PDA

View Full Version : How is it possible that German loses remain so low when fighting so many enemies?



MOhz
02-28-2005, 05:28 PM
No further question, but I did find one answer:

America had other fronts example Japan, but is it still not amazing how relativly low loses they have when fighting so many enemies? I mean they only had that many men and could not loose more than combatent population. So what do you have to say?

Slick750
02-28-2005, 05:42 PM
Many of their enemies where weak, or disadvantaged or taken by surprise. Once that "edge" was gone, the fall was quick.
Germany also used alot of manpower from other countries. Germany is **** lucky to still have Germany today.

Bierhund
02-28-2005, 05:47 PM
Also keep in mind that the numbers from the eastern front are somewhat inflated. For a time the Russians just sent in wave after wave of bombers, unescorted, which the Germans shot down in droves. The Russians could keep doing this because their supply of planes was virtually unlimited, and the Germans had no way of attacking the factories.

ImpStarDuece
02-28-2005, 05:50 PM
Got any sources to back up this claim, sparky? Low casualties compered to who? Russia, Britain, America, Canada, Italy, Japan, China? Give some specifics before making unfounded and unsupported claims.

'Low losses' is a relative term. German casualties for the Normandy campaign alone were on the order of 350,000 killed, wounded or missing, not including prisoners, which numbered in their tens of thousands. This is compared to combined US, British and Canadian casualties of about 200,000, including POWs.

Axis casualties (killed, wounded or CAPTURED) on the Western front alone amounted to almost 8 million men by the end of the war. Combat killed is in the order of half a million men.

Tragic for all sides. Simply, bloody tragic.

MOhz
02-28-2005, 05:52 PM
Imp, that is exactly my point! Russia lost somethign like 17mil, note this is only mil, Germany 15 i think etc. Now if you add up all the allied casulties and neglect the other fronts then wont the ratio still be pretty crazy high??

MOhz
02-28-2005, 05:54 PM
And anyway since when do you count POWs as loses?? I am talkin about the death toll at the end of the war for Germany in comparison to Britain, France, USA, USSR.

LEXX_Luthor
02-28-2005, 06:02 PM
Germany must have lost more than its combatant population, since they had to send to the frontline old men and children in 1944 and after, and needed captured Eastern Front prisoners (among many others) as slaves to work the factories.

MOhz
02-28-2005, 06:02 PM
okay so I have done some quick research:

from this site:http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm I have the data
USSR: 10m
USA: 400t
UK: 28t
France:21t
Poland:125t
GERMANY:3.5m

results may vary. going to do some calc, but now looking at it i guess it is not so spectacular....

ImpStarDuece
02-28-2005, 06:06 PM
First of all, the Russian casualty statistics I have seen swing like a double hinge door. I have seen anywhere between 11-26 million TOTAL, not combat, casualties. Combat casualties are somewhat less I would suggest. They still were incredibly high though. Yes, in the East the German Army and Airforce inflicted higher casualties than they recieved. Still, if you reverse the situation and look at the 1944-45 period I would suggest that Russian losses approximate German ones in this period.

Secondly, German forces, like their Western counetrparts, were not as prolifigate with their man power as Russia was. Simply put, it was easier for an industrialised nation to expend 'things' instead of people. If you look at the ratio of kills to losses in the West the Germans are on the bottom of the ration, not the top. The British, Americans and Candaians decided that it is much easier to build tanks, guns and ships than caskets.

Thirdly, German forces were not in the habit of using such wasteful tactics as marching deserters and 'political dissenters' over minefields to clear a path, or engaging in massed, unsupported infantry atacks. At lower levels German infantry was also MORE likely to surrender than Russian or Western counterparts. Prisoner figures for WW2 are not normally counted in casualty figures.

Germany outfighting everybody is something of a myth. When faced with an equally trained, similarly equipped and equally motivted enemy, German forces were usually on the losing end of the battle, even in terms of absolute casualties. And you can thank your diety of choice for that.

Zyzbot
02-28-2005, 06:09 PM
I found these figures....quite sobering:


Germany's casualty statistics:

‚∑ By D-Day, 35% of all German soldiers had been wounded at least once,
11% twice, 6% three times, 2% four times and 2% more than 4 times.

‚∑ The average officer slot had to be refilled 9.2 times.

‚∑ Germany lost 136 Generals, which averages out to be 1 dead General every 2 weeks

‚∑ Germany lost 110 Division Commanders in combat.

‚∑ Air attacks caused 1/3 of German Generals' deaths.

MOhz
02-28-2005, 06:10 PM
Yeah i have figured...lol. I guess I was just thinking too much. tHanks anyway for clearing up the mess lol. Topic closed

harryklein66
02-28-2005, 06:19 PM
her is what I found,this include civilians I think, and still missed a lot of contry.
The USSR 21 300 000 = 12%
CHINA 13 500 000 = 2.2%
GERMANY 7 060 000 = 7%
POLAND 5 420 000 = 14%
JAPAN 2 060 000 = 3%
YUGOSLAVIA 1 700 000 = 10%
FRANCE 610 000 = 1.5%
ITALY 420 000 = 1%
The United Kingdom 400 000 = 1%
The United States 300 000 = 0.2%

If you want to compare German losses to Russian losses, don't forget to add the losses of the german allies on the eastern front like
finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy etc...

Luftwaffe_109
02-28-2005, 07:31 PM
Hello all,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 'Low losses' is a relative term. German casualties for the Normandy campaign alone were on the order of 350,000 killed, wounded or missing, not including prisoners, which numbered in their tens of thousands. This is compared to combined US, British and Canadian casualties of about 200,000, including POWs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These values appear to be incorrect.

In the Normandy Campaign, (June 6 - August 29) the allies lost about 216,901 men in total.

21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish soldiers): 83,054
US Forces: 125,847
RAF and USAAF: 8,000

Total: 216,901 losses


Now, for Germany the total losses for the Wehrmact and Waffen-SS amounted to some 250,00 men. Let me emphasise that this includes dead, wounded and missing.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Combat killed is in the order of half a million men. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not even close. The total deaths for the battles in the western front the begining of the war (note that I am including France) till the end of 1944 are 339,957.

Note that incomplete statistics exist for the 1945 battles in Germany (the Wehrmact reporting system had completely broken down by this point in time) and in any case it is extremly difficult to tell what casualties were inflicted by the Western Allies as apposed to the Soviets, though undoubtably the most would have occured in the east.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Germany outfighting everybody is something of a myth. When faced with an equally trained, similarly equipped and equally motivted enemy, German forces were usually on the losing end of the battle, even in terms of absolute casualties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source?? France had a larger army and better quality weaponry (heavier and more numerous tanks) yet it was soundly defeated. I challenge you to provide examples that back your statements.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Many of their enemies where weak, or disadvantaged or taken by surprise. Once that "edge" was gone, the fall was quick.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> First of all, the Russian casualty statistics I have seen swing like a double hinge door. I have seen anywhere between 11-26 million TOTAL, not combat, casualties. Combat casualties are somewhat less I would suggest. They still were incredibly high though. Yes, in the East the German Army and Airforce inflicted higher casualties than they recieved. Still, if you reverse the situation and look at the 1944-45 period I would suggest that Russian losses approximate German ones in this period.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviet combat losses numbered some 27 million during the war, of which perhaps 12 million were deaths.

Even in the very last year of the war it is unlikely that the Soviet:German loss ratio would be anything less than 2:1. Of course, during early and mid stages of the war it would have been vastly higher, 4:1 on average.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Many of their enemies where weak, or disadvantaged or taken by surprise. Once that "edge" was gone, the fall was quick. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly not true regarding casualties, which is what this thread is about. Soviet casualties, for example, remained catastrophic throughout the war (far beyond the initial supprise of Barbarossa in June) and only began to lessen late-war in the face of the German collapse. Don't forget that the Germans had managed to launch a fresh spring offensive in 1942 despite their setback the following winter and the massive increase in force levels and materiel that the Soviets had undergone during this time.

Also, nations like France certainly could not be described as weak either numerically or qualitivly, and strategic suprise was not achieved against her (although tactical suprise was,a credit to von Mansteins masterful plan).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Germany also used alot of manpower from other countries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The manpower that Germany used from other countries was utilised in volenteer divisions in the Waffen-SS, yet those that served, in total, in the Waffen-SS as a whole number perhaps one million. Therefore, those who served from other nations would be significantly less than this amount.

Thus foreign volunteers are not really relevent when one considers the fact that the army had, for instance, 6,510,000 men in service in 1944.

Sources:
"Forgotten Legions" by Antonio J Munoz
"Soviet casualties and combat losses in the 20th Century" G.F. Kirosheev
"German Military Losses in the Second World War" by Rudiger Overmans
"US Army casualties: Army battle casualties and nonbattle deaths in World War II". Washington: Depart. Of the Army.



Regards

darkhorizon11
02-28-2005, 08:05 PM
There are sooo many reasons. Many of which have been covered here. Instead of reiterating them I will tell you not to use the trends of air aerial victories and tactics as comparison for what really went on 6 decades ago.

There was no respawn and pilots wouldn't suicidally hurl themselves at 10 plus enemy planes. With the exception of the Japanese at the end of the war, self preservation was a big must.

There are some inaccuracies of the flight models, some we may not notice, however minute that would have an effect.

Most pilots in RL didn't have anywhere near the experience that many online gamers do. Some were as young as 15 years old (yes, some of the LW pilots who flew in the Ardenne Offensive were that young) with no more than about 20 or 30 flight hours. Thats not even enough to get a private pilots license in a basic SEL land aircraft in the United States, nevermind operate a high performance fighter aircraft. They had little understanding of turn radius, climb performance, firepower, load factor, etc. which are essiential tools a fighter jock needs to understand.

The clouds and the sun also saved the lives of many flyers and in RL next enemy view isn't available so going after an enemy into the clouds was not only extremely dangerous but extremely stupid.


-Theres a few reasons why what happens in the online world of FB doesn't always match the true events. All complaints aside though FB is definitely the closest we've gotten to the real thing.

p1ngu666
02-28-2005, 09:23 PM
on average, 19,000 russians died a day in ww2.

sobering. i think the germans lost 8million soldiers by the wars end.

germany had more resources and factories than russians, and captured the "best" part of russia aswell. the germans just didnt meet there maxium production until it was too late...

russians didnt have MASSES more men, like everybody thinks. their soldiers where often highly patrotic, and they also had stalin and co pushing them...

the eastern front was THE main theatre of operations in ww2 in nearly every way, and the russians where the first to beat the germans on land...

some russian population losses take into account the kids they would have had, if they had lived...

english lost more than 28,000. bomber command lost 55-56000. they lost a plane for every 43 sorties they did http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

JRJacobs
02-28-2005, 09:38 PM
my 2 cents
............prewar......Served......KIA......Civ dead
France.....42.0M........4.0M........92K.......470K
Germany...78.0M.......17.9M......3.25M......2.05M
Japan......72.0M........9.1M......1.75M.......393K
Poland.....34.0M........1.2M........66K.......5.3M
UK..........47.5M........5.9M.......305K.......150 K
USA.......129.0M.......16.3M.......405K.........0
USSR......194.0M.......30.0M........11M.......6.7M

..............served......served.....civilian
.........................../died......./died
France......1/10.5......1/43.5......1/80.9
Germany.....1/4.4.......1/5.5.......1/29.3
Japan.......1/7.9.......1/5.2.......1/160.1
Poland......1/28.3......1/18.2......1/6.2
UK..........1/8.1.......1/19.3......1/277.3
USA.........1/7.9.......1/40.2.......0
USSR........1/6.5.......1/2.7.......1/24.5

Please note the suffering of the Poles - only one in 18 that fought the Germans died - but one in SIX!!! civilians were killed - as bad as the USSR suffered it pales to the Poles suffering.

