PDA

View Full Version : What was the best army in WWII



John Thomas
06-08-2005, 05:23 PM
I find this interesting to me, if you ahve an opinion please share it, I think that would be good for all us folks,

Praise be JT

Sturmtruppen
06-08-2005, 05:26 PM
the germans were the best trained,and had the best technology,and the best doctrine (blitzkrieg),they lost because they were fightng with half world,not because of their troops.

german generals were the best,Erwin Rommel,Heinz Guderian,etc.


my point is for german army.

Bladensburg
06-08-2005, 05:34 PM
Do you mean best national army or best individual army?

For national army it would probably be between the huge man and material power of the Red Army and the amazing efficiency of the Wehrmacht.

In terms of individual or theatre armies one would have to consider either Slim's Burma army or the Afrika Corps.

John Thomas
06-08-2005, 05:37 PM
Do you mean best national army or best individual army?

For national army it would probably be between the huge man and material power of the Red Army and the amazing efficiency of the Wehrmacht.

In terms of individual or theatre armies one would have to consider either Slim's Burma army or the Afrika Corps.

What about Patton, or Douglas MacArthur in the Paficic

Sturmtruppen
06-08-2005, 05:38 PM
Do you mean best national army or best individual army?

For national army it would probably be between the huge man and material power of the Red Army and the amazing efficiency of the Wehrmacht.

In terms of individual or theatre armies one would have to consider either Slim's Burma army or the Afrika Corps.

What about Patton, or Douglas MacArthur in the Paficic

they were exelent generals

Bladensburg
06-08-2005, 05:56 PM
I wasn't really thinking about generals, more the armies themselves, for example Zhukov was probably a great general but there's nothing special about his army apart from it's size.
A clearer example might be drawn from the Napoleonics, Wellington's Peninsular army was a great army, despite being relatively small and isolated from the main events of the period, there is something aboy it's performance that makes it great. Conversely, Napoleon's Grande Armee proved to be nothing special despite it's size and brilliant commander.

Perhaps a great army is one where commander and soldiers come together to produce a superior whole with a "personality" of it's own, the Afrika Corps under Rommel seems a perfect example. Patton on the other hand is more about his own personality rather than that of his army.

Voluntary Escaper
06-09-2005, 06:08 AM
Theatre Army: Slim's 14th Army in Burma - they won. Rommel's Afrika Korps are a very close second - they lost. Third would be Mongtomery's Eight Army, although the earlier successes of Wavell are often overlooked.

National Army: Very difficult to say.

The US Army has a very strong claim because of the massive expansion and modernisation from 175,000 men in 1939 (less that the UK Armed Forces nowadays) to the total of 10million overall employed (by the US Army alone) in World War 2.

Likewise, the Russian Army has a strong claim because of the scale of their recovery from near-defeat and their crucial and unmatched role in ultimate victory.

I do not believe the German Army rates very highly because of the appalling command structure and the convoluted supply chain, but most of all because of the diabolical political meddling of Hitler and the spinelessness of Keitel and Jodl.

As a Brit, I could be biased and favour the British Army and Commonwealth forces, which fought alone until 1942 and which fought until the last days of the war. The British Army saw the war through with grim determination, particularly in the dark years of 1940 and 1941.

However, I would suggest a compromise answer and would state that the Allied Expeditionary Force was the finest (multi)national army of WW2. The credit goes primarily to Eisenhower but also belongs partly to Churchill and Field Marshal Alanbrooke.

Voluntary Escaper
06-09-2005, 06:18 AM
General Slim remarked once on the fighting qualities of soldiers from different nationalities. He said that soldiers throughout the world were broadly similar although they had some minor characteristic differences. He claimed that the British soldier was largely "average" and the difference was that he could give a fractional amount of extra endurance (Slim said 5 minutes by way of example than other nationalities, and the key was anticipating the circumstances when this would prove decisive. He was probably thinking of the battle of Kohima in 1944.

Likewise, other nationalities of the period would have differences. Perhaps the German Army had a greater motivation and acceptance of casualties based upon the national fervour at the time? The Russian soldier has been said to accept the brutality of circumstances, the brutality of the enemy but most significantly the brutality of their own commanders. I wouldn't like to make claims on behalf of other nations but the British claim by Slim rings true.

SMLE
06-09-2005, 07:38 AM
General Slim remarked once on the fighting qualities of soldiers from different nationalities... He claimed that the British soldier was largely "average" and the difference was that he could give a fractional amount of extra endurance (Slim said 5 minutes by way of example than other nationalities, and the key was anticipating the circumstances when this would prove decisive...


I think the quality in question has throughout time been known as "Good British Spunk".

2nd of foot
06-09-2005, 05:42 PM
do you get points if you get 5 in a line. :D

Cuts
06-09-2005, 06:00 PM
do you get points if you get 5 in a line. :D

No, but you get ten if you get a necklace on a LBFMPBR !

Canaris
06-13-2005, 11:00 AM
The German Army was probably the best up to kampfgruppe level (and there were some good divisions) but above that level it all went to pieces.

Taken as a whole the laurels have to go to the Red Army. It could simply not be beaten, though it could off course be pushed back. Its ability to put fresh men into line after horrendous defeats marks it out.

The British Army of the time was nothing special: cautious and unimaginative though certainly competant it still managed to take heavy casualties in the operations that went badly wrong. Only forces such as the Chindits and long range desert group etc. really stand out. When did we ever triumph against the odds (except maybe Dunkirk and that was more the RN)

The same could be said for the Americans.

Feel free to come back at me!

BDL
06-13-2005, 11:13 AM
When did we ever triumph against the odds (except maybe Dunkirk and that was more the RN)


Battle of Britain, Kohima, 2nd Battalion, Hampshire Regt in North Africa (can't remember the Battle name, read that they held of the best part of a German armoured div with a few 6pdr anti tank guns and rifles/brens)

That's off the top of my head, we were maybe not the best Army of the war (although we were the only one to start the war in September 1939 and fight right through to the surrender of Japan in August 1945), but we certainly had a few "backs to the wall" victories, as are traditional for the British Army, along with letting the enemy win the first few battles to lull them into a false sense of security, a tradition sadly ruined by the Americans, who have no understanding of this tradition and just bomb everything to hell before the war gets started.

Bluffcove
06-13-2005, 03:41 PM
Bah, pesky Americans, taking our chances for glorious last stands from us! Oh well I dare say the great George W will end up picking a fight he cant win and us plucky Brits can go in there to clear it up :shock: . Personally I am quite looking forward to fighting seeing the British fight through the Kyhber pass (once again) in a few years time, where air power and Armoured divisions wont mean as much as they do in broad sandy deserts etc.

I have been watching "Carry on up the Kyhber" and taking notes on how such an action should be performed, so far I have reasoned that a gramaphone playing Lewis Gun and Sid James' laugh will be conducive to Victory as well as a company of bare-buttocked scotsmen. :lol:

Voluntary Escaper
06-13-2005, 03:57 PM
There are so many different criteria. Perhaps a list might look like this:

Best overall army at formation level - German army (battlegroup).
Best individual army at formation level - British 14th Army.
Most advanced (and/or) improved army - US Army.
Best army overall (in terms of successes) - Red Army.

