PDA

View Full Version : Man that's powerful stuff



Gerd_Schopfel
10-15-2004, 02:49 PM
Here is an excerpt from a valid source:

>" U-2511 left the Bay of Danzig on 30 January, 1945, where she completed the usual training as well as many trials with the new equipment. She headed back to the shipyard so that some remaining work on the boat could be completed. On 16 March, U-2511 left Kiel as part of a Front-flottilla, the first Type XXI U-boat to make her maiden voyage. A few days later, she reached the base at Horten in Norway. There the boat underwent deep diving trials. On 18 April, U-2511 set out for Bergen, arriving on 21 April.

On the evening of 30 April, coinciding with Hitler's death in Berlin, U-2511 set out from Bergen for her first and last patrol. The crew served under very experienced U-boat officers like Korvkpt. Adalbert Schnee (Oak Leaves), the former very successful commander of U-201 and afterward for two years one of D¶nitz's closest staff members. On board was also one of those rare LI's who had received the Knights Cross, Korvkpt. (Ing) Gerd Suhren, Teddy Suhren's brother.

The destination for that patrol was to be the Caribbean, where the boat would be tested under all conditions. On 1 May, U-2511 made first enemy contact. Three days later, on 4 May, Adalbert Schnee received the cease-fire order. A few hours later U-2511 made contact with the British cruiser HMS Norfolk among some other British warships. The boat approached to within 500 meters of the British warship without any sonar contact from the enemy destroyers.

Schnee had here the opportunity to make an absolutely deadly attack against the cruiser, but left the scene without attacking and headed back to base. U-2511 reached Bergen on 5 May, 1945. There the commander spoke with officers of the HMS Norfolk a few days later, and they found it unbelievable that U-2511 was able to get so close without any sonar contact.< "

Wow, talk about the devastation that one XIII could have inflicted!

RedTerex
10-15-2004, 03:36 PM
Type XXI's were typicaly...too late the Hero !

This is just as well from the British persective, can you imagine how the course of the war would have altered if these Type XXI's had come about say 2 years earlier. I would now be living in Birminghamheim in Englanden LOL.

Type XXI's could travel faster under water than they could on the surface..this has always fascinated me...streamlined dynamics or what LOL.

Anyway yeah man good story. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Silkensus
10-15-2004, 04:28 PM
Well,like most great projects the Germany HQ failed too support the right projects!
There are so many faults made that could change the war a litle or more!
Like the Luftwaffe 4-engine bombers were never really accepted in the luftwaffe only some types were built(like the FW 200 condor)
The M109 proved his design but was outdated instead the FW190 should had replaced all the ME109,it was just on the edge off improvement with the FW190 they could do so much more like the FW190-D9 versions!

With the army we have the same story,why putting so much ressource in those super heavy tanks->Tiger 1,Tiger 2 and the E100 or the Maus when they had the best allround tank the Panther!!

In the kreigsmarine they spend so much ressourses on big batlleships altought it would take so much more years too match the UK-marine!!
While they had a great solution below the surface!
So thats why those new types of U-boats failed too come earlyer in the war,they already made the first steps before the war started but HQ cancelled these!
Altought some smart guys did research on their own,think at the HORTEN brother with there flying wing(HO229)!http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/horten_nurflugels.html
In the USA they fly now with B2 that is a copy of their plane!

So can we say that the war is lost because the German HQ spend there money wrong???
Well for a part I can say it thats true!
But like all great empires they will fall,its always a matter of time!

But comeing back if they had those subs 2 years earlyer the UK would have been unreacheble for anything that was avaible,if they had them in great numbers!

Greets Silk

Erich Hartmann
10-15-2004, 04:37 PM
Man, what does the Germans have? Why does they always are able to come up with such advance things that are far superior to their enemys?

I hope we are able to do that in the game. Awsome!!

Great story. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

E.Thang
10-15-2004, 05:57 PM
Against Donitz plea's, Hitler funnelled resources into the construction of existing type VII's and type IX's. Instead of developing the XXI's. One in a long line of bone head decisions that he made.