ImpStarDuece
02-28-2005, 10:00 PM
Luftwaffe_109, good, thoughful post. I can see the truth in some of what your saying but i'm going to agree to disagree with you on a lot of points. I dont really feel like engaging in a long winded debate over this though. Casualty figures are one of the things about WW2 that send professional historians in fits and give them nervous twitches. The only thing we really know is that LOTS of people died.

Check out this web page for the MASSIVE spread of combat death estimates from reliable published sources; http://users.rcn.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm

German casualty estimates for WTO 1944-45 range from 128,000 throught to 570,000

Estimates of Russian millitary casualties varies by as much as EIGHT million. Low ball estimates put it around 6.5 higher ones above 14 million. The British Newspaper 'The Guardian' even published a study with an estimate of 22 million, a variance of some 16 million.

I could debate the figures but you have your view point, I have mine and the truth no doubtly lies somewhere in between.

Tooz_69GIAP
02-28-2005, 10:14 PM
Here's the numbers that I know of for Europe at least.

Country........Military........Civilian......Total
USSR............12 million.....17 million....29 million
Poland..........597,000........5.86 million..6.27 million
Germany.........3.25 million...2.44 million..5.69 million
Yugoslavia......305,000........1.35 million..1.66 million
Romania.........450,000........465,000.......915,0 00
Hungary.........200,000........600,000.......800,0 00
France..........245,000........350,000.......595,0 00
Italy...........380,000........153,000.......533,0 00
Great Britain...403,000.........92,700.......495,000
United States...407,000..........6,000.......413,000
Czechoslovakia....7,000........315,000.......322,0 00
Holland..........13,700........236,000.......249,0 00
Greece...........19,000........140,000.......159,0 00
Belgium..........76,000.........23,000........99,0 00

SeminoleX
02-28-2005, 10:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> How is it possible that German loses remain so low when fighting so many enemies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In a nutshell:

Germany inflicted losses on it's opponents at something like a rate of 2:1 whether it's military was on offense, defense, or in retreat.

The reason being the German military was an efficient organization proficient at it's job.

The reason Germany was eventually defeated was that the larger portion of the world's industrial nations marshalled their combined material against them.

ClnlSandersLite
02-28-2005, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The reason being the German military was an efficient organization proficient at it's job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, the reason being that for the most part, the soviet union took more combat losses than the rest of the allied nation combined. They, for the most part, where a disorganized, ill equiped, ill trained rable. They just had so **** many people that there was always another man to take the last dead guys place. Germany's orginization could arguably have been too complicated (the germans are know for overcomplicating things). They did have their advantages over others, but the ussr's kill/death ration was simply apalling.

Luftwaffe_109
02-28-2005, 11:20 PM
Hello all,

ImpStarDuece, firstly I'd just like to praise the manner in which you responded in such a civilised and thoughtful way to my post. It's heartning that there still exist individuals who, though they may completely disagree with one another in discussions, manage to show each side respect and courtesy, hats off to you sir.

Regarding your point, yes there are some widely differing statistics about wartime casualties out there, I agree, but this is not to say that all are equally sound. For example, we can criticise works that use out-of-date information or make unsourced claims (or claims from propaganda, etc, etc) or make claims where new archival information has since come to light. When attempting to find the truth one should look for claims that are well sourced and who's methodoligy is logical, and this is what seperates truth from fiction.

I checked your link. It seems that they do not show the work of Overmans or Kirosheev, the two most widely accept scholars regarding combat losses, at the moment, for German and Soviet statistics respectivly. Both have had unprecedented access to archives, and thus I feel that their figures are the most acurate, so far. This is why I have used their numbers.

This is not to say that they are perfect! For example, their methodologies are different, and while Kirosheeves should be understood as showing the lower most likely value for Soviet casualties (it only uses archival Soviet information, which are often distrusted in the west), Overman's must indicate the greatest possible number, since it uses changes in demographic information where German archives become lacking late-war).

But I digress. Good day to you sir.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> russians didnt have MASSES more men, like everybody thinks. their soldiers where often highly patrotic, and they also had stalin and co pushing them... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree completely with your statement that the absolutely massive amounts of men that the Soviet Union was able to put into the field were not the single most important factor that not only allowed them to win the war, but kept the Red Army alive. Let me demonstrate with one example:

During the first twelve months of the war, the size of the Soviet forces deployed in the Fronts facing the Germans grew from about three million to more than five and a half million. In effect, the size of the Soviet Army had double in less than a year!

During the same period, however, the Red Army had suffered some 7,878,117 casualties of all types. This is equal, fundamentally, to at least twice the size of the Red Army at the start of the war.

In other words, the Red Army not only made good its catastrophically high losses, it also increased the size of its army dramatically, enjoying a strength influx of more than 11 million men during the period (including returning wounded)!

Bare in mind that this is all in the first year, the Red Army would become more and more massive as time went on, reaching higher then seven milion men.

Compare this, now, to the Germans, whose army in the East was almost three million on the day of the invasion and would never reach that level ever again during the war. We can thus say that in the first 12 months they were already outnumbered more than two to one, despite having destroyed troops equivalent to double the Red Armies total size at the start of the war.

Thus we can see that the Red Army was raising new forces with even more colossal speed than they were losing men, if it hadn't it would not have been able to stay in the field very long, given that it was not unusual for it to suffer losses equal to a third or more of its strength every quarter.

Had its force replacement capabilities been anything like what Germany‚‚ā¨ôs were, its losses alone would have spelt its death within several months to a year, regardless of whether you take its losses sustained in the year 1941, 1942, 1943 or even 1944.

Now, when you compare this to other factors (such as moral, etc, etc), you can see that, while the others are certainly very important, the Red Army's massive size, and thus its force replacement levels, were the most important factor which seperated victory from defeat for the USSR.

Regards

Luftwaffe_109
02-28-2005, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> No, the reason being that for the most part, the soviet union took more combat losses than the rest of the allied nation combined. They, for the most part, where a disorganized, ill equiped, ill trained rable. They just had so **** many people that there was always another man to take the last dead guys place. Germany's orginization could arguably have been too complicated (the germans are know for overcomplicating things). They did have their advantages over others, but the ussr's kill/death ration was simply apalling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, this ignores the fact that it was exactly because of the fact that more than three quaters of Germany's army fought against the Soviets (and more than three quaters of their casualties were incured on the Ostfront) that the Western Allies were able to launch an invasion of France with such a massive numerical advantage in men and equipment over the Axis. For example, during the start of the Normandy invasion the Allies outnumbered the Germans by about three to one. Yet, despite this the casualties seem to show parity between the two sides in the west (if not perhaps a slight advantage to the Axis).

Best Regards

ClnlSandersLite
02-28-2005, 11:44 PM
Luftwaffe_109:

That is not the point at all. The Whole point is that the german kill ratios where so high because the soviets threw wal after wall of ill equiped, ill trained etc. men against them.

Galaboo
03-01-2005, 12:46 AM
Germany is the Brains/Strength of the World

America is the thief of the World

I am the best of everyone in the world.

Fact.

ClnlSandersLite
03-01-2005, 01:14 AM
Galaboo:

I wouldn't say any of those statements are quite true. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MOhz
03-01-2005, 01:18 AM
Hi guys, really thanks for staying civilized, I was kind of afraid it might go arwy. I dont have the time to read it all but when I get back from school I will look at it again. See ya

AndyHigh
03-01-2005, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JRJacobs:
Poland.....34.0M........1.2M........66K.......5.3M

Please note the suffering of the Poles - only one in 18 that fought the Germans died - but one in SIX!!! civilians were killed - as bad as the USSR suffered it pales to the Poles suffering. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And don't forget Poles fought against Soviet Union too, as they were attacked by USSR from east after Germany invaded Poland (as was proposed by Molotov-Ribbentropp agreement). About 10000-20000 polish officers were executed in the forest of Katyn by the Soviets.

Anyway here is also Finnish casualties if someone is interested:
Population (1939): 3.7M
Killed: 95 000 (25 000 in the Winter War)
Refugees from lost areas (mainly Karelia):
430 000

ImpStarDuece
03-01-2005, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Regarding your point, yes there are some widely differing statistics about wartime casualties out there, I agree, but this is not to say that all are equally sound. For example, we can criticise works that use out-of-date information or make unsourced claims (or claims from propaganda, etc, etc) or make claims where new archival information has since come to light. When attempting to find the truth one should look for claims that are well sourced and who's methodoligy is logical, and this is what seperates truth from fiction.

I checked your link. It seems that they do not show the work of Overmans or Kirosheev, the two most widely accept scholars regarding combat losses, _at the moment_, for German and Soviet statistics respectivly. Both have had unprecedented access to archives, and thus I feel that their figures are the most acurate, _so far_. This is why I have used their numbers.


Regards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luftwaffe_109 S!, thank you for your words sir. There CAN be civilised discourse on these boards, it is possible! Besides, unlike others I dont have enough ego to believe that i'm always correct (as much as it pains me to say that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif). Besides, you can never learn too much.

Thanks for the information, I have not really read much of Overmans or even HEARD of Kirosheev. I had read a fair amount of Zetterling at while at university, he was about as authorative a source as I could find 4 or 5 years ago, but it seems that there is a lot of controversy regading his figures and methodologies. Do you have any good links to their works? I found one of Overman reports at Axis history.org, it was pretty comprehensive. He does put casualites under 350,000 on the Western front. If that is a WORST case estimate I really need to do some reading http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


The more I go into this topic the more confused I get http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif. I think i'm going to have to do some serious research when I get back home in a couple of months. Maybe I am just a victim of bad information and some academic sloppiness but most of the sources I had read, which addmittedly were usually anywhere between 20-35 years old, placed Axis casualties at between 450,000 and 550,000 on the Western front.

However, loking into this I may have been caught unawares by a pretty elementary error http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. It appeart to me that German casualty figures are for German nationals only. This would then discount casualties from 'Ersatz' and volunteer troops (Finish, Polish, Danes, Czechs ect) and Allies (Austrains, Vichy French) under German command, which may have been included in the casualty estimates I have seen. It also may account for some of the discrepancies between total military casualties and casualties by branch.

Still, I am clutching at straws a little. Oh well, back to the books!

pettera
03-01-2005, 03:01 AM
The figures below might be somewhat exagerated but one picture that becomes very clear is the so called concept of "total war" where civilians are the true victims.

The horrors of WWII really shows up in the tremendous large civilian casualties. In particular Poland, Soviet, and Germany in the later stages of the war, had extodinary high civilian casualties. This is a significant difference to earlier wars were armies fought. E.g. the landing in Normandy inflicted higher civilian casualties than military casualties due to bombing. The extreme number of civilian casualties on the Eastern front is of course just a sign of two despotic regimes fighting with no concern for human life and dignity whatsoever. Thank God it is history.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Here's the numbers that I know of for Europe at least.

Country........Military........Civilian......Total
USSR............12 million.....17 million....29 million
Poland..........597,000........5.86 million..6.27 million
Germany.........3.25 million...2.44 million..5.69 million
Yugoslavia......305,000........1.35 million..1.66 million
Romania.........450,000........465,000.......915,0 00
Hungary.........200,000........600,000.......800,0 00
France..........245,000........350,000.......595,0 00
Italy...........380,000........153,000.......533,0 00
Great Britain...403,000.........92,700.......495,000
United States...407,000..........6,000.......413,000
Czechoslovakia....7,000........315,000.......322,0 00
Holland..........13,700........236,000.......249,0 00
Greece...........19,000........140,000.......159,0 00
Belgium..........76,000.........23,000........99,0 00 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Petter

Abbuzze
03-01-2005, 03:24 AM
It‚¬īs an interesting fact that 50% of all german casualities occurred AFTER the D-Day...