:?: :?: :?:

Sturmtruppen
06-13-2005, 04:09 PM
There are so many different criteria. Perhaps a list might look like this:

Best overall army at formation level - German army (battlegroup).
Best individual army at formation level - British 14th Army.
Most advanced (and/or) improved army - US Army.
Best army overall (in terms of successes) - Red Army.

:?: :?: :?:

all of them for the germans :twisted: ,except the last,they lost :roll:

pdf27
06-13-2005, 05:11 PM
all of them for the germans :twisted: ,except the last,they lost :roll:
It's a valid point - for the "best army of WW2" you really have to specify a date. The best army of 1939 will not be the same as the best army of 1945.

Sturmtruppen
06-13-2005, 05:26 PM
all of them for the germans :twisted: ,except the last,they lost :roll:
It's a valid point - for the "best army of WW2" you really have to specify a date. The best army of 1939 will not be the same as the best army of 1945.
yes,sorry.

2nd of foot
06-13-2005, 06:34 PM
[quote]Battle of Britain, Kohima, 2nd Battalion, Hampshire Regt in North Africa (can't remember the Battle name, read that they held of the best part of a German armoured div with a few 6pdr anti tank guns and rifles/brens)


After this battle 44 Division was disbanded and 131 Brigade became the Lorried Infantry Brigade of 7 Armoured Division (The Desert Rats). Occupying first Tobruk and later Benghazi, they entered Tripoli on 23rd January
An enemy counter-attack at Medenine on 7th March 1943 was repelled at a cost to the Germans of 27 tanks which were knocked out by 6 pounder guns. After hard fighting at Enfidaville the Brigade was the first infantry unit into Tunis thereby cutting the Axis armies into two. The whole campaign had been a magnificent achievement. 169 Brigade travelled via Bombay to Iraq where they spent the winter of 1942/43 at Kirkuk. Ordered to join the 8th Army the Brigade made the historic approach of 3,313 miles to Enfidaville in 31 days and was in action the following morning after arrival.

You may be confusing actions, 131 Brigade was all Queen’s Regt.

BDL
06-14-2005, 12:49 AM
[quote]Battle of Britain, Kohima, 2nd Battalion, Hampshire Regt in North Africa (can't remember the Battle name, read that they held of the best part of a German armoured div with a few 6pdr anti tank guns and rifles/brens)


After this battle 44 Division was disbanded and 131 Brigade became the Lorried Infantry Brigade of 7 Armoured Division (The Desert Rats). Occupying first Tobruk and later Benghazi, they entered Tripoli on 23rd January
An enemy counter-attack at Medenine on 7th March 1943 was repelled at a cost to the Germans of 27 tanks which were knocked out by 6 pounder guns. After hard fighting at Enfidaville the Brigade was the first infantry unit into Tunis thereby cutting the Axis armies into two. The whole campaign had been a magnificent achievement. 169 Brigade travelled via Bombay to Iraq where they spent the winter of 1942/43 at Kirkuk. Ordered to join the 8th Army the Brigade made the historic approach of 3,313 miles to Enfidaville in 31 days and was in action the following morning after arrival.

You may be confusing actions, 131 Brigade was all Queen’s Regt.

:oops: No idea where I got Hampshires from then, they must have done something at some point. I'll try and dig the book out that I read it in and see what they did to make me remember them.

IRONMAN
07-03-2005, 11:56 PM
The Germans definately were the best army overall of WWII. They undoubtably the best trained, were very effecite overall, and well equiped, with the exception of having the bolt-action rifle as the mainstay for the German army.

temujin77
07-04-2005, 12:14 AM
I'm actually going to introduce a new one: the best "army", should we look at it from small organizations of perhaps regiments and down, my vote is going to go for the Japanese. The Bushido spirit drove the Japanese to be some of the most fearsome enemies for Allied troops to face. Had the higher-up generals been more capable, I believe the Pacific War would have had lasted much longer before the Allied forces defeated Japan.

On another note, I'm GLAD the higher-up generals weren't capable enough. I am of Chinese descent, and had Japan been under better leadership, my grandfather, a WW2 vet of the Chinese Nationalist Army, just may not have survived to escape to Taiwan with the government, and my father would not have met with my mother in Taiwan, and I would not have been born! Now that would not have been cool! :)

Man of Stoat
07-04-2005, 03:00 AM
The Germans definately were the best army overall of WWII. They undoubtably the best trained, were very effecite overall, and well equiped, with the exception of having the bolt-action rifle as the mainstay for the German army.

Why this obsession with their bolt-actions? It was only the Americans who had a semi-auto as their standard rifle!

Certainly in the early part of the war they were definitely the best trained, thanks to the limitations imposed at Versailles which meant that they had a small & highly-trained army. Later in the war, the replacements were nowhere near as well-trained.

reiver
07-04-2005, 03:01 PM
I'm actually going to introduce a new one: the best "army", should we look at it from small organizations of perhaps regiments and down, my vote is going to go for the Japanese. The Bushido spirit drove the Japanese to be some of the most fearsome enemies for Allied troops to face. Had the higher-up generals been more capable, I believe the Pacific War would have had lasted much longer before the Allied forces defeated Japan.

On another note, I'm GLAD the higher-up generals weren't capable enough. I am of Chinese descent, and had Japan been under better leadership, my grandfather, a WW2 vet of the Chinese Nationalist Army, just may not have survived to escape to Taiwan with the government, and my father would not have met with my mother in Taiwan, and I would not have been born! Now that would not have been cool! :)

Bushido had a lot to answer for in WW2.
Part of the code of Bushido was that if a warrior surrendered rather than commit seppuku, or allowed himself to be taken prisoner, he had forfeited all rights to be treated as a warrior, or indeed, as a man.
This was the justification for the (to western sensibilities) appalling treatment of POWs taken by the Japanese.

temujin77
07-04-2005, 08:41 PM
Bushido had a lot to answer for in WW2.
Part of the code of Bushido was that if a warrior surrendered rather than commit seppuku, or allowed himself to be taken prisoner, he had forfeited all rights to be treated as a warrior, or indeed, as a man.
This was the justification for the (to western sensibilities) appalling treatment of POWs taken by the Japanese.

I think a lot of it is also the cultural difference between the east and the west that actually "exaggerated" the degree of "brutality". To the Japanese, POWs were almost not-human because, like you said, they have surrendered and had lost their honor. To the Japanese, if a man lived without honor, there was no reason for the man to live. Hence, they were treated inhumanely as slave labor or even a fate as terrible as bayonet practice dummy.

As heinous as the brutalities were, I think the Japanese had an excuse where as the Nazis did not. The Nazis had to adhere to an European standard that was known to be gentlemanly. Japan, on the other hand, had matured as a nation in a world where holocaustic mass murders of entire cities by a conquering army was, however terrible, relatively commonplace. The Han Chinese had forever been driving out ethnic minorities to expand their borders, while Mongol armies of the great khans slaughtered entire cities needlessly. It is in that kind of influence that Bushido was "hardened".