Farkitt_
10-15-2004, 08:52 PM
Actually, that makes alot of sense, Putting recources into tried and tested models rather than something that if put to you in the 1940's would sound "too good to be true"

It is a very out of character decision for hitler. Although, it's easy to say how bad he was. Building Battleships was just daft though. the British Navy was not only ahead in the area of hardware, but also in centuries of tactics and lessons learned, you can't just build that.

As for the Messersmitt Bf-109, it was not outdated, and it was a competetive fighter performance wise, right untill the end of the war, adn at the end of the war, Fw 190's were not as usefull (except D-9's) because of thier poor performance at high altitude where the bombers were. Hitlers main Luftwaffe mistakes were Trying to develope the Me 262 as a bomber, and Switching from attacking RAF airfields to London in September 1940.

hauitsme
10-15-2004, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...Hitlers main Luftwaffe mistakes were Trying to develope the Me 262 as a bomber, and Switching from attacking RAF airfields to London in September 1940... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly the same things I argued with someone about in another thread. Just those two things, out of dozens of 'boneheaded' errors he made would have changed the whole war!! Thank You Adolf. Glad you did that!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/antlers2.gif

Silkensus
10-16-2004, 08:01 AM
Weel the M109 wasn't totaly outdated but it was running on the edge of its potentional!
The FW190 was a far more better plane that had much more potentional and could take much more damage.
But the ME109 with a good pilot who kno his plane and can become 1 with it is a match for the technically better P51 fighter!
Offcourse the first FW190 versions were poor in high altitude but Kurt Tank already made drawings and plans long time before too make a high altidute fighter!
Only the problem was that he wasn't supported as good by the Nazi's(political leaders) like Messersmith!!
And remember the ME262 was the second jet plane built in germany heinkel was the first but they also had too abonden their project in favor for messersmith!!

But these are things that just happend,just because we are humans and have our own thinking,at that moment they could think they were doing the right thing!

I'm not saying they lose the war with thi or that this are just small mistakes in the whole history off W.W 2 like we see it now!!

Its altought nice too see evry1 thoughts about it because it always interesting too figure out how and why it could be a differents if they did this or that!

So every1 say your thoughts

Greets Silk
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Farkitt_:
Actually, that makes alot of sense, Putting recources into tried and tested models rather than something that if put to you in the 1940's would sound "too good to be true"

It is a very out of character decision for hitler. Although, it's easy to say how bad he was. Building Battleships was just daft though. the British Navy was not only ahead in the area of hardware, but also in centuries of tactics and lessons learned, you can't just build that.

As for the Messersmitt Bf-109, it was not outdated, and it was a competetive fighter performance wise, right untill the end of the war, adn at the end of the war, Fw 190's were not as usefull (except D-9's) because of thier poor performance at high altitude where the bombers were. Hitlers main Luftwaffe mistakes were Trying to develope the Me 262 as a bomber, and Switching from attacking RAF airfields to London in September 1940. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Farkitt_
10-16-2004, 08:22 AM
thats right, the Bf-109 was at the edge of its potentail. But so were all Propeller driven aircraft, WW2 propelled us into the Jet age, and Props soon became outdated. Some designs managed to get a little better than late war fighters, but they were at the end of the rope.

sav112
10-16-2004, 08:41 AM
Sorry just got SHII where I believe this sub is in the last day of the war mission, so it was hard to detect good I thought after I had attacked with it , it was just really poor AI that could not find me. I was diving under them at points LOL. I know SHII is not the dog€s bollocks but it would have been better if a convoy after being hit and not able to find the target to just drop some depth charges to scare the stuffing out of US.


I€m going to start a campaign so that should be better fun.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

finchOU
10-16-2004, 04:51 PM
I think some of Nazi Germany's shortcomes with the Me-109, FW-190 was range.....they could not stay up long....and the this was one of the several factors in the Luf. losing the Battle of Britian....109's escorting bombers only had enough fuel for like ten-twenty extra minutes, they could not properly escort in that manner.....then when the allies started bombing Germany, the p-51's(haveing great range) could leave escort duty and attack(straff) targets on the ground (aka not letting Germany breath! and weaking its support structure)....by the time D-day hit the Luftwaffe was pretty much non exsistant and the air war was pretty much over for them!

Farkitt_
10-16-2004, 08:34 PM
Correction Finch.