MOhz
03-01-2005, 09:01 AM
ImpStar, I feel with you that this topic is getting pretty complicated. I really feel stressed...

So you guys have been discussing a lot the reasons and we know that the Soviet Union (no matter the exact number of casulties) took the brunt force, but if just looking at it as a whole picture, is it amazing that Germany lasted that long?

I dont even know if I should be asking, I feel that my question is somehow unmoral, but I am still curious.

LeadSpitter_
03-01-2005, 09:18 AM
where are these numbers from? americans lost more then 450,000 causalties alone in the PTO only. And unlike the eto people could surrender. You should hear some of the vets who fought in both theathers compair the pto fighting to eto. Medics especially

5 million men were planned to invade japan exaggerated estimations thought 1 million would die to take japan which would have been much more then that.

petter seems to have the correct eto casualties for the eto, abuzzee look for info on "the big week"

as for the soviets they used wwi trench warfare tactics similiar to civilwar tactics here in the states stand in a line and attack. Thats why casualties were so high plus half the people did not have enough weapons until later in the war

mynameisroland
03-01-2005, 09:52 AM
"That is not the point at all. The Whole point is that the german kill ratios where so high because the soviets threw wal after wall of ill equiped, ill trained etc. men against them"

Sorry but you are being simplistic and overlooking the fact that when faced with Britain, Belgium, Poland and France who combined had larger forces of well trained men and decent equipment the German Army defeated them comprehensively.

If Russia is taken out of the equation there is no way a conventional war agianst Germany could have been won. You cannot land an army on the beaches of Normandy Large enough to defeat 6million well equiped German Soldiers. There were not enough landing craft to fullfill such a task and you would have to rely on Germany not attacking the invading force for around a month to land enough forces.

Think about the Logistics.

Also you seem to forget the African and Italian Campaigns where the German Army fought British and American forces of superior numbers and fought very impressively in their eventual defeat.

Blutarski2004
03-01-2005, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
as for the soviets they used wwi trench warfare tactics similiar to civilwar tactics here in the states stand in a line and attack. Thats why casualties were so high plus half the people did not have enough weapons until later in the war <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Really interesting thread - not only for the subject matter, but also for the even-tempered discourse.

LS - I'd suggest that the Red Army really ought to be seen as two different organizations. The 1941 army was essentially a conscript army with insufficient leadereship/command resources deu to Stalin's purges. This army was fortunate to survive the first year of fighting. From that point, it steadily improved through on the job training, development of new young leadership, and a massive re-equipment program. The 1944 Red Army was far different and better than the Red Army of 1941.

Among many such improvements was logistics. The Red Army which fought in 1941, 1942 and well into 1943 was essentially a foot army with traditional railroad-bound logistical capabilities; Russian offensives were as often brought to a halt by their own logistical limitations as by German resistance. By late 1943, Russian logistics at the front had improved hugely through widespread motorization. The difference can be seen by comparing the bound lengths of early Russian offensives to those of 1944 and 1945.

As for German fighting skills, Dupuy (creator of the "HERO" statistical combat effectiveness analysis model) and van Creveld (Israeli military historian) have both argued that, soldier for soldier, two Germans produced roughly the same combat effect as three Western Allied soldiers. The relative values versus Russian soldier varies widely: something like 4:1 for the early war years, then falling steadily. But I can't recall the full details.

Like I said, interesting discussion.

FoolTrottel
03-01-2005, 02:30 PM
Original Poster stated:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
Yeah i have figured...lol. I guess I was just thinking too much. tHanks anyway for clearing up the mess lol. Topic closed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Start yer own topic!
Better not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Let's just remember the figures were way too high...
(Any figure mentioned here is a guess, there's not even a clear number of people gone missing...)

Let's just be silent 'bout this... there's no need to argue...

Silence is the only thing that fits here....

Chuck_Older
03-01-2005, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Galaboo:
Germany is the Brains/Strength of the World

America is the thief of the World

I am the best of everyone in the world.

Fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a pant-load. This is the first time in four months I have bestowed this award, but you deserve it
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/cookiebash.jpg

Chuck_Older
03-01-2005, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
where are these numbers from? americans lost more then 450,000 causalties alone in the PTO only. And unlike the eto people could surrender. You should hear some of the vets who fought in both theathers compair the pto fighting to eto. Medics especially

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes...what about the Maritime losses? North Africa? Carribean? CBI? Good point, Lead

Slick750
03-01-2005, 03:47 PM
"Germany is the Brains/Strength of the World"
Yeah they looked real smart picking up the scraps in they're ruined cities.

"America is the thief of the World"
The only weakness of america is they are too **** nice...all those supplies to allies (russia), the Berlin airlift, ect.

what other country has done more for other countries??? seriously///....and I ain't american...

MOhz
03-01-2005, 04:00 PM
Trotell, I do understand what you are getting at about starting my own discussion, I mean I did start it...

Slick, lets please stay on topic. Lead, what post are you referring to?

skabbe
03-01-2005, 04:04 PM
to me its quite obvious that germans pushed the limits of strategy, everything was very thought through, and it paid of untill they met Britain. and in 1943 the german enemies knew the importance of strategy, not just onley in the fields but in the factorys, assets, the right type of bombers, fighters, tanks, all fited together in one working machine... so few losses first, then later, a lot...

Von_Rat
03-01-2005, 04:09 PM
yes the then soviet peoples took horrendus casualities. but you have to remember that they had little choice in the matter. i guess its hard to fight with the best efficiency, when your desparate, knowing that to lose the war would only lead to death and enslavment for your people.

this knowledge could be a great motivator, but it could hardly help as far as fighting efficiency goes. the temptation to just throw bodies in, to win a desparate battle must have been great.

shasmir
03-01-2005, 04:15 PM
i thought the amaricans were quite nice in ww1 and ww2, thanks for the help guys. though the amarican ww2 movies make it seem to be that it was them saving the world and everyone else was to weak to hand it... but dont make that change your minde about the greatfull help from the amaricans (USA,CAN). hard to forgive bon jovi though...

MOhz
03-01-2005, 04:19 PM
What do you mean?? Germany's main problem with the English was rather that they were on the other side of the channel and Germany had few planes that could effectivly escort the bombers. And German bombers just have bad defense against fighters... Maybe even because Hitler always meddled into things, but that is something very subjective...

Chuck_Older
03-01-2005, 04:19 PM
Bon Jovi is un-forgivable.

I feel it is my responsibility to personally apologize for Jon Bon Jovi and what he has done.

MOhz
03-01-2005, 04:31 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif confused... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

ClnlSandersLite
03-01-2005, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
"That is not the point at all. The Whole point is that the german kill ratios where so high because the soviets threw wal after wall of ill equiped, ill trained etc. men against them"

Sorry but you are being simplistic and overlooking the fact that when faced with Britain, Belgium, Poland and France who combined had larger forces of well trained men and decent equipment the German Army defeated them comprehensively.

If Russia is taken out of the equation there is no way a conventional war agianst Germany could have been won. You cannot land an army on the beaches of Normandy Large enough to defeat 6million well equiped German Soldiers. There were not enough landing craft to fullfill such a task and you would have to rely on Germany not attacking the invading force for around a month to land enough forces.

Think about the Logistics.

Also you seem to forget the African and Italian Campaigns where the German Army fought British and American forces of superior numbers and fought very impressively in their eventual defeat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive me Roland, if I did not feel that a 300 page essay was in order. I was making a broad generalization about the effectiveness of the german military. I did not "overlook" anything that you mentioned. I did however not mention them because they weren't all THAT relevent to the discussion. However, if you insist:


Britain:
Didn't really get hot and heavy on the ground until after france fell. I do think that the british soldiers that died in france at the begining of the war did so valiantly. However, if britian had the forces to hold france at that time, they would have.

Belgium:
While they also died valiantly. They didn't have the men, equipment, or territory to stop germany. This is NOT because Germany just had a better military (although they did to a degree), Germany also had suprise and a larger military than the little guy.

Poland:
You mean the guys who sent lancers after tanks? Please... Brave, VERY Brave, but dumb.

France:
What was the last war that france pulled it weight in, the 100 years war? I don't dislike the french. I myself have some french blood. They're just better lovers than fighters.

combined had larger forces:
I think you overestimate the degree of allied cooperation in the early war.

well trained men and decent equipment:
Highly subjective, depends on the nation.

German Army defeated them comprehensively.:
It did not defeat GB, it merely made them witdraw to their island for awhile. The simple fact is that until the battle of britian, germany had the initiative but then threw it away. It however did beat several nations that couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag. (sorry guys, but it's the truth)


You cannot land an army on the beaches of Normandy Large enough to defeat 6million well equiped German Soldiers.: I honestly don't think that germany could have held that much territory with only 6 million men. There would have been weak spots Soviet uniion or not. And no, I'm not going to write you a 300 page essay on that matter either although it the subject matter could easilly fill that many pages.

Think about the Logistics.:
I think you are not. Germany was overstretched. They reached a point where the offensive could not be maintained and therefore lost the initiative. If you can't keep the initiative you've lost the war. The allies did not have the iniative in the begining of the war because they still needed to build up for a war. Germany did this before the allies and therefore held the initiative in the begining. That is all there was to it.

African and Italian Campaigns: Actually a very small part of the german kill ratios came from these campaigns. Look it up if you don't believe me. You'll need some math though so I hope you know how to do ratios.

I still maintain that the german army was nothing special. It was good. It was not the be all is all of warfare though. I'm afraid however that this is about as long of an essay you'll get out of me without pay.

Von_Rat
03-01-2005, 09:39 PM
"What was the last war that france pulled it weight in, the 100 years war?"
_______________________________________________


cough,,,, napoleon,,,,cough.

JRJacobs
03-01-2005, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
where are these numbers from? americans lost more then 450,000 causalties alone in the PTO only. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
most humbley submit you are confusing casualties with killied - in the us army a casualtiy is KIA/WIA/MIA those killed, those wounded, and those mising my numbers refered to killed only and i stand by that number

United States of America
Military:
Keegan: 292,000
HarperCollins: 292,100
Britannica: 292,131 (not incl. 115,187 non-battle)
Compton's: 293,986
Urlanis: 300,000
Info. Please: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other causes = 405,399
DoD: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other = 405,399
Ellis: 405,400
Encarta: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other causes = 407,318
Wallechinsky: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other = 407,318
Eckhardt: 408,000
Small & Singer: 408,300
Civilian:
Britannica: 6,000
U.S. Merchant Marine: 8,300 mariners killed at sea, at least 1,100 died from wounds. Total killed estimated 9,300. [http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html]
All (undifferentiated):
Messenger: 300,000

see the rest of this list at:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm

ClnlSandersLite
03-01-2005, 10:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>cough,,,, napoleon,,,,cough <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, napoleon was defeated. I guess france put up a hell of a fight so I'll give you that. Still, that was a LONG time ago.

Tooz_69GIAP
03-01-2005, 11:38 PM
France put up a hell of a fight in WWI. They lost around 1,385,000 men in combat, which was more than the British and Commonwealth combined (approx 1.1 million dead IIRC).

Not to mention much of north and eastern France was turned into a quagmire.

Levethane
03-01-2005, 11:43 PM
Also rememeber that Stalin did not want any competition, so all the talented high ranking officers that had the respect of the men were 'removed' and replaced with less skilled drones who would remain loyal to that evil bastard.

Still remember reading about a large battle in 1943 when 5000 Red troops were sent in line at walking pace towards the fortified german positions, getting cut down before they got halfway, only to have the complete ****** commander send 5 more waves of young men to their deaths. Even the Germans could not believe what they were seen.

Almost as bad as the Oolish sending 2000+ mounted cavalry aginst the German heavy panzers. Armed with pistols and swords... The stupidty of some officers was inexcusable.