I don't really condone what the Japanese had done during the war, especially given it was my people (I'm Chinese) that the Japanese slaughtered in Nanjing, in Shanghai, in Formosa, or any other Chinese territory. However, given the historic and cultural perspective, I think there was a reason why some of the Japanese had done what they did.

This had been a big off-topic detour of the thread, however, so I'm going to stop here. Back to the point, I think the Japanese army (including the Marines of the Special Naval Landing Forces) should definitely be among the contenders when it comes to smaller organizations. At a squad-to-squad level, my vote will undoubtedly go for the Japanese for their fearless fighting spirit (can anyone say banzai charge?).

Caliber
07-04-2005, 10:15 PM
Best overall army at formation level - German
Best individual army at formation level - um i dunno... ill go for german
Most advanced (and/or) improved army - German
Best army overall (in terms of successes) - USA

IRONMAN
07-04-2005, 11:01 PM
Why this obsession with their bolt-actions? It was only the Americans who had a semi-auto as their standard rifle!

Certainly in the early part of the war they were definitely the best trained, thanks to the limitations imposed at Versailles which meant that they had a small & highly-trained army. Later in the war, the replacements were nowhere near as well-trained.

Well then. Since the Americans had a better general purpose rifle the Germans were not the best equipped when it came to the rifle. Actually, their other small arms were not the best of the war either.

About your statement of the training, I agree. During the 1st portion of the war, they were definately the best trained. I guess it could be debatable if they remained so as the war tore on. Certainly they were not in the last year or more. I agree with you there.

South African Military
07-05-2005, 12:24 AM
The Germans had a semi auto rifle. Kar 43.

IRONMAN
07-05-2005, 01:14 AM
The Germans had a semi auto rifle. Kar 43.

Yes, later they did. The Russians also had one. But even once the Germans has a semi-auto rifle, the bolt action remained the mainstay of the German army.

Sturmtruppen
07-10-2005, 03:41 PM
Best overall army at formation level - German
Best individual army at formation level - um i dunno... ill go for german
Most advanced (and/or) improved army - German
Best army overall (in terms of successes) - USA
totally agree

Firefly
07-11-2005, 03:08 AM
Mythological awe of the German military in ww2 is becoming more and more prevalent as time passes.

If the German Army was the best ever, then Germany should have won the war!

Fuchs66
07-11-2005, 06:46 AM
Mythological awe of the German military in ww2 is becoming more and more prevalent as time passes.

If the German Army was the best ever, then Germany should have won the war!

It's quite amusing when this awe is then transfered onto, that at most average military, the Bundeswehr. Having worked with them fairly often I find them very variable in both individual and unit standard and at times embarrasingly crap.

1000ydstare
08-05-2005, 05:42 PM
Best army is simple.

The British and their commonwealth (ANZACS, Indians, Gurkhas, etc).

Who were there at the start? See above

Who stood alone after Europe fell? See above

Who rocked up late? The yanks, so they can get lost.

Who lost? Well we all know that don't we.

Britain = the best full stop.

And they did it with the BOLT ACTION SMLE, a bayonet, British guts and the knowledge that we weren't a bunch of cowardly, murdering, sausage/spageti/sushi eating dogs.

In summary

If your choice lost the war, they were no good.

If your choice joined half way through the war, when the result was almost known anyway, they were no good.

If your choice threw in the towl half way through, they were no good.

Hosenfield
08-05-2005, 05:48 PM
sorry, i do not agree. and those "reasons" why england was the best are competely invalid.
i'm sure english people eat sausages and noodles too.
anybody with a high school education can tell you that the US army was stronger than the brits.
And the german and russian armies were more powerful than englands'

what is so great about a SMLE! its inferior to the garand, and not that great of a causalty inducer in combat.

and germany fought practically all of western/eastern europe and the united states.

Sturmtruppen
08-05-2005, 05:52 PM
anybody with a high school education can tell you that the US army was stronger than the brits.
i have more than a high school,and im agree with you hosenfield :wink:

1000ydstare
08-05-2005, 06:00 PM
Obviously the yanks were stronger than the Brits. They didn't commit till 1942. The Brits had been slogging it out for 3 years by then!!!

I never said that other countries don't eat those foods, it is a way of identifing them.

The germans had indeed fought on all fronts but then the Brits fought on the European and Eastern front aganist the Japs.

Let's not forget the Battle of Britain, either, or Operation Sealion, oopps the Nazis couldn't carry that Op out could they? Because the Luftwaffe had their asses kicked all uber der platz by the "few"!

Hosenfield
08-05-2005, 06:03 PM
the us army would be stronger then england's even if the brits never fought at all.

second of all, the luftwaffe was hardly "***-kicked". tell that to the people that had to go under the blitz. there was something of an invasion of the soviet union that took priority over this contest for an island.

Cuts
08-05-2005, 06:12 PM
...

what is so great about a SMLE! its inferior to the garand, and not that great of a causalty inducer in combat.

...

Out of interest Hosenfield, on what do you base this statement ?

Hosenfield
08-05-2005, 06:14 PM
"And they did it with the BOLT ACTION SMLE, a bayonet, British guts and the knowledge that we weren't a bunch of cowardly, murdering, sausage/spageti/sushi eating dogs."

this misinformed fellow seems to think that the english army won world war two primarily with bolt action rifles.

and, according to dupuy's statistics, mgs account for 4/5s of all bullet wounds. rifles in modern warfare aren't as effective at shooting at tiny moving, fleeting targets.

Cuts
08-05-2005, 06:24 PM
*Waffle on the SMLE and No. 4 deleted due to being incorrect.

But why do you say the bolt action was inferior to the Garand ?
This is of interest as I've heard a number of views.




* Edited in the cold light of day and with a hangover that would kill a craphat, once again proving the rule of 'Do not post while drinking !'

Sturmtruppen
08-05-2005, 06:25 PM
come on!,by far usa is the best,don´t come to me with that of your army is the best,i will never believe.
it´s obviously stupid patriotism,i have patriotism but i don't lie!

Hosenfield
08-05-2005, 06:27 PM
both weapons are accurate enough for the ranges needed. the garand has almost double the rate of fire though. meaning that it is a more useful weapon in room-clearing/ close quarters.

Cuts
08-05-2005, 06:29 PM
come on!,by far usa is the best,don´t come to me with that of your army is the best,i will never believe.

...

I've not entered into the debate as to which army is the best, as each country had a number of armies. (It's a military thing.)


...

it´s obviously stupid patriotism,i have patriotism but i don't lie!

That is a different subject for debate.

Sturmtruppen
08-05-2005, 06:32 PM
no,it´s a complement iwth the words i said later,the reply was for 1000ydstare.

1000ydstare
08-06-2005, 04:09 AM
Regards to the Eastern Front.

Given that the German force that had romped across Europe was still very much intact in the West of Europe, and a completely different force was going up against the East, what makes you think that this has any relevance to whether or not Britian would fall?