The Air was was pretty much over as soon as the americans joined in IN FORCE (Man it hurts an englishman to say that!) But the tide was turned by the british victory in The BoB. The Luftwaffe was still a force in Mid 1944, if you don't believe me, ask any bomber crewman of the ETO for those last few months.

Silkensus
10-17-2004, 05:36 AM
Well if I can give you the extra feeling that the british did made the differents in the airwar!
That P51 only could be so good fighter because the UK ordered this plane,it was actualy build because UK-HQ asked for such fighter.
But the US version wasn't such great plane after implanting the Britsh Merlin(or was it Griffin) engine the P51 was such a differnt plane,it could now fight with the great ME109 and FW190!
So believe me that the UK fighters were verry great plane the spitfire was handmade!
And then i'm not talking about the langcaster or moscitto!!!

Greets Silk

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Farkitt_:
Correction Finch.

The Air was was pretty much over as soon as the americans joined in IN FORCE (Man it hurts an englishman to say that!) But the tide was turned by the british victory in The BoB. The Luftwaffe was still a force in Mid 1944, if you don't believe me, ask any bomber crewman of the ETO for those last few months. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SailorSteve
10-17-2004, 11:52 AM
It was the Merlin, and it did indeed give the Mustang the high-altitude performance it needed to become the great bomber escort it was. And it was originally a British request for additional P-40s that led to North American Aviation saying they could build a better plane if given the chance, which Fighter Command did.

The orignal Allison-engined Mustang was a good enough plane that the RAF used it in the ground-attack role right up to the end of the war, and had only good things to say about it.

Soldiers, sailors, pilots, ships, planes-the training and technology were observed and updated constantly throughout the war, so it's really not accurate to say that anybody's anything was very much better than anybody else's in a given time-frame. If America contributed anything more than anybody else it was in the area of manufacturing capacity-our factories weren't being bombed every day, and we had a huge resource base to work from. Did you know that during the war the U.S. built 141 aircraft carriers? Next was Britain with 14. The only area in which Germany outbuilt anybody was, yep, submarines (1141 U-boats built, second was the U.S. with a paltry 203).

Silkensus
10-17-2004, 02:39 PM
Good point SailorSteve!

And I kno now it was the Merlin engine the griffin was first devoleped but came in 1942 actualy in big production!
I have too do some more research on it on how the story is!
But both engines were devoleped in 1930-1940!!

Greets Silk

finchOU
10-17-2004, 11:42 PM
I should have said that they were not an effective tactical force by D-day as they had been in the past......though still putting up a fight, they were sending up far less veteran pilots and more barely trained ones due to losses. I think Hitlers descision to invade Russia was the turn of the air war...spread too thin....late developement of Me-262....yada yada.......so many errors so little time in 20/20 hindsite...and its all debatable

mlody111
10-18-2004, 12:18 AM
I agree it was alot of the little things that effected alot, but there wern't as many as we think.

Hitler had to invade russia sooner or later... russian would of invaded him a couple of months later.

Why would the germans want to develop a better sub when it was the golden times for the kreigsmarine and the VII boats? Why the snorkle when the subs were not being attacked by planes until they lost air superiority?
Hitler was stupid, but he wasnt a fortune teller either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Switching from attacking RAF airfields to London in September 1940 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Biggest mistake ever! He should of kept pounding on England at the air fields and then crossed the channel with major air superiority and uboats destroying the convoys... A disaster for the British forces. After all the british left most of their tanks/equipment at Dunkirk. Im not supporting Hitler... Just my expression of a terrible judgment made by Hitler.

I also think that the Kreigsmarine was not fully supported because Georing didnt want them taking attention away from the Luftwafe.

Yet another thing, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The battleships were not useless... They scored major hits against convoys in various places. They sunk a huge amount of shipping.

Silkensus
10-18-2004, 11:35 AM
They never were useless,but their fame became their death!
Take the Bismarck its the best excample that there is!
It hadden't prove anything,offcourse it was a great battleship,and already the UK saw it has their biggest threat on sea!!
So the hunter became the hunted!
Instead they could use all those crew and ressources on even more subs!
But thats my tought on how too spend ressources!For my view the Bismarck is something that just makes it all,she's a beauty!
So at the end it isn't loss,something that writes history we never can see as a mistake!!
Its from those story that keeps us thinking why and for what those things happen!