Von_Rat
03-02-2005, 12:03 AM
"Well, napoleon was defeated"
Still, that was a LONG time ago.

________________________________________

so was hitler, for many of the same reasons.

the most important is they both ignored the 1st rule of warfare in the modern era...
DON'T INVADE RUSSIA.


it wasn't all that long ago,when my father was young there still were civil war vets alive, he met some.
those men he met were old enough to have met vets of waterloo, when the civil war vets were young. so its not exactly ancient history.

btw, dads still alive and doing fine.

ClnlSandersLite
03-02-2005, 12:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>France put up a hell of a fight in WWI <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not really. Take a close look at all the problems the french had and where german advances where made. Just because much of it was fought in france, doesn't mean a thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the most important is they both ignored the 1st rule of warfare in the modern era...
DON'T INVADE RUSSIA. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Modern? I honestly can't think of any euopean invasion of russia that ended sucessfully. Russia's terrain and climate is just too **** harsh. Maybe eskimos could handel it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VFA195-MaxPower
03-02-2005, 12:28 AM
How did such an interesting topic turn into such a sordid, french-bashing waste? How is this relevent to the topic?

Was somebody trolling? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

How adorable.

ClnlSandersLite
03-02-2005, 01:23 AM
Max power:
Not really, I'm not even bashing the french at all. Just said they can't fight. There are however many things the french do VERY well. The best wines, cheeses, art (imo), love making (you've not had it until you've had a french woman), etc. Just not fighting. I do appreciate the fact that france has done many things that have affected the whole world. France is also arguably the culture capital of the world.

As to how it got started, that's simple. I said Germany's kill/death ratio was largely due to the eastern front. mynameisroland then brought up france. Then I responded. See, simple.

Since most americans these days are too eager to jump france's back, there are people that get jumpy and attack anything even remotely negative about the french. I'd swear France is the new F word. You, MaxPower, seem to be one of these people.

DarthBane_
03-02-2005, 01:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slick750:
Many of their enemies where weak, or disadvantaged or taken by surprise. Once that "edge" was gone, the fall was quick.
Germany also used alot of manpower from other countries. Germany is **** lucky to still have Germany today. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, evryone else is lucky to be alive , specialy americans, it was planed to wipe out america from all population using A bombs. Hitlers madness saved americans from desintegration. Bombardment was to be done with rockets launched from subs equiped with containers.

DarthBane_
03-02-2005, 01:54 AM
80% of losses was on Rusian front, all other nations performed poor COMPARED to Rusia. Not only French.

Luftwaffe_109
03-02-2005, 02:21 AM
Last post from me,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Thanks for the information, I have not really read much of Overmans or even HEARD of Kirosheev. I had read a fair amount of Zetterling at while at university, he was about as authorative a source as I could find 4 or 5 years ago, but it seems that there is a lot of controversy regading his figures and methodologies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have found that Zetterling is an excellent source, although I have only read his Kursk and Normandy books.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Do you have any good links to their works? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No links unfourtunately. I can only recommend Kirosheev's book "Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century". A word of warning though, Kirosheev has come under much criticism for his figures, particularly the claim that they are two low. Still, the fact that he has had an unprecedented level of access to Soviet archives mean that his figures, for Soviet Casualties only mind you (he is quite useless for German ones), are probably the best so far.

Once again, good day to you ImpStarDuece.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Germany also had suprise and a larger military than the little guy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While one can't argue that Germany did not haved a more powerful military, it is not completely true that France or the Low Countries were suprised. They all knew that war would come, and strategic suprise was impossible. Tactical suprise, on the other hand, was achieved, and this was done by attacking through the heavily wooded Ardennes forest, a credit to the planning of the offensive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You mean the guys who sent lancers after tanks? Please... Brave, VERY Brave, but dumb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The widespread notion that the Polish cavalry engaged in foolhardy attempts to charge German tanks in September 1939 is misleading. There were few isolated cases where Polish cavalrymen tried to break out between the tanks rather than surrender; but, as a rule, cavalrymen dismounted and operated like infantry before each engagement. Horses were used for transportation and were kept behind battle lines during an engagement. Each cavalry regiment was equipped with its own anti-tank and anti-aircraft artillery.

The myth of the Polish cavalry charging German tanks was born at 5 p.m. on September 1, 1939 when the Polish 18th Lancers of the Pomorska Cavalry Brigade charged units from the German 20th Motorised Division. This incident took place near Chojnice in the Western part of Poland. The attack was meant to be on infantry units marching eastwards, but the Poles were surprised by German tanks and armoured cars which appeared out of nowhere while the cavalry was charging the infantry. As would be expected, the cavalry was forced to disengage and suffered heavy loses.

But what you claim, that whole cavalry units would launch suicidal and foolish charges on armoured units is simply a myth.

Also you completely underestimate the strength of Poland, remember this was a nation that defeated the Soviet Union in the 1925 war. Of course, I am not claiming that the Polish military was a match for the German one, but you dismissive appraisal of it is light-years away from the truth.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What was the last war that france pulled it weight in, the 100 years war? I don't dislike the french. I myself have some french blood. They're just better lovers than fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With respect this is a completely baseless and unfounded statement. The French not only had a larger military with more men and tanks, but they also had heavier tanks. They did, however, suffer from low moral in WWII but they were proffesional and not poorly trained.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It did not defeat GB, it merely made them witdraw to their island for awhile. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It defeated the British Expeditionary forces in France and was almost able to annialate the BEF at Dunkirk. Fourtunately, the indecisiveness of the German commanders and the skill of the Royal Navy resulted in the evacuation of the units. However, one cannot argue that it wasn't decisivly defeated, along with France.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It however did beat several nations that couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag. (sorry guys, but it's the truth) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is not true and you have shown nothing to prove that France or Poland fit those descriptions. Also you neglect other nations as well, for example Norway, whose invasion was quite a feat when you compare the relative strengths of the Royal Navy and the Kriegsmarine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Germany did this before the allies and therefore held the initiative in the begining. That is all there was to it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This does not reflect reality. Germany's adversaries (eg. France) were more powerful then her. Germany had what Barnett, in his excellent book "Hitler's Generals" refered to as a "shop-window" army, and it was not even ready before the war began. Witness, for example, the large numbers of Panzer Is and IIs (light training tanks) used in France compared with Frances very power Char IB tanks. Note the fact that German industry and economy was woefully unprepared for war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The allies did not have the iniative in the begining of the war because they still needed to build up for a war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In fact, it was the Germans who were rushing to rearm so that they would be ready for the coming war, their's was the military that needed massive expansion (eg. I believe only 20 subs were operational at any time during the start of WWII, wereas Doenitz had demanded 300 to beat Britain) but this was not complete by the time Hitler precipitated war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Germany was overstretched. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Germany certainly was overstreatched, and the reason for that was its massive war with the Soviet Union.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Not really. Take a close look at all the problems the french had and where german advances where made. Just because much of it was fought in france, doesn't mean a thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What are you attempting to say here?? France contributed by far the most amount of troops to the Western Front and her soldiers did for the most part fight just as well as those from any other nation at the time. Had the Germans succeded in "bleeding white" the French focres they would have won in the west regardless of how the British fared but they prevailed.

To say the French did not fight well (all their faults notwithstanding, lets not get into too broad a discussion here) in WWI is, I think mistaken. I will give just one example, Verdun, where the French managed to hold the forts at all cost against massive German infantry assaults and artillery and gass attack despite horrendous casualties.

This is certainly not the conduct of soldiers who, as you so eloquently put it, "can't fight".

Anyway, nice discussing with you.

Regards

WOLFMondo
03-02-2005, 03:57 AM
The French efforts in WW2 were mixed but the resistance and the Free French soldiers, sailors and airmen certainly did there part and with distinction.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
"Well, napoleon was defeated"
Still, that was a LONG time ago.

________________________________________

so was hitler, for many of the same reasons.

the most important is they both ignored the 1st rule of warfare in the modern era...
DON'T INVADE RUSSIA.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He lost in Russia but it was the British Army and the Prussians that actually took him down. If Hitler waited a bit to re enforce and build up supplies before attacking it could have gone differently in the USSR.

ImpStarDuece
03-02-2005, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slick750:
Many of their enemies where weak, or disadvantaged or taken by surprise. Once that "edge" was gone, the fall was quick.
Germany also used alot of manpower from other countries. Germany is **** lucky to still have Germany today. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, evryone else is lucky to be alive , specialy americans, it was planed to wipe out america from all population using A bombs. Hitlers madness saved americans from desintegration. Bombardment was to be done with rockets launched from subs equiped with containers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The myth of German nuclear development is exactly that, a myth. Hitler himself refused to give funding or priority to the development or research into nuclear weapons in the late 30s or early 40's (cant remember which) on the correct basis that it would take anywhere from 7 to fifteen YEARS to develope nuclear weaponry for Germany. Hitler assumed that the fate of Germany would be sealed by then and did not believe in investing money in 'long term' projects such as nuclear weapons.

Simply put, compared to the United States German was far behind technologically, theoretically and scientifically. The Germans never created a self sustaining chain reaction in ny of the 'atomic piles ' that they built, the Americans did it in very early 1942. The famous "heavy water plant" in Norway did not have sufficient production capacity to support weapon(s) production, mostly due to priorities.

Similarly, a succesful submarine launch of any of the V weapons was a nigh on impossibility for Germany in the 1940's and, like so many of the late war 'wonder weapons', was a desperate stab in the direction of then cutting edge science to provide victory.

mynameisroland
03-02-2005, 04:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
"That is not the point at all. The Whole point is that the german kill ratios where so high because the soviets threw wal after wall of ill equiped, ill trained etc. men against them"

Sorry but you are being simplistic and overlooking the fact that when faced with Britain, Belgium, Poland and France who combined had larger forces of well trained men and decent equipment the German Army defeated them comprehensively.

If Russia is taken out of the equation there is no way a conventional war agianst Germany could have been won. You cannot land an army on the beaches of Normandy Large enough to defeat 6million well equiped German Soldiers. There were not enough landing craft to fullfill such a task and you would have to rely on Germany not attacking the invading force for around a month to land enough forces.

Think about the Logistics.

Also you seem to forget the African and Italian Campaigns where the German Army fought British and American forces of superior numbers and fought very impressively in their eventual defeat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive me Roland, if I did not feel that a 300 page essay was in order. I was making a broad generalization about the effectiveness of the german military. I did not "overlook" anything that you mentioned. I did however not mention them because they weren't all THAT relevent to the discussion. However, if you insist:


Britain:
Didn't really get hot and heavy on the ground until after france fell. I do think that the british soldiers that died in france at the begining of the war did so valiantly. However, if britian had the forces to hold france at that time, they would have.

Belgium:
While they also died valiantly. They didn't have the men, equipment, or territory to stop germany. This is NOT because Germany just had a better military (although they did to a degree), Germany also had suprise and a larger military than the little guy.

Poland:
You mean the guys who sent lancers after tanks? Please... Brave, VERY Brave, but dumb.

France:
What was the last war that france pulled it weight in, the 100 years war? I don't dislike the french. I myself have some french blood. They're just better lovers than fighters.

combined had larger forces:
I think you overestimate the degree of allied cooperation in the early war.

well trained men and decent equipment:
Highly subjective, depends on the nation.

German Army defeated them comprehensively.:
It did not defeat GB, it merely made them witdraw to their island for awhile. The simple fact is that until the battle of britian, germany had the initiative but then threw it away. It however did beat several nations that couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag. (sorry guys, but it's the truth)


You cannot land an army on the beaches of Normandy Large enough to defeat 6million well equiped German Soldiers.: I honestly don't think that germany could have held that much territory with only 6 million men. There would have been weak spots Soviet uniion or not. And no, I'm not going to write you a 300 page essay on that matter either although it the subject matter could easilly fill that many pages.

