit less arrogance and bit better strategies, and avoiding repeating mistakes, they could have won the war. Imagine. Stupidity.

twat

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Greetings:

Ok, a few things....

Yeah. Pretty much.

But the whole 'let's go to war with every other industrialized nation at once' wasn't a great strategy noting how willing every country seemed to be to let germany invade other countries without intervening.

[WarFalcon]

If Hitler had let his generals run the war Germany would have won. That and not declaring war on the United States O_o

Originally posted by MonotoneMan
Rommel and his "Afrika Corp" got their asses kicked without much of a fight, relatively speaking.

who was it that actually beat Rommel?
what division/company country?

im sorry i dont know much about WW2 lol

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal


who was it that actually beat Rommel?
what division/company country?

im sorry i dont know much about WW2 lol

British and Americans once vast supplies began to roll in on the allied side. I think Rommel was outgunned like 2 to 1 and he had no air support. Then Hitler was also on to his 'never retreat' crap that let entire armies die.

Originally posted by Vermillion
Germany could certainly have landed in the UK had they done so right ater Dunkirk.

preparing for an invasion took time.The landing barges that would be used often didn't even have landing ramps.I doubt they could have launched this attack effectivley right after Dunkirk

Originally posted by Vermillion
The RAF was still reeling from their heavy losses in the Battle of france. It would take almost 2 months for fighter wings to be at regular strength again. The British army was a non-force, there was only one combat-ready division in all of the UK, and that was 1st canadian. (Ignoring the home guard...) The RN was still vast, but to interfere with the invasion they would have had to go into the channel. Most people dont remember this, but during and after Dunkirk, the Germans owned the channel. The British pulled back all their fighters from patrols over the channel because losses were too high. German planes were sinking British shipping at will, The British could have contested the channel in the case of an invasion, they would obviously have sent everything air and naval south, but they would likely have been mauled. Fighting over the channel lost the British all the advantages of fighting over Britain: German planes on low fuel, advanced radar warning, immediate pilot recovery...

Attacking an invasion fleet would be alot easier than patrolling the skies.Also the Luftwaffe would have had a much harder time against the full British fleet than against one or two ships because of the AA screen able to be provided by significant numbers of destroyers.

All you'd really need is to get one or two big ships into the invasion fleet and you could make a bloody mess of it due the instability of the barges the Germans planned to use.

Originally posted by Vermillion
Much of the planned German invasion would have been areal, in gliders and paratroopers. They could easily have taken a port, and probably held it without heavy weapons for about 4 days. So the Germans had 4 days to forge acros the channel and wipe out the RN if it got in their way. The Germans landing craft and barges would have taken heavy casualties, but the RN would have been savaged from the air.

gliders and paratroopers are only any use if they can be relieved by a main attacking force.And what kind of port are you talking about?Somewhere that could accomadate large ships or just somewhere for the barges to land?

Originally posted by Vermillion
Could the Germans have held this toehold? Well... who knows, but the Germans soldiers were MUCH better than their UK counterparts, so you have to give them at least reasonable odds.

very likely not.They would quickly run out of supplies and had no heavy equipment.We might not have had much but we could hold out against paratroopers.

Originally posted by Vermillion
If they held the toehold and managed to supply, the UK was doomed, on the ground they would have been fodder for the wehrmacht.

The thing is holding that toehold would be almost impossible.

Originally posted by WarFalcon


British and Americans once vast supplies began to roll in on the allied side. I think Rommel was outgunned like 2 to 1 and he had no air support. Then Hitler was also on to his 'never retreat' crap that let entire armies die.

bull****

i know enough to know american forces had little to do with defeating Rommel it was British and some other famous division i m thinking of

Originally posted by WarFalcon
If Hitler had let his generals run the war Germany would have won. That and not declaring war on the United States O_o

I doubt that,it was the Soviets who broke Germany's back,not the Americans.

And it was more the Soviets who won the war than the Germans who lost it(if you see what I mean)

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal

bull****

and some other famous division i m thinking of

You mean the Commonwealth?

Originally posted by Insane Badger


You mean the Commonwealth?

some country in it

but yeah i m trying to find it out it is bugging me

It was the 9th ANZAC division, rats of tubrok who beat Rommel

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
If Hitler had let his generals run the war Germany would have won. That and not declaring war on the United States

The first part is urban myth, as I explained above. Hitlers generals backed him up on every decision he made, and often suggested them. Only after the war in hindsight did most of them change their tune.

The 'never withdraw' order is also a Myth, Hitler withdrew all the time when it was strategically viable, but he also knew you had to prevent a withdrawl from becoming a rout. In the late month, yes he became fanatical about his 'festung' towns true, but by then he had pretty much losttouch with reality (Stroke, parkinson's, Murcury pooisoning, sleep regulated through uppers and downers, constant pain from the wounds of the July 1944 plot, etc)

However, the second part is right, declaring war on the USA was a bafflingly dumb act, though considering the situation at the time it is more understandable...