The Blitz was indeed an inconvienence to the British people, I live in Britain and have Grandparents/releatives who were in the Blitz.

I am well aware of the effects of this war. My Aunties roads Bomb shelter was hit by a bomb, luckily she was a fire watcher at the tender age of 14 to free a man for the front!!! She still lives on the street, the shelter is still there (or remenants there of).

Meanwhile the RAF took to the skys heavily out numbered and in some cases (ie the Boulton Paul Defiant) in planes that were out dated. Luckily for us the Luftwaffe was under the control of a Loony (Hitler) and a fat, closet transexual (goering) who despite the massive advantages they had squandered them.

They started the Blitz on the cities by deciding that the RAF was on its arse and stopped the bombing of the aerodromes. In response the British donated massive amounts of aluminium and other metals to make spitfires and hurricanes. They bit the bullet and worked together and hard to protect the beachers the LDV was formed of old and young and the Luftwaffe was maulled.

The invasion barges were never used to ferry the Nazi jackboot to our fine shores.

And if they had landed on a fair isles sandy beaches they would have been met by the like of Capt Mainwaring, Sgt Wilson, L/Cpl Jones and Privates Pike, Fraser and Godfrey.

And they wouldn't have liked it up 'em!!!

I am proud to be British, because it is the best country in the world.

Man of Stoat
08-06-2005, 04:14 AM
I am proud to be British, because it is the best country in the world.

I was proud to be British cos it was the best country in the world until that little worm and the wide-mouthed frog got their grubby little mits on it :evil:

1000ydstare
08-06-2005, 04:36 AM
Too true :( :cry: :cry:

Iron Yeoman
08-06-2005, 12:29 PM
I am proud to be British, because it is the best country in the world.

I was proud to be British cos it was the best country in the world until that little worm and the wide-mouthed frog got their grubby little mits on it :evil:

Sad but true, though since he's been in we haven't been short of business have we?

Sturmtruppen
08-06-2005, 07:27 PM
I am proud to be British, because it is the best country in the world.

I was proud to be British cos it was the best country in the world until that little worm and the wide-mouthed frog got their grubby little mits on it :evil:

out off topic

what has that with best army?

Minimalistix
08-06-2005, 09:10 PM
easy answer

DEFIANTLY the Soviets and the Germans

come on, the Germans was fighting half the world, and half the world still struggled to defeat the Germans

the only reason the Germans lost was because they attacked Russia during the Winter which was VERY costly

without a dought the Soviets and the Germans were the best troops in ww2

(even though the Soviets were very poorly equipped

StalingradK
08-06-2005, 11:10 PM
What do you mean the only reason Germany lsot was because of Russia? America could have slaughtered Germany. They has excellent troops and equipment, can't say well about tanks though :(

Sturmtruppen
08-06-2005, 11:19 PM
What do you mean the only reason Germany lsot was because of Russia? America could have slaughtered Germany. They has excellent troops and equipment, can't say well about tanks though :(
yup mate,usa had great troops,the best of the allies,like Urss (russia),but germany was so well prepared,specially in technology,numbers,morale,doctrines,generals.

the only thing i know is that without usa,the allies will lose,and without both soviet union and usa,by far germany could rush europe in seconds.

Hosenfield
08-06-2005, 11:33 PM
What do you mean the only reason Germany lsot was because of Russia? America could have slaughtered Germany. They has excellent troops and equipment, can't say well about tanks though :(


umm i disagree. america could never invade and defeat germany without the fighting with russia. 90 percent of the wermarcht perished in russian terrioritory, most before 1944.

first generation german troop trained before 1942 were the best trained soldiers of the war. even the lowest grunt had 2-6 years of training. it was the loss of two million of germany's best men and troops that made it ripe for conquest in june of 1944.

and, most american equipment was inferior in quality. also, us fighting doctrine needs work.

the american soldier is known to be slow and steady, but undecisive by veterans. being in foreign territory, they lacked the drive or the skill of more experienced german army officers. they often fail to exploit gains and lack aggression in the attack. also, american troops often overestimate enemy strength and advance too slowly.

it took the western allies an almost embarrashingly long time to finish off the germans in the last year of the war while ridiciously outnumbering and outgunning a far smaller number of germans soldiers/tanks/planes/petrol, and motorization.

if the russians performed a the same operation in same circumstances, its likely that they would suffer heavier causalites then the allies but be able to achieve a quick, decisive victory due to more drive, aggresstion, and more experience in higher command.

say if the usa mobilized in 1936 and assaulted greater germany in 1940, they wouldn't even make it past the beach. like the dieppe raid.

german defenses wouldn't have been stripped to feed into the russian meat grinder.

Minimalistix
08-06-2005, 11:48 PM
America didnt win the war, Russia did

they were the ones that defeated the last remnants of the Nazi's in Berlin

yet you Americans wanna pretend D-Day was so important even though there were more Changing points in the war such as Stahlingrad

after Stahlingrad, that was the end of Nazism

1000ydstare
08-07-2005, 01:21 AM
But of course, WW2 didn't actually finish until the Japs had been malleted also.

Hence the whole "forgotton army" of the Brits.

So this arguement is completely irrelevant.

No one side can say they "won" the war.

Minimalistix
08-07-2005, 01:36 AM
let me apologise, won the war in Europe

1000ydstare
08-07-2005, 02:48 AM
The Russians did finish off Berlin, but as I said no single country can claim to have "won" the war.

The russians needed massive amounts of help. This was given, mainly by the Arctic convoys of the British.

Firefly
08-07-2005, 03:13 AM
I dont think any 1 allied country can claim to have won the war on its own.
Also, you cannot seperate the interlocking weapons systems, like what would the western allies achieved if it wasnt for their air supremacy. In individual situations at differring times all of the armies were probably on top at some point.

I think the question is worded wrongly.

Hanz Lutz
08-07-2005, 04:38 AM
USA ,United kingdom ,together they can nothing against germans ,russia alone fight in europe until 1944 ,if germans did not attack soviets usa can nothing, :wink:

BDL
08-07-2005, 04:51 AM
USA ,United kingdom ,together they can nothing against germans ,russia alone fight in europe until 1944 ,if germans did not attack soviets usa can nothing, :wink:

What about the Allied invasion of Italy in 1943?
The Germans attacking the USSR has nothing to do with the US entering the war.
You'll find that the UK did a fair bit against Germany up to D-Day - Battle of Britain, Rhubarb raids on France, SOE/Commando attacks on targets in Norway and France, the Murmansk convoys to keep the Soviets in the war, getting a bombing campaign against Germany going.

Hanz Lutz
08-07-2005, 05:55 AM
USA ,United kingdom ,together they can nothing against germans ,russia alone fight in europe until 1944 ,if germans did not attack soviets usa can nothing, :wink:

What about the Allied invasion of Italy in 1943?
The Germans attacking the USSR has nothing to do with the US entering the war.
You'll find that the UK did a fair bit against Germany up to D-Day - Battle of Britain, Rhubarb raids on France, SOE/Commando attacks on targets in Norway and France, the Murmansk convoys to keep the Soviets in the war, getting a bombing campaign against Germany going.