Think about the Logistics.:
I think you are not. Germany was overstretched. They reached a point where the offensive could not be maintained and therefore lost the initiative. If you can't keep the initiative you've lost the war. The allies did not have the iniative in the begining of the war because they still needed to build up for a war. Germany did this before the allies and therefore held the initiative in the begining. That is all there was to it.

African and Italian Campaigns: Actually a very small part of the german kill ratios came from these campaigns. Look it up if you don't believe me. You'll need some math though so I hope you know how to do ratios.

I still maintain that the german army was nothing special. It was good. It was not the be all is all of warfare though. I'm afraid however that this is about as long of an essay you'll get out of me without pay. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please dont bother , I wouldnt want to read any more of your idiotic tripe.

You have exposed yourself as a Troll, France fought harder in WW1 than America has ever or will ever have to fight. Your dismissing them as "better lovers than fighters" borders on racist.

You need to open your eyes and mind and except that although the Allies won the war, it was in large part down to Russia (some historians say 70% of the whole effort expended)

Also you have dismissed out of hand how the Allies EXCLUDING Russia (who were inferior after all ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) could land a force substantial enough to defeat the whole German Army and Airforce. Simply they couldnt it would have to be a nuclear war if Russia was defeated by Germany in 1941.

With regard to the African campaign I never once reffered to kill ratios, I commented that a tiny German Army/ Airforce fought overwhelming odds and did remarkably well.

So the German Army was nothing special - yeh whatever you say. If an ISRAELI analyst came to the conclusion that the German soldier effectively was just plain more efficient to a ratio of 2/3 he must be biast musn't he...

JRJacobs
03-02-2005, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Almost as bad as the Oolish [Polish] sending 2000+ mounted cavalry aginst the German heavy panzers. Armed with pistols and swords... The stupidty of some officers was inexcusable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So sorry but i MUST correct this misconception - it has been PROVEN this did NOT happen - it was propaganda ploy by Goebles and Nazis - in actuality the Polish cavalry was highly effective against German dismounted infantry in the marshes and wood, but in ONE particular case, while an attack against infantry was occurring - a squadron of armoured cars unexpectedly arrived and destroyed the - up to that point effective - Calvary charge, then when it was done the Germans brought in foreign news agencies to show the supposed inferiority of the Poles - that the Germans "invited" the press should be suspect enough

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/1939.html

The most infamous myth is the fantasy that the Polish cavalry charged at German tanks. These units were thought to be the best horsemen in Europe, but were relied upon mainly for their cost-effectiveness, since few vehicles were available. Despite their antiquated means of travel, Polish cavalry were used primarily as heavy infantry for break-outs or surprise attacks. They carried machine guns, 7.92mm anti-tank rifles, and 37mm anti-tank guns which could easily take out German armor. Cavalry charges were not a standard tactic, but on the first day of the war a Polish cavalry regiment discovered a battalion of Germans in a field and led a charge against them. The Germans were caught off guard and suffered severe casualties, but were rescued by the advancing panzers, who opened fire on the exposed cavalry. The Poles fled, but only lost 20 men, including the commanding officer, Colonel Kazimierz Mastelarz. However, when Italian journalists visited the battlefield the following day, the Germans told them that the cavalry had charged against their tanks and were wiped out. This fabrication was put into print and the Nazi propaganda made sure it was widely publicized, and therefore widely believed.

http://www.answers.com/topic/polish-september-campaign

There are some common myths about the Polish Campaign. Although Poland had 11 cavalry brigades and its doctrine emphasized cavalry units as elites, other armies of that time (including Germany) also fielded and extensively used cavalry units. Polish cavalry never charged on German tanks nor entrenched machine guns but usually acted as mobile infantry units and executed cavalry charges only in rare situations

Blutarski2004
03-02-2005, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
Max power:
Not really, I'm not even bashing the french at all. Just said they can't fight. There are however many things the french do VERY well. The best wines, cheeses, art (imo), love making (you've not had it until you've had a french woman), etc. Just not fighting. I do appreciate the fact that france has done many things that have affected the whole world. France is also arguably the culture capital of the world.

As to how it got started, that's simple. I said Germany's kill/death ratio was largely due to the eastern front. mynameisroland then brought up france. Then I responded. See, simple.

Since most americans these days are too eager to jump france's back, there are people that get jumpy and attack anything even remotely negative about the french. I'd swear France is the new F word. You, MaxPower, seem to be one of these people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


France's suffering was not in WW2, but in the First Indochina War. Bernard Fall's book, STREET WITHOUT JOY, (a great book btw) makes some stunning comparisons.

geetarman
03-02-2005, 10:03 AM
The German armed forces were very well led and fairly well equipped at the start of the war. They really held the cards as far as strategic and tactical vision over the Allies in the first few years of the war. This over every thing else, I believe, accounted for their stunning successes in the West and led to their reputation as excellent fighting men. This also had to do with limitng their casualties.

Later in the war they, obviously, went on the defensive. I think this also played a part in lowering their casualties to a degree.

P.S. I'm a Yank who doesn't believe the French are bad fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The toughed it out with the best of them last century.

Von_Rat
03-02-2005, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The French efforts in WW2 were mixed but the resistance and the Free French soldiers, sailors and airmen certainly did there part and with distinction.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
"Well, napoleon was defeated"
Still, that was a LONG time ago.

________________________________________

so was hitler, for many of the same reasons.

the most important is they both ignored the 1st rule of warfare in the modern era...
DON'T INVADE RUSSIA.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He lost in Russia but it was the British Army and the Prussians that actually took him down. If Hitler waited a bit to re enforce and build up supplies before attacking it could have gone differently in the USSR. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi mondo

true it was the brits and prussians who defeated napoleon in the waterloo campaign.

in my opinon beating napoleon without russias help would have been very very hard, if not impossiable. same as with hitler. remember, that until napoleon lost in russia, prussia was a occupied country, forced into alliance with france.

as for things going differant in ussr if hitler was better prepared, who knows, maybe. but i have a susipicion that given the nazis policys in the east, enslavement and murder, that even a victory over russia in convential war, would have led to a prolonged and possiably even more bloody gurella war.

hitlers only real chance in the east, in my opinion, was to unite the people who hated stalin behind him. but of course hitler was just as intent on murdering and enslaving them as stalin was.

skabbe
03-02-2005, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slick750:
Many of their enemies where weak, or disadvantaged or taken by surprise. Once that "edge" was gone, the fall was quick.
Germany also used alot of manpower from other countries. Germany is **** lucky to still have Germany today. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, evryone else is lucky to be alive , specialy americans, it was planed to wipe out america from all population using A bombs. Hitlers madness saved americans from desintegration. Bombardment was to be done with rockets launched from subs equiped with containers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The myth of German nuclear development is exactly that, a myth. Hitler himself refused to give funding or priority to the development or research into nuclear weapons in the late 30s or early 40's (cant remember which) on the correct basis that it would take anywhere from 7 to fifteen YEARS to develope nuclear weaponry for Germany. Hitler assumed that the fate of Germany would be sealed by then and did not believe in investing money in 'long term' projects such as nuclear weapons.

Simply put, compared to the United States German was far behind technologically, theoretically and scientifically. The Germans never created a self sustaining chain reaction in ny of the 'atomic piles ' that they built, the Americans did it in very early 1942. The famous "heavy water plant" in Norway did not have sufficient production capacity to support weapon(s) production, mostly due to priorities.

Similarly, a succesful submarine launch of any of the V weapons was a nigh on impossibility for Germany in the 1940's and, like so many of the late war 'wonder weapons', was a desperate stab in the direction of then cutting edge science to provide victory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


i hope you know that the one who hade the final answer about spliting an atom was an woman from austria who fleed Hitler and ended up in Sweden, her research continued but she insisted that the technology would never be used as a weapon, that the allies didnt like, so it was stolen by her colleague who of course got the nobel price, and after that the dirty manhatan project was started, it took about 2 years to complete a atombomb after that... so the atombomb was made by an Jewish woman from Austria and lived in Sweden. fun to know... the Swedish bomb...

Von_Rat
03-02-2005, 11:24 AM
not one person, but very many worked on the theory of nuclear fission as pertaining to bomb development. even if one person could have developed the whole theory, turning that theory into a workable bomb, took thousands of people, whole new and different technologys, gasous diffusion, etc, and millions of dollars.

horseback
03-02-2005, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shasmir:
i thought the amaricans were quite nice in ww1 and ww2, thanks for the help guys. though the amarican ww2 movies make it seem to be that it was them saving the world and everyone else was to weak to hand it... but dont make that change your minde about the greatfull help from the amaricans (USA,CAN). hard to forgive bon jovi though... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how many movies about the American war effort do they make in your country? Generally, people write books and make movies about their own people. If you want to see movies about your countries' efforts or experiences, make'em yourselves; don't nitpick about movies made for an ignorant American market.

Bad as they are, they're made for us, not for the rest of the world. Don't encourage the Hollywood ignoramuses by buying tickets to movies made from reading comic books about history. Maybe then they'll crack a book or actually listen to the military advisers they hire for these things.

cheers

horseback

horseback
03-02-2005, 12:29 PM
One other point: on the subject of the relative efficiency of the German soldier, it was simply easier and safer to fight a defensive war, as the Germans did from Stalingrad on, in territory you have had a chance to accurately map and fortify.

Until the recent (first Gulf War) development of PRACTICAL smart weapons, it was almost impossible to weed out dug in troops from the air (and it is yet to be seen whether professional troops, in the western style, can be beaten this way).

With air superiority in 1944, you could destroy moving units in daylight fairly well, and take out bridges and railheads to cut down the enemy's logistic efficiency, but you couldn't really take out pinpoint positions on the front with any consistency, and you could do next to nothing at night. It was still the infantry that had to do the hard, dirty work of going in and clearing out the enemy on the ground.

If your opponent has any military skills at all, coupled with comparable technology, taking territory is a lot harder than defending it. Defended positions have to be overwhelmed or outflanked, and that leads to higher casualties and stress/morale problems, even if you are 'winning'.

The Germans (and the Japanese, for that matter) suffered relatively low casualties during the 'conquest' phase of the war, mainly because even when their enemies were prepared, they were prepared for World War One tactics, not the modern war that came. The French, supposedly possessing the best army in the world in 1939-40, had their 'superior' tanks scattered throughout their forces, and were unable to counter the massed German armor attacks, and their Air Force was simply inadequate to either protect their ground units or attack the German ground forces.

The Commonwealth (British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand) forces were simply there to supplement the French, and lacked the numbers or equipment to be fully effective, operating in a host nation with all the limitations that imposes (think about it-RAF bomber crews were strictly warned at that time to avoid bombing privately owned German factories or docking facilities. How does a commander in the field treat the military requirement of destroying a French church steeple in German hands that is being used to observe his positions for German artillary?).

Very simply, the Germans were prepared to fight an all-out war when it started, and when things went sour for them, and they had to go on the defensive, they knew much better than their early-war opponents had what to expect, and what defensive counters were most useful to them. The result was, that during their defensive phase of the war, they continued to take fewer casualties overall than they inflicted.

cheers

horseback

shasmir
03-02-2005, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shasmir:
i thought the amaricans were quite nice in ww1 and ww2, thanks for the help guys. though the amarican ww2 movies make it seem to be that it was them saving the world and everyone else was to weak to hand it... but dont make that change your minde about the greatfull help from the amaricans (USA,CAN). hard to forgive bon jovi though... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how many movies about the American war effort do they make in _your_ country? Generally, people write books and make movies about their own people. If you want to see movies about your countries' efforts or experiences, make'em yourselves; don't nitpick about movies made for an ignorant American market.