Greets Silk
Yet another thing, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The battleships were not useless... They scored major hits against convoys in various places. They sunk a huge amount of shipping.[/QUOTE]

Gerd_Schopfel
10-18-2004, 01:53 PM
The reason The Third Reich lost WWII or lost the war so "quickly" is mainly because of two things:

1) Hitler and his inner circle were too confident about their military and tactics. In other words, they did not realize that by invading Poland they were literally asking the whole world to declare war on them. For example, Hitler never thought that his military would fight the Americans or have to invade England!...Thus he never planned for it until it was too late. Anyways, Hitler did not realize that his military would have to take on the rest of the world's military strenght. When Hitler did finally realize that, it was too late.

2) The Ultra code desiphered by the Allies. I mean, that was like fighting a war were you knew just about your enemies every move, strengh and location. Don't forget that the Allies knew the code of every German military branch. There is no doubt that without the Ultra desiphered, the war against Germany would have lasted longer.

Lucky us...because if the war had dragged on for another few years, the USA would have been nucking the Hell outta Europe and that would have resulted in major radiation contamination around the globe! Perhaps even the end of life as we would have known it.

macker33
10-19-2004, 01:44 AM
I dont think the ultra code cost the germans anything,sure it was handy for the allies but nothing more,the germans would have lost anyway.

The germans lost because they left it too long to invade russia and they doubley lost by declaring war on america.They couldnt have done anything from that point on to win the war expect be the first to develop the atomic bomb(bye bye russia).

Gerd_Schopfel
10-19-2004, 07:35 AM
macker33 wrote:
"I dont think the ultra code cost the germans anything,sure it was handy for the allies but nothing more..."
=======

First of all, you obviously do not read any WWII literature indepth, specially the huge impact the Ultra breakthrough had on the U-boats. The Ultra code ended up bringing the Germans to their knees much quicker than would have otherwise. And by the way, the Americans were going to fight the Germans even if Hitler did not declare war on America. As a matter of fact, the U-boats and American destroyers were already fighting eachother in the Battle of the Atlantic even before Hitler declared war on America. So you see, America had already made up their minds to destroy the Third Reich (wise choice). In addition, the Germans were many many years from even coming close to develop a nuclear bomb. So get your facts straight by opening up the books macker33 !

Good visibility is half the battle
- U-boat crew motto

Philipscdrw
10-19-2004, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silkensus:
Like the Luftwaffe 4-engine bombers were never really accepted in the luftwaffe only some types were built(like the FW 200 condor) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw-200 is a reconnaissance and anti-ship aircraft. It was too fragile for use over land. The other German 4-engine bombers were handicapped by political insistence that they must be dive bombers. Also the He-177 had 2 engines driving each propellor, which made it catch fire a lot. It was Hitler and Goering who rejected the 4-engine bombers, but they didn't expect to fight that sort of war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Altought some smart guys did research on their own,think at the HORTEN brother with there flying wing(HO229! In the USA they fly now with B2 that is a copy of their plane! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Americans had flying wings before the Horten brothers. Northrop started research on flying wings in 1923 and he flew a pure flying wing design in 1940:
http://www.pilotfriend.com/century-of-flight/Aviation%20history/jet%20age/flying%20wing%20images2/2x.jpg
He went on to build the XB-35, the B-49, and the B-2 stealth aircraft.

Here's a website with the history of Northrop. (http://www.pilotfriend.com/century-of-flight/Aviation%20history/jet%20age/Northrop%20wing1.htm)

Silkensus
10-19-2004, 11:00 AM
Thx for correcting me on this one.
Also the Horten brothers were also at the same time doing their research with flying wings!
Except they were using gliders at that point!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Altought some smart guys did research on their own,think at the HORTEN brother with there flying wing(HO229! In the USA they fly now with B2 that is a copy of their plane! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Americans had flying wings before the Horten brothers. Northrop started research on flying wings in 1923 and he flew a pure flying wing design in 1940:
http://www.pilotfriend.com/century-of-flight/Aviation%20history/jet%20age/flying%20wing%20images2/2x.jpg
He went on to build the XB-35, the B-49, and the B-2 stealth aircraft.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/century-of-flight/Aviation%20history/jet%20age/Northrop%20wing1.htm[/QUOTE]

Philipscdrw
10-19-2004, 12:33 PM
Northrop started first though! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Silkensus
10-20-2004, 03:40 AM
Yes they were first did the research!
And for the Heinkel 177 it was having a failure because they indeed wanted a dive bomber http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif????
I never saw such big dive bomber altought,what were they thinking!!!!
HE277 would replace the HE177 as a 4 engine bomber but not combined!!!!
But like most stuff the WAR didn't last long enough or did it just started too early http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif???????