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal


some country in it

but yeah i m trying to find it out it is bugging me

I think it may have been Australia but im not certain

Originally posted by Timmeh
It was the 9th ANZAC division, rats of tubrok who beat Rommel

Australia.

thanx

Originally posted by Timmeh


Australia.

k, and what else did they do?

seems like the UK always does all the fighting

i was just informed by Skiddy that they held the western front and along with canada brought germany to its knees

they won lots in veitnam and korea but were most famous in WWI n WWII

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Dark_Crystal



seems like the UK always does all the fighting

That's because you only hear he UK side. The British lost battle after battle, it was only after the US started assisting them that they finally started winning. Those who claim the British would have won anyway without US help are willfully ignorant, at the time the British were bloody well grateful when we joined the war.

Originally posted by Nixjim



That's because you only hear he UK side. The British lost battle after battle, it was only after the US started assisting them that they finally started winning. Those who claim the British would have won anyway without US help are willfully ignorant, at the time the British were bloody well grateful when we joined the war.

you helped,you weren't 'necessary'

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Nixjim

That's because you only hear the UK side. The British lost battle after battle, it was only after the US started assisting them that they finally started winning.

That is technically true, but the cause and effect implied is not.

In 1939-41, every time the Germans and the British faced off the British got soundly beaten about the Head and shoulders. That is not because the US was not there, it is because the German Army was infinitely more skilled, better trained, and larger. France, Belgium, Greece, Early North Africa, Norway... the British were simply outmatched.

The US did not even show up until 1942, and in their first engagement against the Germans they got handed their own asses. Combined, the UK and the US started to win battles, in sicily, Italy, and eventually France and Germany. But this is because the Germans were now committing 75% of their armed forces and equipment against the USSR, and the British had learned a few lessons durng their assorted defeats. Notably, the US employed experienced British soldiers in almost all of its training programs, to pass on what they had learned over years of fighting the Germans.

If you examine the ratio of casualties inflicted in battle vs casualties taken in battle, you get the British (and commonwealth) vs the Germans being the best at 1: 1.2, the US close behind at 1:1.3 and the Russians far behind at 1:3.5. Even at the very end, the Germans never stopped being the best soldiers in the war

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Insane Badger

you helped,you weren't 'necessary'

Well, to be fair, the assistance the US gave the UK in terms of food, supplies, ships munitions and raw materiels was essentail in Britain surviving the Battle of Britain and rebuilding a fighting force afterwards. So it could be said that SOME involvement of the US was essential to victory...

The US also supplied the USSR with enormous supplies during those first shaky months of barbarossa, and also gave the USSR the capacity to wage mobile warfare by supplying them with thousands of vehicles -trucks, jeeps and other transports.

Originally posted by Vermillion


Well, to be fair, the assistance the US gave the UK in terms of food, supplies, ships munitions and raw materiels was essentail in Britain surviving the Battle of Britain and rebuilding a fighting force afterwards. So it could be said that SOME involvement of the US was essential to victory...

The US also supplied the USSR with enormous supplies during those first shaky months of barbarossa, and also gave the USSR the capacity to wage mobile warfare by supplying them with thousands of vehicles -trucks, jeeps and other transports.

which is why I said they where helpful.However imo neither country would have been defeated without the US.Britain may not have retook the offensive against Germany but it wasn't really required.

As for the USSR i'm not sure,I've seen both sides say the US was unnecessary and it was vital.I'm not too sure but it didn't seem to be Soviet supply problems that caused Nazi defeat but the Germans own lack of supplies

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Vermillion


Well, to be fair, the assistance the US gave the UK in terms of food, supplies, ships munitions and raw materiels was essentail in Britain surviving the Battle of Britain and rebuilding a fighting force afterwards. So it could be said that SOME involvement of the US was essential to victory...

The US also supplied the USSR with enormous supplies during those first shaky months of barbarossa, and also gave the USSR the capacity to wage mobile warfare by supplying them with thousands of vehicles -trucks, jeeps and other transports.

Exactly, even before US troops entered battle we were sending over supplies. The biggest advantage the US had is the fact our infrastructure remained intact throughout the war, thus we were able to step up manufacturing and maintain supply lines. Naturally our troops would have done poorly at first, they were essentially all green troops thrown up against seasoned veterans, but working with the British troops benifited both sides.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Insane Badger

As for the USSR i'm not sure,I've seen both sides say the US was unnecessary and it was vital.I'm not too sure but it didn't seem to be Soviet supply problems that caused Nazi defeat but the Germans own lack of supplies

Supplies to the USSR were essential, and the USSR happily admitted this... at first. By 1947, Stalin was claiming that American and British supplies were inconsequential, and at best minor assistance. They pointed to the second rate tanks and aircraft the Western allies sent over as being useless. (Early Shermans, Valentines and Aiocobras) This was Cold war propaganda. While it is true the weapons sent over were pretty much useless, the aid given in the form of non-weapons was very important. AA guns, munitions, food and most importantly, trucks, jeeps and raw materiels, including rare materiels like chrome and aluminium. These kept the Russian war machine running over the first winter of 1941. After that, Allied aid was probably much less important, but during those critical months of November-February 1941-42 when the war in the east was decided, they played an enormous role.