Bad as they are, they're made for us, not for the rest of the world. Don't encourage the Hollywood ignoramuses by buying tickets to movies made from reading comic books about history. Maybe then they'll crack a book or actually listen to the military advisers they hire for these things.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

your right, we dont need to eat your crapy burgers and watch your bad movies, so they will finally go bankrupt and europe will remain their highculture way of living. but you know humans tend to enjoy a lazy way of life, fast food, fast movies, fast music, fast love (one night stand). it feels like europe will give under for the fast culture. and the movie U-571 about an amarican sub doing the key-part of the war when it actualy was the brits is just under all critics!

JRJacobs
03-02-2005, 05:07 PM
WARNING BASH-ATTACKING WARNING
all right deep breath.... bashing please stop and move along - interesting thread degenerating - or do you WANT this locked?!?

Cajun76
03-02-2005, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shasmir:


your right, we dont need to eat your crapy burgers and watch your bad movies, so they will finally go bankrupt and europe will remain their highculture way of living. but you know humans tend to enjoy a lazy way of life, fast food, fast movies, fast music, fast love (one night stand). it feels like europe will give under for the fast culture. and the movie U-571 about an amarican sub doing the key-part of the war when it actualy was the brits is just under all critics! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"your right" and the rest of your rant complete what is known as an oxymoron. And credit was given to the British at the end of the movie. It was still daring and dangerous attempt not made less so by the earlier British acheivement. Still waiting for them to make a movie, when they do, I'll probably watch it, although it still won't be Das Boot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ElAurens
03-02-2005, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
The German armed forces... really held the cards as far as strategic and tactical vision over the Allies in the first few years of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubbbish.

The German military has never won a war in modern times because of their singular lack of stratigic awareness. They are brilliant tactical thinkers, but have no "world view" on war making. I will give two easy examples.

1. Total lack of vision regarding the importance of maintaining a proper, blue water navy. Commerce raiders and submarines alone do not win wars. Large fleets of merchantmen and aircraft carriers do.

2. The mistaken notion that single seat military aircraft should be short range point interceptors. Airpower dominance goes to the nation that understands inter-continental force projection.

I apologize to the thread starter for going off the intended topic.

War is terrible. I often wonder why we do it so well.

blakduk
03-02-2005, 07:13 PM
Guys- history is not a series of isolated incidents. Its well documented that intially the French had numerical superiority of equipment such as tanks, that the German forces were still highly reliant on horses during the entire war, the Germans had learned lessons in the use of aircraft and tanks that they'd had to face on the western front of ww1 and developed those tactics more fully than the allies (who had originated them). What's missing is that Europe in 1939 was still traumatised by the horrific losses of WW1, the veterans of all sides who returned from the trenches of that conflict had been bitterly disapointed by the aftermath (the infamous promises of 'A Land fit for heroes'). The political chaos that paralysed the democracies during the Great Depression was countered by the facist dictatorships who were much better able to manipulate their populations and engender an enthusaism for war/conquest. At the start of the WW2 soldiers from the democratic nations had little desire for war, they had won ww1 but their lives had not been improved by that victory. It was only as the war gathered intensity and the harsh realities of losses that were to be suffered under facism became apparent that free nations harnessed their resources. When that tide turned the end was inevitable despite the individual merits of the combatants.
Both Hitler and Tojo seem to have been well aware of this potential in western industrialised nations and developed their strategies accordingly- lightning wars of conquest that would not allow the free nations to overcome their inertia. Fortunately for us this strategy failed, although they came **** close and lots of people died in the process.
Lets remember that democracies won, we can play whatever the hell games we like, and can choose to destroy every Bon Jovi cd we encounter

Cajun76
03-02-2005, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
Guys- history is not a series of isolated incidents. Its well documented that intially the French had numerical superiority of equipment such as tanks, that the German forces were still highly reliant on horses during the entire war, the Germans had learned lessons in the use of aircraft and tanks that they'd had to face on the western front of ww1 and developed those tactics more fully than the allies (who had originated them). What's missing is that Europe in 1939 was still traumatised by the horrific losses of WW1, the veterans of all sides who returned from the trenches of that conflict had been bitterly disapointed by the aftermath (the infamous promises of 'A Land fit for heroes'). The political chaos that paralysed the democracies during the Great Depression was countered by the facist dictatorships who were much better able to manipulate their populations and engender an enthusaism for war/conquest. At the start of the WW2 soldiers from the democratic nations had little desire for war, they had won ww1 but their lives had not been improved by that victory. It was only as the war gathered intensity and the harsh realities of losses that were to be suffered under facism became apparent that free nations harnessed their resources. When that tide turned the end was inevitable despite the individual merits of the combatants.
Both Hitler and Tojo seem to have been well aware of this potential in western industrialised nations and developed their strategies accordingly- lightning wars of conquest that would not allow the free nations to overcome their inertia. Fortunately for us this strategy failed, although they came **** close and lots of people died in the process.
Lets remember that democracies won, we can play whatever the hell games we like, and can choose to destroy every Bon Jovi cd we encounter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Outstanding post, sir.

ClnlSandersLite
03-02-2005, 09:20 PM
Ok, last attempt to reason here as this has gone WAY OT.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They all knew that war would come, and strategic suprise was impossible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They all thought ww1 would come. The germans initiated a new kind of warfare which caught everyone off gaurd. They also initiated it sooner than most thought they could or would. This is strategic suprise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It defeated the British Expeditionary forces <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's right, expeditionary forces.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and you have shown nothing to prove that France or Poland fit those descriptions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's right, I did not prove it because I wanted to keep my post as brief as possible instead of writing a detailed history of preware europe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Germany's adversaries (eg. France) were more powerful then her. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it had more men. This is not power. France was fully prepared to fight ww1 all over again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The allies did not have the iniative in the begining of the war because they still needed to build up for a war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In fact, it was the Germans who were rushing to rearm so that they would be ready for the coming war, their's was the military that needed massive expansion (eg. I believe only 20 subs were operational at any time during the start of WWII, wereas Doenitz had demanded 300 to beat Britain) but this was not complete by the time Hitler precipitated war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Look, it's very simple. Germany had strategic suprise (as I said above) and they initiated the war. Therefore they had the initiative.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Germany certainly was overstreatched, and the reason for that was its massive war with the Soviet Union. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, the reason for that was the power hungry imperialist in charge. He wanted the world and even if he had of left the soviet union alone for awhile, he would have started attacking other places. The fact is that he would have overextended, soviet union or no. You cannot defend most of europe and africa with only 8 million men. You'll eventually get stretched too thin.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>. I will give just one example, Verdun, where the French managed to hold the forts at all cost against massive German infantry assaults and artillery and gass attack despite horrendous casualties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not question the braver of a french soilder, or his individual abaility to fight, rather the french military's ability to fight a war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You have exposed yourself as a Troll, France fought harder in WW1 than America has ever or will ever have to fight. Your dismissing them as "better lovers than fighters" borders on racist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not a troll. Have a look through the other posts I have made on this board and you'll see that most of them a light hearted and semi-humorous. And no, it's not a case of racism. I did not say that any american will take any frenchman in a fistfight. That is racism. My observations are of the french military in action from the inception of france to now. The french army has historically always had problems. Among their 2 greatest is moral and lack of discipline.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You need to open your eyes and mind and except that although the Allies won the war, it was in large part down to Russia (some historians say 70% of the whole effort expended) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now this just downright ticks me off, what did I say in the original post I made in this thread, lessee...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No, the reason being that for the most part, the soviet union took more combat losses than the rest of the allied nation combined. They, for the most part, where a disorganized, ill equiped, ill trained rable. They just had so **** many people that there was always another man to take the last dead guys place. Germany's orginization could arguably have been too complicated (the germans are know for overcomplicating things). They did have their advantages over others, but the ussr's kill/death ration was simply apalling.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>EXCLUDING Russia (who were inferior after all ... ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never said that The soviet union as a nation was inferior. Their military was quite strong. The fact that their loss rate was as high as it was speaks volumes about the way they fought, however they did give germany a hell of a pounding. Their way of warfare was different, that is all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>land a force substantial enough to defeat the whole German Army and Airforce. Simply they couldnt it would have to be a nuclear war if Russia was defeated by Germany in 1941. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Based on what evidence? "Do as I say, not as I do" huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With regard to the African campaign I never once reffered to kill ratios, I commented that a tiny German Army/ Airforce fought overwhelming odds and did remarkably well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kill ratios IS THE TOPIC. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So the German Army was nothing special - yeh whatever you say. If an ISRAELI analyst came to the conclusion that the German soldier effectively was just plain more efficient to a ratio of 2/3 he must be biast musn't he... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please think rationally here... WHICH analyst, and more efficient that WHAT? What I think is hapening here is that you are twisting his words to mean what you want them to mean. Either that or you're making stuff up.

JRJacobs: That is interesting, I'll have to take a closer look at that.

Luftwaffe_109
03-03-2005, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One other point: on the subject of the relative efficiency of the German soldier, it was simply easier and safer to fight a defensive war, as the Germans did from Stalingrad on, in territory you have had a chance to accurately map and fortify. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, since we are talking about casualty ratios. There is little data to support any correlation between a strategic defensive posture and a better casualty exchange rate in Europe during WWII - actually, the data seem to suggest the opposite. In the East, the Germans have the best ratios during the periods of the war when they are attacking, and the Soviets have the best ratios in the periods when they are attacking. The picture in the West is similar, though of course harder to compare.

An example, if I may, is Kursk '43. The Russians had overall superiority of soldiers maybe 3:1 overall and has several lines of defense. Yet the strategically defensive Russian suffered over 3 times more total casualties then the Germans. Their is certainly no indication the defence is more powerful at inflicting casualties then the offense except by a small margin.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Defended positions have to be overwhelmed or outflanked, and that leads to higher casualties and stress/morale problems, even if you are 'winning'.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And yet, high casualties can also be incured during defensive operations (eg. the horrendous casualties of the Germans during the Battle of the Falaise gap or the Soviets during the Battle of Stalingrad) not to mention that morale problems will of course occur in this case also.

Finally, we can also point out that, in the west, the difference between Allied and Axis casualties was not great whether the Germans were attacking or defending.

Basically, your argument that casualty ratios were due to German strategic defensive posture is unconvincing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Germans (and the Japanese, for that matter) suffered relatively low casualties during the 'conquest' phase of the war, mainly because even when their enemies were prepared, they were prepared for World War One tactics, not the modern war that came. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry, are you saying that, for example, the British at Singapore expected "WWI tactics" or that the Russians at Stalingrad expected "WWI tactics"?

And if the Germans had a better system of warfare (Blitzkrieg was certainly revolutionary) than the Allies during the early stages of the war, this could certainly only be an argument for the Wehrmact, not against it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Very simply, the Germans were prepared to fight an all-out war when it started <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can only continue to stress that the Wehrmact was anything but prepared for war. For example, they lacked any heavy or strategic bombers, they lacked an effective navy to challenge the British, they were still using numerous obsoltete tanks, and they did not have an economy read for war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The germans initiated a new kind of warfare which caught everyone off gaurd. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again, the German tactical doctrine of Blitzkrieg was very effective, yes. This partially explains why they were the Wehrmact was so effective. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with strategic suprise, however.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> They also initiated it sooner than most thought they could or would. This is strategic suprise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While strategic suprise was achieved in Poland, Germany's later invasion of France was certainly long expected and not at all a suprise. If anything, it was expected sooner (directly after Fall Weis, not some months later, ie the Phoney War). Therefore, strategic suprise was impossible, only tactical suprise was possible. Due to the skill of German planning, this tactical suprise was achieved.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That's right, expeditionary forces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who were roundly defeated, both in France and Norway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> No, it had more men. This is not power. France was fully prepared to fight ww1 all over again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It had more men, more artillery pieces and more tanks. It also had heavier tanks and an impressive series of fortifications along the entire length of its French-German border. This is certainly strength. That the French did not take more of a strategic initiative is compltely irrelevent, that is a matter of doctrine, not strength.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Look, it's very simple. Germany had strategic suprise (as I said above) and they initiated the war. Therefore they had the initiative. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I see you have just completely ignored all my points and pronounced "I am right, you are wrong". However, this doesn't strengthen your argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The fact is that he would have overextended, soviet union or no. You cannot defend most of europe and africa with only 8 million men. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This simply doesn't reflect reality. The German garrison commitments in Europe (with the exception of France, Italy and Norway) were utterly insignificant when compared with the majority of the Wehrmact fighting in the Soviet Union. Certainly the back of the Wehrmact was broken in the East, not in its occuptaional duties in Europe (which were miniscule by comparison).