Well lucky for us it started too early so that it didn't took too long??!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Greets Silk

Silkensus
10-20-2004, 03:42 AM
I found a good site but its in dutch!
But there are aloot off picture so we can all go and look there!!

http://users.skynet.be/milvlieg/index.htm

macker33
10-21-2004, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off i learned to read by reading my dads WWII books,i'm right more often than i'm wrong and i know a hell of a lot about WWII.More than most people.

Maybe if the allies hadnt got the enigma code then the d-day and torch(and from there the invasion of italy)landings wouldnt have taken place and for that reason the ultra code was important,

But it can be argued that the russians would have beat the germans without the help of the other allies.
The germans did have to divert massive resources to the west that could have been used on the east front and the western allies did greatly damage german manufactoring output but compared to the east front the war in the west was a sideshow.

Just look at the casulty reports from the war and you will see the war in the east absolutely dwarved the war in the west.

By the end of operation typhoon blitzkreig was defeated,it was a defeated concept,from moskow on the germans couldnt have won.The russians understood and became experts in strength in depth,the front line was too big to defend properly and the russians had the manpower to strike whereever they wanted,codes or no codes.

Silkensus
10-21-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macker33:

First off i learned to read by reading my dads WWII books,i'm right more often than i'm wrong and i know a hell of a lot about WWII.More than most people.

Maybe if the allies hadnt got the enigma code then the d-day and torch(and from there the invasion of italy)landings wouldnt have taken place and for that reason the ultra code was important,

But it can be argued that the russians would have beat the germans without the help of the other allies.
The germans did have to divert massive resources to the west that could have been used on the east front and the western allies did greatly damage german manufactoring output but compared to the east front the war in the west was a sideshow.

Just look at the casulty reports from the war and you will see the war in the east absolutely dwarved the war in the west.

By the end of operation typhoon blitzkreig was defeated,it was a defeated concept,from moskow on the germans couldnt have won.The russians understood and became experts in strength in depth,the front line was too big to defend properly and the russians had the manpower to strike whereever they wanted,codes or no codes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I agree,I sometimes wonder if the Allies(USA,UK,...)had too land on Normandy because they kno the USSR was moving in?????
I know the plans for D-day were in devolepment long before the Battle off Stalingrad took his change in USSR favor!!
But I sometimes think when I read books the whole invasion was ruched????Is it because they feared the USSR!!

But the USSR would surely defeated Germany,the front line was just too big and the Panther wasn't coming fast enough too replace the losses against the T34.
I wonder would the USA now could take the USSR and control it????

Greets Silk

macker33
10-25-2004, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silkensus:
I wonder would the USA now could take the USSR and control it????
Greets Silk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean would the western allies have defeated russia had the allies started on each other after germanys defeat or who would have won a nnon nuclear war between NATO and the warsaw pact?
If there was a war right now i would have to give nato the vote,

The warsaw pact had the bigger army but NATO had the bigger navy and airforce.

Silkensus
10-26-2004, 05:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silkensus:
I wonder would the USA now could take the USSR and control it????
Greets Silk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean would the western allies have defeated russia had the allies started on each other after germanys defeat or who would have won a nnon nuclear war between NATO and the warsaw pact?
If there was a war right now i would have to give nato the vote,

The warsaw pact had the bigger army but NATO had the bigger navy and airforce.[/QUOTE]

In the great days,when both Forces were on their greatest numbers off stuff the warsaw had also the biggest airforce but they relayed more on force then on skills!
So technically the NAVO was better!
When I asked if its possible in these days for USA too take the USSR ,when every1 can say his own toughts, to hold it and control it!
If we see in Iraq we kno how hard it is too just keep control,people don't listen anymore they have so much communication,TV his casting so much crapp on TV what do we can believe??
1 person can change whole the idea off an nation just by TV!
Look at the 11 sept. a painfull day for evry1,but still you see how such dissasters are used in favor of some persons!
Every1 is fighting against terrorist these days even in Belgium.