Italy 1943 lose the war not germans ,true in italy been germans soldiers they come to help italians ,and UK did not fight alone USA help them a lot UK did send soviets help i know that if germans did not attack soviets Uk alone can nothing against germans ,i say that all germans soldiers will been in france D-Day than not happend . :wink:

Cuts
08-07-2005, 06:38 AM
...

i say that all germans soldiers will been in france D-Day than not happend . :wink:

The D-day landings would then have taken place at a different location.

Hanz Lutz
08-07-2005, 06:48 AM
Allied want to have invasion on Balcan first but after they decide for Normandy.

Man of Stoat
08-07-2005, 06:50 AM
Allied want to have invasion on Balcan first but after they decide for Normandy.

Please provide a source for this, since it's the first I've ever heard of it.

BDL
08-07-2005, 06:52 AM
Italy 1943 lose the war not germans ,true in italy been germans soldiers they come to help italians

So the Soviets were not fighting alone until 1944 were they - I've read of at least one SS Panzer Division (Totenkopf I think) being moved from the Eastern Front to Italy to try and deal with the Allied invasion. There was also the resources tied down in North Africa that could also have been moved to the eastern front.


UK did not fight alone USA help them a lot

The UK fought alone from the day that the Dunkirk evacuations ended in June 1940 until the arrival of US forces in North Africa in 1942.


i know that if germans did not attack soviets Uk alone can nothing against germans

We'd already defeated the Luftwaffe in 1940, and had started launching ground attack raids across northern France (Rhubarb Raids), although we may not have been able to launch D-Day without US help, we could certainly have launched it together whether the USSR was involved in the war or not.


i say that all germans soldiers will been in france D-Day than not happend

D-Day could still have happened, since the Germans would have been just as badly led by Hitler whether they were fighting in the USSR or not. Don't forget that on D-Day a counter attack by the Panzer reserves could probably have pushed the Allies back into the sea, but didn't happen because of poor leadership - even if the whole German army had been in France, the same thing would have happened.

Hanz Lutz
08-07-2005, 06:56 AM
Allied want to have invasion on Balcan first but after they decide for Normandy.

Please provide a source for this, since it's the first I've ever heard of it.

I see that on TV i think on BBC theres been some documentary emmision about D-Day ,and allied in teheran decide for Balcan but in last moment they decide for normandy .

Hanz Lutz
08-07-2005, 06:59 AM
Italy 1943 lose the war not germans ,true in italy been germans soldiers they come to help italians

So the Soviets were not fighting alone until 1944 were they - I've read of at least one SS Panzer Division (Totenkopf I think) being moved from the Eastern Front to Italy to try and deal with the Allied invasion. There was also the resources tied down in North Africa that could also have been moved to the eastern front.


UK did not fight alone USA help them a lot

The UK fought alone from the day that the Dunkirk evacuations ended in June 1940 until the arrival of US forces in North Africa in 1942.


i know that if germans did not attack soviets Uk alone can nothing against germans

We'd already defeated the Luftwaffe in 1940, and had started launching ground attack raids across northern France (Rhubarb Raids), although we may not have been able to launch D-Day without US help, we could certainly have launched it together whether the USSR was involved in the war or not.


i say that all germans soldiers will been in france D-Day than not happend

D-Day could still have happened, since the Germans would have been just as badly led by Hitler whether they were fighting in the USSR or not. Don't forget that on D-Day a counter attack by the Panzer reserves could probably have pushed the Allies back into the sea, but didn't happen because of poor leadership - even if the whole German army had been in France, the same thing would have happened.

Ok .

Hanz Lutz
08-07-2005, 07:26 AM
Man of Stoat i can find in net nothing to prove this but i know this ,germans know the allied want to landing in adriatic coast and to stop that they have two big offansive against partisans in coast sector Black 1 and White 1,2 in that offansive they wanted to catch Tito and stop landing but allied decide to not have actions in balcan.

1000ydstare
08-07-2005, 07:50 AM
This Balkans pish is rubbish.

There was never any plan to invade through the Balkans.

Look at a map it would have been absolute idiocy to try to invade the Balkans to end the war.

Shall we just pop across the channel, or shall we stretch our lines of communications to such an extent as to make them undefendable. Air cover would be severly compromised.


To invade the Balkans it would be much better to go east from Italy, unless you are a sadist and think that Beach landings are good.

What did you put on your corn flakes this morning? Crack?

Man of Stoat
08-07-2005, 07:59 AM
This Balkans pish is rubbish.
<snip>
What did you put on your corn flakes this morning? Crack?

That's what I wasi implying, only more politely ;)

1000ydstare
08-07-2005, 08:02 AM
Sorry, sorry, :oops:

I just sometimes flip out. :shock:

Man of Stoat
08-07-2005, 08:13 AM
Sorry, sorry, :oops:

I just sometimes flip out. :shock:

Understandably - I try to calm down when unmitigated pish is posted, cos otherwise certain posters get all uppity. We've found by experience that it's best to ask them to provide a source - if they can't, then it's 99% likely to be bollocks, and "I saw it on TV", whilst probably OK for minor details, is probably bollocks for major strategic plans and the suchlike, which have been written about at length.

Oh, and you might want to tone down your avatar to 80x80, btw...

Hanz Lutz
08-07-2005, 08:20 AM
Stoat i dont lie about that i have sources but all is on Croatian language ,i am not stupid to post bullshits here,ok if you to dont trust me dont insult me becouse this ,i send you PM do you read it then i apologies to you and i dont want to fight with anyone in this site even with you 1000 ,and in Awards you tell then i have something against you NO i dont .

Man of Stoat
08-07-2005, 08:23 AM
then post it in Croatian (pref. with a translation) & don't get so upptiy so quickly!

Hanz Lutz
08-07-2005, 08:38 AM
1944. u Italiji su se sreli Tito i Čerčil. Tito je odbacio saradnju sa Dražom Mihailovićem i mogućnost iskrcavanja komnadosa na jadransku obalu pod komandom vlade u Londonu. U to vreme u Srbiji Draža Mihailović i kvislinška vlada Milana Nedića uspostavljaju tešnju saradnju radi delovanja protiv partizana.

Oktobra 1944. Tito je u Moskvi. Dobija oružje za opremanje 10 divizija, avione i žito. U Rumuniji se sreo s maršalom Tolbuhinom radi dogovora o otpočinjanju zajedničkih operacija Crvene armije i partizanskih jedinica u oslobađanju Beograda i ostalih delova Jugoslavije. Tito se sastao i sa predstavnicima Patriotskog fronta Bugarske. Dogovorena je saradnja oko učešća bugarskih jedica u oslobađanju Jugoslavije.