You have provided absolutely no information at all that the occupation of Europe would have provided any problem to the Wehrmact, especially with the edition of the three million men of the Ostheer which would have occured had not the invasion of the USSR occured. Certainly the garrisoning of European countries would not have been anywhere near enough to "over-extend" the Germans, that is pure fantasy.

Blutarski2004
03-03-2005, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
The political chaos that paralysed the democracies during the Great Depression was countered by the facist dictatorships who were much better able to manipulate their populations and engender an enthusaism for war/conquest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


.... An excellent and often overlooked point! As an example, in the years between the end of WW1 and the beginning of WW2, France had been averaging a change of government leadership every 10 months or so. What political chaos must have reigned in Paris.

Blutarski2004
03-03-2005, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Certainly the garrisoning of European countries would not have been anywhere near enough to "over-extend" the Germans, that is pure fantasy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Thjat was precisely what occurred. On the date of commencement of the invasion of the Soviet Union, German forces were occupying Poland, France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece, and were actively campaigning in North Africa. Hardly a case of "over-extension" at that point in time.

If there was any "tipping point" with respect to German strategic over-extension, it was Hitler's unneccesary declaration of war against the US in Dec 1941 - not only because of the entry of US armed forces, but also for the intervention of the vast and secure US industrial infrastructure on behalf of the allies. One of the reasons why the USSR was able to field such huge field armies was that the immense quantities of lend-lease aid delivered from mid 1942 onward permitted them to draw on population resources which otherwise would necessarily have been committed to domestic industrial labor. If I remember the figures correctly, just in steel alone, the US shipped sufficient tonnage to build 70,000 T34's.

Chuck_Older
03-03-2005, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shasmir:

your right, we dont need to eat your crapy burgers and watch your bad movies, so they will finally go bankrupt and europe will remain their highculture way of living. but you know humans tend to enjoy a lazy way of life, fast food, fast movies, fast music, fast love (one night stand). it feels like europe will give under for the fast culture. and the movie U-571 about an amarican sub doing the key-part of the war when it actualy was the brits is just under all critics! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, firstly, I am interested in knowing if Europeans expect a History Lesson at a Hollywood film. I'm not joking, I read things like this all the time, as if they are surprised that Hollywood embellished or outright changed something. U-571...was not a very good film. Accurate or not, it was simply fantasy. Entertainment, or an attempt at it.

What we need to bear in mind is that people make these movies, people who feel that are making Art. They want to put their own personal mark on the Film. They have their own ideas about plot, pacing, dialogue, etc., and the thing that escapes a lot of folks is also, that most of the world doesn't know the difference between the movie and the real History. And if they did, they wouldn't go to the Cinema to learn what they should read in a book done by a Historian.

You should expect entertainment in the movie theatre, not a History lesson. Even Petersen's much acclaimed 'Das Boot' (A fine, fine film) was not a true story- it blended two different ones.

Movies like 'Saving Private Ryan' get a lot of criticism..."This wasn't accurate, that wasn't accurate"...overall, the film was a sterling example of film making, the acting was tremendous, and the cinematography made you feel like you were there. The visual and aural impact of the film was staggering...but folks want to say "P-51 didn't do..." "Wrong rifle was..." "They never would do..."

The film, although very much kept in an accurate Historical setting, wasn't supposed to be a documentary, although they surpassed most documentaries in accuracy at the time. It was an anti-war film, much like Das Boot...not a treatise of how to recreate WWII with actors. They did an excellent job. That was 'Hollywood' too(all US films are thought to come from there, anyway, why make the distinction? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

Bremspropeller
03-03-2005, 03:13 PM
ElAurens takes the point:

the Luftwaffe was a brilliant power as long as it was used in tactical engagements - the lack of strategical a/c was one of the reasons for Germany's defeat (beginning with BoB).

Germany's armed forces were built up for a war with a moving battle-line, not for sustained battle-actions or even defence.

blakduk
03-03-2005, 03:14 PM
This post is degenerating into a pointless 'mines better than yours' argument. I cant wait for someone to mention 'cultural imperialism'. There were heroes and villains on both sides, sometime the heroes committed villainous deeds and sometimes the villains were heroic. Some of the aircraft were better than others in certain conditions, other times aces were grounded due to dysentry or lack of fuel. War is a grand gamble with countless variables and probabilities which is why it should be avoided if at all possible- after every football game pubs are filled with arguments about 'what if?', and that is about an event that lasts a few hours, has referees and involves less than 50 men (who should be unarmed).
Most importantly this forum is about a GAME! A great quote i heard recently was from a gentleman called Keith Miller, a mosquito pilot in WW2. He was also an international cricket player for Australia after the war (for those of you who dont know what cricket is, it will take a whole different forum to explain this legacy from the British empire).
He was asked by an interviewer how he coped with the pressure of international sport- he apparently looked the journalist directly back in his eyes and said 'Pressure! What ****ing pressure? Cricket's a game, pressure is having a Messershmidt up your ****!'

ElAurens
03-03-2005, 03:54 PM
Thank you Bremspropeller.

I have respect for the German WW2 fighter aircraft, despite their very narrow focus. They were excellent when used for their original purpose, and still good when pressed into roles for which they were really not intended. ( And even though I am terrible in them in the game...)

The Japanese ground and air arms shared a similar, but even more extreme, reliance on tactical maneuver and attack. And it cost them dearly.

Also...

Your sig picture captures the spirit of the fighter aircraft as well or better than any image of an actual aircraft.

S!

ClnlSandersLite
03-03-2005, 08:22 PM
Luftwaffe_109: You contridict yourself, apparently know nothing of military history, hedge arguments, call for proof while not presenting a single shred of evidence yourself, don't know the meaning of the words strategic or expeditionary, and you somehow confuse the vermacht with the kriegsmarine, luftwaffe, and government. All of these indicate that you are in fact a moron. Examples below.

Contridiction:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>French did not take more of a strategic initiative is compltely irrelevent.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>..doctrine of Blitzkrieg was very effective, yes. This partially explains why they were the Wehrmact was so effective... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Military history:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is little data to support any correlation between a strategic defensive posture and a better casualty exchange rate in Europe during WWII - actually, the data seem to suggest the opposite. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This simple fact is that in EVERY WAR MAN HAS EVER FOUGHT the defenders have always had improved attrition rates. Had you known your strategic war planning even in the slightest, you would know that the ONLY reason to go on the defensive is for this reason. If your attrition is better on the offense, there would be no reason ever to do anything even remotely defensive. It should also be noted that by defensive, I don't mean sitting in forts necessarilly. Fighting delaying actions, ambushes, preparing massive counterattacks for assaults that you know will happen, etc are all defensive actions as well.

hedge arguments:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> No, it had more men. This is not power. France was fully prepared to fight ww1 all over again.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It had more men, more artillery pieces and more tanks. It also had heavier tanks and an impressive series of fortifications along the entire length of its French-German border. This is certainly strength. That the French did not take more of a strategic initiative is compltely irrelevent, that is a matter of doctrine, not strength.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You completely ignore the fact that french tactical and strategic doctrine was on par with the **** they had in world war 1 and the political turmoil that was going on in france. Therefore, you say, "FRANCE WAS AWESOME" in order to make your side look all the greater when it emerged victorious.

call for proof while not presenting a single shred of evidence yourself:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can only continue to stress that the Wehrmact was anything but prepared for war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>especially with the edition of the three million men of the Ostheer which would have occured had not the invasion of the USSR occured. Certainly the garrisoning of European countries would not have been anywhere near enough to "over-extend" the Germans, that is pure fantasy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You have provided absolutely no information at all that the occupation of Europe would have provided any problem to the Wehrmact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have done nothing to prove that those 3 million would not have been fighting somewhere else. That was the point of this argument:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Germany certainly was overstreatched, and the reason for that was its massive war with the Soviet Union.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, the reason for that was the power hungry imperialist in charge. He wanted the world and even if he had of left the soviet union alone for awhile, he would have started attacking other places. The fact is that he would have overextended, soviet union or no. You cannot defend most of europe and africa with only 8 million men. You'll eventually get stretched too thin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

don't know the meaning of the word strategic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>German tactical doctrine of Blitzkrieg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tactical: Command of an engagement and or tactical unit in the field. A SQUAD DOES NOT BLITZKRIEG.
Strategic: Command of a BATTLE, campaign, or war wich is composed of engagements and or strategic elements such as spies. A DIVISION/TASK FORCE/ARMY GROUP BLITZKRIEGS.

Expiditionary force:
The british had 394,165 men in France with 237,319 assigned to front-line service. Tank strength had grown to a two-battalion infantry tank brigade (100 tanks) and two cavalry light tank brigades (200 light tanks).

Between 27th May and 4th June, 1940, a total of 693 ships (39 Destroyers, 36 Minesweepers, 77 trawlers, 26 Yachts and a variety of other small craft) brought back 338,226 people back to Britain.

This is an 85% survival rate coming from a realitively small force.


confuse the vermacht with the kriegsmarine, luftwaffe, and government:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can only continue to stress that the Wehrmact was anything but prepared for war. For example, they lacked any heavy or strategic bombers, they lacked an effective navy to challenge the British, they were still using numerous obsoltete tanks, and they did not have an economy read for war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think I've wasted enough of my cockpit time on you.

Luftwaffe_109
03-03-2005, 11:59 PM
To ClnlSandersLite:

I am going to answer your arguments, despite your blantant unfriendly and childish tone, if only to expose you for the utter fool that you are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Contridiction: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am sorry, but there is no contridiction, at all between saying that the strength of France's military has nothing to do with its tactical or strategic doctrine, on the one hand, and saying that Germany's doctrine of blitzkrieg was a partial reason for the Wehrmact's successes on the other hand.

You are obviously confused. Strength is simply a measure of the number of ones divisions, soldiers, tanks, artillery, etc, etc, etc. It has nothing at all to do with how well their generals use it. Following your warped logic, I would have to claim that Finland, which used its much smaller and weaker military (with very few tanks) so effectivly against the gigantic (with numerous tanks) Soviet one (due to their excellent generals and tactics) in the Winter War, despite the fact that it lost, was more powerful! Utter idiocy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> This simple fact is that in EVERY WAR MAN HAS EVER FOUGHT the defenders have always had improved attrition rates. Had you known your strategic war planning even in the slightest, you would know that the ONLY reason to go on the defensive is for this reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, I see that you have once again dismissed my entire argument supporting my assertion on this point out of hand and instead ignorantly proclaimed "I am right, you are wrong". Secondly, we are talking about WWII, NOT "EVERY WAR MAN HAS EVER FOUGHT" so please keep up. What has happened in previous wars is not relevent. Thirdly, and finally, I can simply repeat that, in WWII, there simply is no statistical basis for the claim that a defending side will always have better casualty exchange rates than an attacking side. In fact, the evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.

Once again, I can only ask you to read my arguments in the previous post which prove this point. You do know how to read, don't you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If your attrition is better on the offense, there would be no reason ever to do anything even remotely defensive. It should also be noted that by defensive, I don't mean sitting in forts necessarilly. Fighting delaying actions, ambushes, preparing massive counterattacks for assaults that you know will happen, etc are all defensive actions as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is all quite irrelevent and hypothetical frankly, seeing as the data suggests otherwise.