Ok This is nothing too do with the topic anymore!!
I just wanted too say,its verry hard too be a leader of some nation when you aren't one off the people from that nation!
We are opening our borders in Europe but the differents are getting bigger and bigger!

Greets Silk

TASKFORCE1x1
10-26-2004, 03:41 PM
Overconfidence.

Bismark by itself in the open sea.
Enigma captured unknowingly.
Building Uboats at beginning of the war low priority.

We all should learn from history's mistakes.
This way we can survive. I wonder if this dynamic campaign will have an accurate inventory of what ships were sunk and what ships should be launched at correct dates. ( I think it will)

Jose.MaC
10-26-2004, 04:26 PM
Anyway, NATO's armies are more sensible to the losses, while Warsaw Pact doctrine gives more room to loose their own people.

Toe to toe, would be a hell. Imagine an army than can resist as in Stalingrado, or attack as in Normandy. Both of them have different doctrine, wich have been proved good in some situations, so-so in other ocasions and sometimes, plainly wrong.

History provides interesting lessons, as when after the defeat in the Yom Kippur war, the Egiptian army almost changed the course of the war. Ultimately, air superiority of Israel avoided that.

In an european war, where the logistical expertise of USA would be countered by USSR's raw material production, the lack of results would lead to a nuclear war.

Is the abilty to learn fast what can save you, not only to know history.

macker33
10-29-2004, 06:14 AM
I think any discussion of Nato versus the warsaw pact submarines and nuclear weapons should be left out because thats a different ball game than which armed forces would come out on top,

I was big into this in the early eighties so i can only talk about it from an early eighties viewpoint,
One of the big things going around at the time was that europe would have to hold out for at least six weeks,enough time for american reinforcements to cross the atlantic,

Head to head its tough,the russians have argueably the best elite soldiers in the spatznetz,they are trained in bravery where western elite forces are more focused on coordination(think siege rescues etc).

From a military angle Nato had the finer weapons but the warsaw pact had a far more practical concern for battlefield conditions,They were a lot less likely to break down and needed less maintaince,also the russians being the russians there was propably a lot more standardisation,

a difference in the thinking could be summed up in the fact that Nato aircraft needed top facilities to operated to their full potential while warsaw pact aircraft could aporate from grass strips.

If the warsaw pact had decided to attack they would have had the choice of where to attack although anywhere of importance would have been set up by NATO to be a killing ground,also the Nato command structure was better and less centralised,it was nato who invented the internet,
One or two bombs maybe would have taken out the enemys command network,this could not have happaned Nato.

Yugoslavia had the 4th biggest navy in the world(just thought it was worth a mention because a lot of people dont know that),

Its hard to call and it would probably depend on wether Nato could mobalise and meet the threat early on,if the warsaw pact made an early breakthruogh maybe they would have come out on top,

Its also worth remembering that nato were the good guys and the whole east west thig arose because of the soviet refusal to go home after the second world war ended and because of the soviet expansion into hungry and czecoslavakia etc.

I nearly forgot,when you are a kid you believe most things and in the late seventies there was stories of a doomsday bomb,a bomb so powerful that it would crack the world in two,if WWIII ever happened it would be the end of the world.

bertgang
10-29-2004, 08:22 AM
It could have been a nightmare scenario.

Countryes bordering with Warsaw pact were quite hopeless.
A great help from intelligence was the minimum requirement for an effective defence as, if their forces were sriked by a surprise attack...

Hopefully, it never happened.

macker33
10-30-2004, 06:53 PM
The germans seemed to be handy enough,they had the lepard 1 and 2,hot and tow and the grossdeutshland was still together after wwii,

The french had the AMX30 tank,Nato was powerful enough and the defender usually has good tactical and strategic advantages,rivers and logestics would be a nightmare for the warsaw pact,

Its also fairly likely(at the time(that NATO would have had air superiority,you saw what the helicopters did in iraq.