1944 tito is not want accept possibility the british commandos land in adriatic coast from command in london .I only know translate this .

http://www.mltranslations.org/serbcroat/pryugo.htm[/b]

Man of Stoat
08-07-2005, 08:52 AM
1944. into a Italy have been does sreli Tito plus Čerčil. Tito had throw away saradnju from an Leniency Mihailovićem plus possibility liberation komnadosa at an Adriatic coastline under commando Government into a London. INTO A this worldly in Serbia Leniency Mihailović plus quisling Government Milanese Nedića to establish tešnju saradnju is doing delovanja versus partisan. Octogon 1944. Tito had into a Moscow. Dobija weapon for fitout 10 division , plane plus scoop. INTO A Romania does sreo with marshal Tolbuhinom is doing unison about otpočinjanju mutual operations Claret-colored armije plus partizanskih unit into a liberation Belgrade plus other delova Yugoslavia. Tito does meeting plus from an spokeswoman Patriotic line Bulgarian. Conventional had saradnja about učešća Bulgarian only child into a liberation Yugoslavia.

OK, I know that's a shit translation, but where does it say that there was a genuine Allied (i.e. US/UK) plan to invade the Balkans which was dropped in favour of Normandy? It seems that this is just about Tito's wishes etc. Although the number of words I can base that on is limited...

1000ydstare
08-07-2005, 09:01 AM
An invasion may have been thought about, but it would have been much easier to go west from Italy over land than force a landing. I think this would have been more likely to solve the fighting in the Balkans than force an end to the war.

To finish the war, which is what Overlord was all about, why land a force even further away than you already are? It would have been easier just to land them on Italy on secure beachs and force their way north.

By invading France they also pushed the Germans back so that Britian started taking less of a pounding. Pretty important if the whole island is essential a depot for the invasion forces!!!

Walther
08-07-2005, 12:12 PM
I think I know what it is about:

When the Allieds after OP Torch (Landings in Northern Africa) prepared for the next operation in the mediterranean, the landing in Sicily (Operation Husky), they tried successfully to keep the Germans and Italians in the dark about where and when the Allieds would hit next, the Germans knew that something was going on, since the Allieds couldn't keep the major deployment of troops to northern Africa secret.


One part of this deception was OP Mincemeat.
The body of a 34 year old man, who had died in a British hospital of pneumonia, was dressed as a captain and acting major of the Royal Marines. MI5 and other government agencies created as whole legend about this man, who in reality never existed, but they invented even a fiancee for him, in case the Germans should check on his identity. This body was equiped with paperwork stating that he was a courier on board of a plane carrying important messages to the headquarters of General Alexander in Egypt.
These papers in a secure courier brief case included a plan that the target of the next major Allied operation in the Mediterranean would be a landing in the Balkans with Alexander attacking Corsica and Sardinia as a decoy.

The body was then packed in a cooled special container and loaded on board of a RN submarine in Scotland. The body was then pushed into the sea off the Spanish coast, in a spot, where it was sure to be washed on land.

Spanish fishermen found the body and informed Spanish authorities, who in turn gave all the papers to the German Abwehr, who swallowed the whole think hook, line and sinker. As a result German troops in Greece and Yugoslavia were reinforced, while the Italians were unprepared for the real landings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalwarfare/a/mincemeat.htm


It seems that this deception is still working today.

Jan

Man of Stoat
08-07-2005, 12:17 PM
Aah, yes - there was a fairly good film about it!

1000ydstare
08-07-2005, 12:28 PM
Was it "The man who never was"?

Maybe a bit of confusion between the Normandy landings and the Italy landings.

Minimalistix
08-07-2005, 04:58 PM
[quote=Clauss von Stauffeberg]

The UK fought alone from the day that the Dunkirk evacuations ended in June 1940 until the arrival of US forces in North Africa in 1942.



i think you're forgetting ur good old ANZAC brothers???

Bladensburg
08-07-2005, 05:27 PM
Commonwealth forces in Europe/Africa all came under the First Sea Lord and Cheif of the Imperial General Staff.

Minimalistix
08-08-2005, 01:31 AM
sorry i dont understand that Blad

BDL
08-08-2005, 03:58 AM
sorry i dont understand that Blad
First Sea Lord was the man in charge of the Royal Navy, and consequently gave orders to the Australian, NZ, Canadian etc Navies.

Chief of the Imperial General Staff was the man in charge of the British Army, and consequently gave orders to the Australian, Canadian, NZ etc Armies.

Minimalistix
08-08-2005, 04:43 AM
understood, but the point is they didnt fight alone as they had Anzac support from Day 1

BDL
08-08-2005, 06:42 AM
understood, but the point is they didnt fight alone as they had Anzac support from Day 1

But very little direct support, since Australia is 12000 odd miles away

Hanz Lutz
08-08-2005, 02:15 PM
An invasion may have been thought about, but it would have been much easier to go west from Italy over land than force a landing. I think this would have been more likely to solve the fighting in the Balkans than force an end to the war.

To finish the war, which is what Overlord was all about, why land a force even further away than you already are? It would have been easier just to land them on Italy on secure beachs and force their way north.

By invading France they also pushed the Germans back so that Britian started taking less of a pounding. Pretty important if the whole island is essential a depot for the invasion forces!!!
Yes easier way is into italy ,i wrong my croatian is shit i read something about churchil ,commandos and adriatic sea .STILL FRIENDS :wink:

Minimalistix
08-08-2005, 04:34 PM
understood, but the point is they didnt fight alone as they had Anzac support from Day 1

But very little direct support, since Australia is 12000 odd miles away

100,000 troops not enough for a country with a population that was around 4 million ???? :P :P :P

BDL
08-09-2005, 01:31 AM
understood, but the point is they didnt fight alone as they had Anzac support from Day 1

But very little direct support, since Australia is 12000 odd miles away

100,000 troops not enough for a country with a population that was around 4 million ???? :P :P :P

Were those 100,000 men in Britain waiting for a German invasion - as I said Britain got very little DIRECT support from the colonies, because of their distance from the UK.

Minimalistix
08-09-2005, 02:54 AM
No instead those soldiers helped protect the Suez Canal

Siberian Rifleman
08-09-2005, 03:20 AM
Do you mean "best quality" or just "best" ? Quality wise I think the Germans are leading... But I still love the Red Army :)

1000ydstare
08-09-2005, 05:06 AM
Clauss von Stauffeberg wrote

"Yes easier way is into italy ,i wrong my croatian is shit i read something about churchil ,commandos and adriatic sea .STILL FRIENDS"

Clauss your a gentleman and a scholar. And your croation is probably a lot better than mine. Never weren't a friend my old china.

Don't worry about arguments mate, after all from the hottest forges comes the hardest steal, and now we know the truth of it.

http://www.campushook.com/img/2/213218.original.jpg

Hosenfield
08-09-2005, 05:22 AM
who is the thumbs up guy.

Sturmtruppen
08-09-2005, 08:32 PM
100ydstare,stop doing that in the name of lord!,i received messages of members who think your images are "disturbing".

stop,or me and the rest of the mods will take actions.

Cuts
08-09-2005, 08:46 PM
Clauss von Stauffeberg wrote

"Yes easier way is into italy ,i wrong my croatian is shit i read something about churchil ,commandos and adriatic sea .STILL FRIENDS"

Clauss your a gentleman and a scholar. And your croation is probably a lot better than mine. Never weren't a friend my old china.