Even by the end of the war, the Rusian advance was being facilitated by GM. Without tens of thousands of the famous deuce-and-a-half, the Russians would have been walking to Berlin, and their adaptation of the Germans mobile warfare would have been impossible.

Originally posted by Vermillion


Supplies to the USSR were essential, and the USSR happily admitted this... at first. By 1947, Stalin was claiming that American and British supplies were inconsequential, and at best minor assistance. They pointed to the second rate tanks and aircraft the Western allies sent over as being useless. (Early Shermans, Valentines and Aiocobras) This was Cold war propaganda. While it is true the weapons sent over were pretty much useless, the aid given in the form of non-weapons was very important. AA guns, munitions, food and most importantly, trucks, jeeps and raw materiels, including rare materiels like chrome and aluminium. These kept the Russian war machine running over the first winter of 1941. After that, Allied aid was probably much less important, but during those critical months of November-February 1941-42 when the war in the east was decided, they played an enormous role.

Even by the end of the war, the Rusian advance was being facilitated by GM. Without tens of thousands of the famous deuce-and-a-half, the Russians would have been walking to Berlin, and their adaptation of the Germans mobile warfare would have been impossible.

fair enough,but wouldn't it have been possible for the Soviets to produce their own trucks if not supplied by the Americans?

admittedly this would certainly delay the major early soviet offences but would it have led to a collapse of the Soviet Union?

Originally posted by Nixjim
Naturally our troops would have done poorly at first, they were essentially all green troops thrown up against seasoned veterans, but working with the British troops benifited both sides.

Originally posted by Vermillion
If you examine the ratio of casualties inflicted in battle vs casualties taken in battle, you get the British (and commonwealth) vs the Germans being the best at 1: 1.2, the US close behind at 1:1.3 and the Russians far behind at 1:3.5. Even at the very end, the Germans never stopped being the best soldiers in the war

Originally posted by Vermillion
Even at the very end, the Germans never stopped being the best soldiers in the war

Originally posted by Vermillion
Even at the very end

I think those statistics are "overall" from throughout the war.

You don't stay green for 4 years.

"apparantly"



As a brief aside ... didn't you argue against me Vermillion when i said that the Germans were the best "fighters" during WW"?!

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Insane Badger

fair enough,but wouldn't it have been possible for the Soviets to produce their own trucks if not supplied by the Americans?

The Soviets were already producing flat out to get enough war meteriel to the front. In 1941 the Soviet war economy faces innumerable crises. Firstly, their prime factories and manufacturing facilities were being overrun. A program existed to move factories to the Urals and beyond, but that took time to set up the factories and get them running again. Natural resources too were being overrun, and those could not be moved.

Existing factories had to be retooled, too many factories were set to produce weapons like the T-35 and BT-5, or the Horrendous I-15 and I-16 fighters, which were worse than useless.

Soviet industry had plenty to worry about in building armour and artillery, and in getting raw materiels to the factories, before turning out trucks and jeeps. Perhaps by 1943 they might have been able to start building trucks, but only at the expense of other war materiels, and by 1943 the war was decided anyways. In terms of the survival of the USSR, we talk about winter 1941-42, and after that it was just a matter of how long it would take the Soviets to turn things around.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Dace

I think those statistics are "overall" from throughout the war.

Yes, they're overall throughout the war. In the first half the Stats were a Lot higher against the Brits and especially against the Russians. The Germans never stopped being the best troops until the volksturm divisions started to become commonplace in march+ 1945. Until then, no allied powers ever achieved a 1:1 kill ratio against the Germans.

As a brief aside ... didn't you argue against me Vermillion when i said that the Germans were the best "fighters" during WW"?!

No.
The Germans had the best infantry in the war bar none. However you are also arguing they were the best armed and the best equipped, which is quite untrue.

Originally posted by WarFalcon


British and Americans once vast supplies began to roll in on the allied side. I think Rommel was outgunned like 2 to 1 and he had no air support. Then Hitler was also on to his 'never retreat' crap that let entire armies die.

I've never heard of a "never retreat" policy before, but if he had one, it wasn't used for very long. When the Allies were rapidly moving across Europe, the Germans did a good deal of retreating. At first, they just ran the **** away. Toward the end, they started towing artillery guns and other equipment back with them, then setting them up again and using them. Their concentrated firepower slowed the Allies considerably.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by MonotoneMan


I've never heard of a "never retreat" policy before, but if he had one, it wasn't used for very long. When the Allies were rapidly moving across Europe, the Germans did a good deal of retreating. At first, they just ran the **** away. Toward the end, they started towing artillery guns and other equipment back with them, then setting them up again and using them. Their concentrated firepower slowed the Allies considerably.

I thought it was more of a "never surrender or we'll kill your family" sort of thing. Strategic withdrawal can help your position.

[eple]

ww2 clearly reached the turning point when churchill got the chronosphere.

[eple]

I KILLED THE THREAD!!
*dancing on table*