Your problem with your logical reasoning is easily identified. You seem to suggest that a defence must be completely successful, which is certainly not always the case. A defense can often be quite disasterous, as you can be flanked, encircled, cut off, etc, etc. Similarly, an attack need not be a failure or repulsed with costly losses as you seem to mistakenly believe, thus incuring heavy losses. Attacks can also be successful leading to encirclements of the enemy, flank or thrusts into the enemy's lines, etc, etc, etc.

Thus, it is not neccessarily important whether one is on the strategic offense or strategic defense, as you have mistakenly assumed, but how successful you are at it.

And whether you like it or not, in WWII, the majority of nations had better casualty exchange rates while they were on the strategic attack.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You completely ignore the fact that french tactical and strategic doctrine was on par with the **** they had in world war 1 and the political turmoil that was going on in france. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not entirely true nor supported by evidence. France's military doctrine was not I believe much worse than any of the other major powers at the time (save Germany), and was in fact one of the most popular doctrines used elsewhere in the world (eg. Romania used French methods to train its troops, etc). The fact that the Germans had a much better system and frankly revolutionary system of war does not neccessarily mean that France had a poor doctrine by world standards.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> call for proof while not presenting a single shred of evidence yourself:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. Firstly, I have provided ample proof that Germany was unprepared for war in 1939 and had a "shop-window army" as Barnett claims in Hitler's Generals.

Unfourtunately I refuse to repeat what I have already writen, if you want to see my arguments then just read them in my previous posts. Until then, dont bother me with you idiocy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You have done nothing to prove that those 3 million would not have been fighting somewhere else. That was the point of this argument <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
HaHa... what a foolish argument.

Ok, lets get this straight, you say that, had not the Germans indvaded the Soviet Union then they would have exhausted themselves "somewhere else".

Where else? The moon perhaps?? You tactitly admit that occupational duties in Europe would not have affected the Wehrmact one iota yet you are certain that they would have exhauseted themselves anyway????

I'm sorry but there simply wasn't any place where the Wehrmact could have been exhausted, Hitler was already in control of what he needed in Europe.

Then again, if you have any secret documents of German plans to invade "some other place" (god knows where), please let us know. And forget Africa, that theater was a sideshow and never given either enough divisions or supplies. The Wehrmact certainly was not overextended here

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Tactical: Command of an engagement and or tactical unit in the field. A SQUAD DOES NOT BLITZKRIEG. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, try to understand. Blitzkreig is the doctrine (primarily an operational one, not strategic as you have incorrectly claimed) which incorperates the use of tactical medium/light bombers and dive bombers to nullify certain areas on a battlefield (communications and supplies just behind the lines eg. bridges, carpools or tanks, as well as places for breakthroughs), which act in conjunction with panzer units that probe and exploit gaps or weaknesses and then roam into rear lines, with infantry to follow in their wake. This is very much a tactical to operational level strategy, ie. it involves a battle field. The moving around of regiments, divisions and kampfgruppes is operational.

Strategy and Grand strategy are the levels above tactical and operational. They will involve considerations of a more prolonged and long-term, and include things like nullifying production capabilities by air campaigns, invading certain areas for their strategic resources or to deny the enemies theirs (eg. the Soviet Union's push into the Romanian oilfields was a "strategic" decision) and the number and types of tanks to produce (which is more grand strategic, ie it affects the whole war). For example, one could have decided to use, say, the same strategy in Fall Gelb that the Germans used (eg. a thrust through the Ardennes to the coast to cut of British and French forces further north), without using the operational tactic of blitzkrieg. Usually, strategy involves higher than divisions, instead corps, armies and army groups. Divisions and regiments (sometimes corps also), more accurately come under operational level.

So Blitzkreig is not so much a strategic or grand strategic (this involves geo-politcal considerations) doctrine (although certainly it has considerations in these fields).

I guess what I am trying to say is that flanks, encirclements, etc, which are "strategic" are not exclusive by any means to Blitzkrieg, although of course Blitzkreig aims to do this as well. Blitzkrieg aims to rely mainly on the exploitation of weak-points and on speed, and this is often done in the tactical/operational areas (Although not always).

That said, I admit that I should perhaps not have used the word "tactical doctrine" to describe blitzkreig, because it wasn't completely, and this term was an oversight on my part. Blitzkrieg did, however have considerations in all fields including tactical, operation and strategic though less and less in these higher areas).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The british had 394,165 men in France with 237,319 assigned to front-line service. Tank strength had grown to a two-battalion infantry tank brigade (100 tanks) and two cavalry light tank brigades (200 light tanks).

Between 27th May and 4th June, 1940, a total of 693 ships (39 Destroyers, 36 Minesweepers, 77 trawlers, 26 Yachts and a variety of other small craft) brought back 338,226 people back to Britain.

This is an 85% survival rate coming from a realitively small force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know this, so what? It is irrelevent to the fact that the British expeditionary forces in France, Norway and Greece were all defeated. A red herring perhaps?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> confuse the vermacht with the kriegsmarine, luftwaffe, and government: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now this, sir, is where you have proved yourself to be a complete fool, and it isn't a clumsy oversight like my partially incorrect (or more accurately, incomplete) use of the word "tactical" but instead a full blown error repeated numerous times in your post and one of the central points which you claimed "show I know nothing about military history". How embrassing, then, to see that it is you who is mistaken and thus the fool.


The Wehrmact, or German Armed Forces, comprised of the following areas:

Heer (army), Luftwaffe (air force) and Kriegsmarine (Navy).

Did you not know that the German navy and air force where part of the Wehrmact?? Well that certainly proves you know nothing about this period of war at all.

As to the considerations of economy and production, while I realise that the Wehrmact did not control these fields, it still effects the Wehrmacts preparedness for war. How can you possibly argue that a nations capacity for, say, building tanks is irrelevent to a militaries preparedness for war (or at least, to a protracted war, which is what the Germans found themselves in)?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think I've wasted enough of my cockpit time on you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not nearly as much time as I have taken responding to you idiotic assertions. Oh, and feel free to have the last word in our argument, I have no intention of dealing with your uninformed "trolling" (as one of the other people described your conduct) any longer.

Luftwaffe_109
03-04-2005, 12:22 AM
deleted post

HansKnappstick
03-04-2005, 02:34 AM
The losses for Nazi Germany were tremendously high. It lost 100%. It simply ceased to exist after the war.

HansKnappstick
03-04-2005, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the most important is they both ignored the 1st rule of warfare in the modern era...
DON'T INVADE RUSSIA. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Modern? I honestly can't think of any euopean invasion of russia that ended sucessfully. Russia's terrain and climate is just too **** harsh. Maybe eskimos could handel it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Poles in 1580s, in 1609 and in 1632-4 could handle this quite well also.

Bremspropeller
03-04-2005, 06:37 AM
S!

Well that's a Peregrine Falcon - fastest animal on our planet - it can exceed speeds of 200mph without any problems (in a dive of course) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

A lovely "B&Z"-bird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The190Flyer
03-04-2005, 07:09 AM
German losses low??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
German losses were not low, at the end of the war there were only old men and Hitler youth to fight, sure there were still some soldiers out there, but by 1944-45 they didn't have the numbers, they were overrun by the U.S. and Russia, two of the biggest populating countries at the time. Germany just couldnt go on fighting, they did and we all saw the result of that.

Blutarski2004
03-04-2005, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
ElAurens takes the point:

the Luftwaffe was a brilliant power as long as it was used in tactical engagements - the lack of strategical a/c was one of the reasons for Germany's defeat (beginning with BoB).

Germany's armed forces were built up for a war with a moving battle-line, not for sustained battle-actions or even defence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The irony is that Germany, with its Zeppelin and Gotha bombing campaigns against English cities, basically invented strategic bombing in WW1.

Blutarski2004
03-04-2005, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
S!

Well that's a Peregrine Falcon - fastest animal on our planet - it can exceed speeds of 200mph without any problems (in a dive of course) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

A lovely "B&Z"-bird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... What!? No compressibility problems?

Blutarski2004
03-04-2005, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
This simple fact is that in EVERY WAR MAN HAS EVER FOUGHT the defenders have always had improved attrition rates. Had you known your strategic war planning even in the slightest, you would know that the ONLY reason to go on the defensive is for this reason.

==> Not altogether true - It is not the only reason. Logistical considerations play an important part as well. Preservation of troops is a decision; lack of logistical capability to support offensive action is a condition often beyond a commander's control.


If your attrition is better on the offense, there would be no reason ever to do anything even remotely defensive. It should also be noted that by defensive, I don't mean sitting in forts necessarilly. Fighting delaying actions, ambushes, preparing massive counterattacks for assaults that you know will happen, etc are all defensive actions as well.

==> Look at the casualty (KIA WIA & Captured) rates of the German March 1918 Amiens offensive, or that of the 1917 Austro-German Caporetto offensive. In both cases, the defender suffered badly when numbers of captured troops are put into the equation.


No, it had more men. This is not power. France was fully prepared to fight ww1 all over again.
You completely ignore the fact that french tactical and strategic doctrine was on par with the **** they had in world war 1 and the political turmoil that was going on in france. Therefore, you say, "FRANCE WAS AWESOME" in order to make your side look all the greater when it emerged victorious.

==> Actually, both Germany and France fought WW1 all over again, just from their own perspectives. Strategically, Germany repeated its thrust through Belgium and Luxembourg, this time avoiding the Maginot line instead of the previous chain of French fortress cities. France and England fought a mobile battle on their left flank, just as in WW1. In terms of tectical doctrine, Germany simply employed an enhanced version of their WW1 combined arms storm tactics. Even the tactical air/ground support dated back to Germany's later WW1 Schlachttaffels". There are some excellent books on this evolution from WW1 Storm tactics to WW2 Blitzkrieg, btw.

As gor German preparedness for war in 1940. The Wehrmacht was quite upset with Hitler for initiating hostilities in 1939. The German pre-WW2 rearmament program was not scheduled to be completed for several years. That's why you will find a number of German panzer divisions committed to the French campaign going into the field completely equipped with Czech tanks. These Czech tanks actually remained in use in the opening phases of Barbarossa. Germany was good to go doctrinally, but not equipment-wise; France could probably be seen the other way round.


You have done nothing to prove that those 3 million would not have been fighting somewhere else.

==> I've discussed Germany's ultimate strategic over-extension in a previous post. In a sense, both you and Lufty are correct. On one hand, Germany's occupation of Western Europe in no way hindered their offensive against the USSR. On the other hand, Hitler himself found a way to over-extend his resources when he invited the US into the war by needlessly declaring war against them immediately after Pearl Harbor. He was under no obligation to Japan to do so. That big chicken came home to roost startin in 1943.


Germany certainly was overstreatched, and the reason for that was its massive war with the Soviet Union.

==> A questions remains open as to whether the USSR would have been able to defeat Germany without the huge amount of economic lend-lease support provided by the western allies. I don't actually know the answer myself.


Expiditionary force:
The british had 394,165 men in France with 237,319 assigned to front-line service. Tank strength had grown to a two-battalion infantry tank brigade (100 tanks) and two cavalry light tank brigades (200 light tanks).

Between 27th May and 4th June, 1940, a total of 693 ships (39 Destroyers, 36 Minesweepers, 77 trawlers, 26 Yachts and a variety of other small craft) brought back 338,226 people back to Britain.

This is an 85% survival rate coming from a realitively small force.

==> The loss of fifteen percent in personnel by an army in a single one month campaign is quite substantial indeed. Furthermore, the force which made it back to England was utterly rbereft of all its equipment, materiel, and supplies; many of the men returned without even their rifles.