Don't worry about arguments mate, after all from the hottest forges comes the hardest steal, and now we know the truth of it.

http://www.campushook.com/img/2/213218.original.jpg

Nice post 1000, and good call Clauss !
It shows that we can discuss 'hot topics' and still forge peace afterwards.


I hope we have not just seen an example of the courage that a certain army in the european theatre was famous for.

Hanz Lutz
08-10-2005, 10:32 AM
Everythings can do on peacefull and easy way ,there are no need for fight . :wink: :wink: :lol: :lol:

T-34s_Are_Cool
08-20-2005, 03:45 AM
What do you mean the only reason Germany lsot was because of Russia? America could have slaughtered Germany. They has excellent troops and equipment, can't say well about tanks though :(
your a friggen idiot if germany had a war with america and only america without allies the yanks would have been absolutely flogged :evil:

Dani
08-20-2005, 08:11 AM
What do you mean the only reason Germany lsot was because of Russia? America could have slaughtered Germany. They has excellent troops and equipment, can't say well about tanks though :(
your a friggen idiot if germany had a war with america and only america without allies the yanks would have been absolutely flogged :evil:

T-34s_Are_Cool this is the last informal warning to you.

On next insult, you'll receive a formal warning.

Crab_to_be
08-20-2005, 09:01 AM
What do you mean the only reason Germany lsot was because of Russia? America could have slaughtered Germany. They has excellent troops and equipment, can't say well about tanks though :(
your a friggen idiot if germany had a war with america and only america without allies the yanks would have been absolutely flogged :evil:

Surely that would depend on where they fought? If the US tried to land in force at Bremen, maintaining supply lines across the Atlantic with no ally support, my money would be on the Germans. Reverse the situation and I doubt the Germans would have been able to make their landings past opposition from the local populace, let alone the US military.

In any case, how would the US and Germany end up at war without any other countries being involved?

Gen. Sandworm
08-20-2005, 10:48 AM
What do you mean the only reason Germany lsot was because of Russia? America could have slaughtered Germany. They has excellent troops and equipment, can't say well about tanks though :(
your a friggen idiot if germany had a war with america and only america without allies the yanks would have been absolutely flogged :evil:

Surely that would depend on where they fought? If the US tried to land in force at Bremen, maintaining supply lines across the Atlantic with no ally support, my money would be on the Germans. Reverse the situation and I doubt the Germans would have been able to make their landings past opposition from the local populace, let alone the US military.

In any case, how would the US and Germany end up at war without any other countries being involved?

Plus the American navy was far superior to the German Navy so.........yea im sure the U boats would have been a pain but we did get over that. I see in no way that Germany could have made a cross atlantic landing successfully. Maybe if they went and duked it out on the moon you might have a point but that didnt happen and so.................. you pretty much dont have a point. :roll:

BDL
08-20-2005, 10:55 AM
Plus the American navy was far superior to the German Navy so.........yea im sure the U boats would have been a pain but we did get over that. I see in no way that Germany could have made a cross atlantic landing successfully. Maybe if they went and duked it out on the moon you might have a point but that didnt happen and so.................. you pretty much dont have a point. :roll:

It's not just a case of having naval superiority though GS, it's the sheer distance that the supply lines would have to cover - it's a hell of a long way from the US to Germany and reenforcements, supplies etc would have taken a hell of a long time to get over the Atlantic, plus if the UK wasn't involved in the war, the U-boat menace could have been much worse - the US would have had to develop the technology to defeat them without the input and experience of the UK, plus it only take's one lucky torpedo and suddenly you've got a whole army of tanks in Germany with no fuel - look at the supply problems the Allies had in 1944 with the supplies only having to come from the UK.

festamus
08-20-2005, 10:58 AM
I wonder, how powerful *was* the US Atlantic fleet in say, 1941? Add to that a what if: What if U-boats were sat off the east end of the Panama Canal, or worse still, the Germans found a way to make the canal itself unusable?

1000ydstare
08-20-2005, 11:16 AM
The US fleet at in 1941 was a little on the ropey side, that is why the Japs thought they could take the Yanks on.

They had also recently removed their main observation assets.

The aerial air craft carriers of the USN. After one of them the USS Macon crashed in a storm, they pretty much grounded the lot. It is believed that these could, only could, have prevented the surprise attack of Pearl Harbour, although, not neccesarily an outright attack.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g440000/g441983t.jpg

USS Macon, in flight.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/airship/images/usa/trap.gif

This is one the "SparrowHawk" fighters carried by the Airships. 3 were carried in total. This one still has wheels fitted, for use over land. Whilst over sea these were replaced with a central extra fuel tank.

This looked like a bomb and caused absolute chaos when, as a joke, a plane dropped a copy of the that days news paper to the President of the USA whilst he was on holiday on a USN Battleship!!!

The "Trapeze" was captured by the hook on the top, and then the trap lifted the aircraft in to the hull.

3-4 aircraft could be carried.

See here for insignias of the sqns and airships www.bluejacket.com/ usn_avi_insig_zp.html they are too big to post.

See for more details. www.spot.colorado.edu/ ~dziadeck/airship/usa.htm on the airships.

BDL
08-20-2005, 11:17 AM
I wonder, how powerful *was* the US Atlantic fleet in say, 1941? Add to that a what if: What if U-boats were sat off the east end of the Panama Canal, or worse still, the Germans found a way to make the canal itself unusable?

Couldn't be that hard to close the canal - one guy and a well placed bomb on one of the locks and you close it. Plus of course, without British involvement, the Kriegsmarine would have been a lot stronger to take the Yanks on.

Crab_to_be
08-20-2005, 11:23 AM
Well, it looks like our hypothetical USA v. Germany in the early 1940s war would be a largely naval affair due to the lack of ground on which to fight.

I suggest that the US would have won, being able to apply economic pressure to Germany. For the Germans to have been able to compete economically, they would have needed to expand. Maybe this would include Romanian and Ukrainian oil fields, the coal mines of Silesia, the Czech automotive and armaments industries. Can anyone guess how that would have ended up.

1000ydstare
08-20-2005, 11:23 AM
Interesting side note.

The americans tried again this sort of "big plane carrys little plane" arrangemnent.

Possibly inspired by the Germans "Mistle" combinataions where a single FW-190 or Me109 was sat on top of a Ju88 with a special war head nose and packed with bombs.

The fighter took the big plane to the attack and realeased it just like a bomb.

The arrangement was also used to carry fighters most of the way to Britian so that they could defend the bombers as they bombed Britain in the later stages of the war, in few numbers.

As seen here

http://www.militarytour.com/BooksArt/Art/ImagesARt/IronHa82.jpg

The Yanks tried it for longrange fighter cover from America to Russia. Using the Flying wing bombers with a similar trapeze to bring a small fighter up. The idea being these fighters could be realeased and recovered as neccesary, on the flight to Russia.

This was a trial project, I can't find any info on the net, but it was not taken in to any great numbers, as it was replaced by sea bourne aircraft carrier aircraft instead.

BDL
08-20-2005, 11:51 AM
Well, it looks like our hypothetical USA v. Germany in the early 1940s war would be a largely naval affair due to the lack of ground on which to fight.

I suggest that the US would have won, being able to apply economic pressure to Germany. For the Germans to have been able to compete economically, they would have needed to expand. Maybe this would include Romanian and Ukrainian oil fields, the coal mines of Silesia, the Czech automotive and armaments industries. Can anyone guess how that would have ended up.

I don't think that the 'war' would be all that cut and dried to be honest - without WW2 breaking out in 1939, the US would have had no reason to start building their forces up, therefore their navy could well be much weaker than it actually was. On the other hand, without having to fight the Royal Navy, the Germans could well have built up a very strong navy by, say, 1942. You can build a lot of aircraft carriers and battleships in three years, if they could have got 2 or 3 carriers and a few capital ships built, along with the U-boats they could have been a very strong navy by 1942.

As soon as the war breaks out, the U-Boats all sortie straight into the Atlantic. The US, using the same outdated technology that Britain had to for real in 1939/40, is virtually powerless against them (the techonology to defeat the subs has not been developed by the British because they had not faced the threat to be forced into beating it). The U-Boats run riot along the US east coat, sinking many merchant men until the US is forced to stop almost all sailings along their east coast, unless they are heavily escorted. At the same time, a lone agent in Panama manages to blow one of the locks of the Panama Canal up, leaving the canal unnavigable for several months.

The Kriegsmarine's main battle fleet now enters the Atlantic with 2 aircraft carriers and several battleships along with a large number of the lighter pocket battleships, cruisers and escorts. The relatively weak US Atlantic Fleet (most US naval buildup was concentrated on their Pacific Fleet, because of an expected confrontation with Japan that has, in this scenario, not materialised) is forced to face this fleet alone because the damage to the Panama Canal forces the Pacific Fleet to take the long route around South America, meaning that they do not reach the Atlantic Fleet in time.

The US, with their Atlantic Fleet defeated and their Pacific Fleet still too far from the battle zone, are forced to seek surrender terms from the Germans. Thanks to years of underfunding, the US Government knows that the USAAF and the US Army are not strong enough to fight large and professional army that their intelligence tells them the Germans have.

1000ydstare
08-20-2005, 12:07 PM
Although they would still have to cross the Atlantic in numbers great enough to invade.

The RAF and the rest of the British forces prevented the Germans from crossing the Channel.

Could the USAAF not prevent landings on the US coast? German air cover would have been practically non-existant.

Hosenfield
08-20-2005, 12:27 PM
i've always wondered 1,000yd, about the fighter plane combos, wouldn't it be a heavy waste of material if the bomber was thrown away?

1000ydstare
08-20-2005, 02:12 PM
They were specifically designed to attack large targets, ie dams and bridges. Edit to add and ships.

At the time though the Germans were suffering a similar problem as the Japs in the East.

Specifically any aircraft close enough to get to the target stood very little chance of making it out!!!

The German idea was the combo. The Japs idea was the Kamikaze!!!

Apparently the whole thing could take off under the power of the fighter alone!!!

Once it had been realised that the fighter could essentially hitch a lift to the target and flyback, the range was greatly enhanced.

Extra bombs were also attached or loaded in to the bombbay purely for extra punch.

The normal bombers that carried their own escorts were tried in very few numbers.

The idea being that the bombers were protected by "free" fighters for as long as possibe, then they relied on the piggy back fighters.

Once launched the fighters could only hang around for one or two sweeps and then had to fly back to Germany!!!

More info here: www.making-history.ca/ju88project/Mistel/defaultl.htm

Edit to add: Or google "JU 88 Mistle" lots of model type sites, but one or two good ones as well.

1000ydstare
08-20-2005, 02:22 PM
Further more.

If any one is interested the following is info on the American plans.

www.air-and-space.com/ficon.htm

www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/postwwii/ficon.htm

www.unrealaircraft.com/forever/ficon.php

and lots more...

Google "FICON"

ww2fanatic1944
08-21-2005, 09:02 AM
i think that the "best" army in terms of technology, manpower, and just the skill of the soldiers would be the germans, maybe the americans. but in terms of the army that won the war-the russians. although it couldnt have been done without the americans, the russians just inflicted such heavy casualties on the germans.

Hosenfield
08-21-2005, 09:46 AM
A large percentage of non-fatal causalties are caused by artillery. The Us army had the best artillerymen of the war. US artillery was very fast, accurate and numerous with practically infinite ammo.

BDL
08-21-2005, 10:11 AM
A large percentage of non-fatal causalties are caused by artillery. The Us army had the best artillerymen of the war. US artillery was very fast, accurate and numerous with practically infinite ammo.

I'm sure the Soviets would argue that, since they hold all the records for the size of artillery barrages launched.

Hosenfield
08-21-2005, 10:17 AM
thats true, but the size of german forces in the east were far greater then in the west. also, while the soviets can do enormous set-piece mass bombardments, it is not as flexible on a smaller scale then us artillery. and, last of all, soviet artillery is not as accurate.

BDL
08-21-2005, 10:20 AM
thats true, but the size of german forces in the east were far greater then in the west. also, while the soviets can do enormous set-piece mass bombardments, it is not as flexible on a smaller scale then us artillery. and, last of all, soviet artillery is not as accurate.

You don't need to be accurate when you have some of the heaviest guns in the world and you have a tube or rocket launcher for every two or three metres of the front.

Hosenfield
08-21-2005, 11:14 AM
speed of aritllery- us army was faster

BDL
08-21-2005, 11:20 AM
speed of aritllery- us army was faster

Do you have a source for that? You can't just claim something like that without backing it up.

I happen to know that Spike Milligan's (a British comedian who was in the Royal Artillery during the war) battery trained until they could get the whole battery from being in a convoy to in firing positions in 2 minutes after getting a crash fire order. He mentions it in one of his books about the war (which are, incidentally, probably the funniest books you will ever read about the war). I'd say it would take a lot to get a battery trained to be in action faster.

If you're talking about rate of fire, it'd be very hard to prove that any army had the fastest gunners - it's all about training and drills, and they are just a question of practicing over and over again. The Soviets made sure that their artillerymen got plenty of practice.

Hosenfield
08-21-2005, 11:23 AM
not so much rate of fire, the speed of artillery positioning. US artillery was all motorized while a lot of russian artillery was horse-drawn.

Firefly
08-21-2005, 11:25 AM
not so much rate of fire, the speed of artillery positioning. US artillery was all motorized while a lot of russian artillery was horse-drawn.

The same can accurately describe the German artillery.


Being horse drawn I mean.

Hosenfield
08-21-2005, 11:36 AM
yes, of course. thats why i said the us artillery was the best

Firefly
08-21-2005, 11:37 AM
yes, of course. thats why i said the us artillery was the best

I think you will also find that the UK artillery was fully motorised as well. In fact the UK was the worlds first fully mechanised Army. The German army never achieved this.

Hosenfield
08-21-2005, 11:52 AM
was it really fully motorized? While many sources say that the US army was fully motorized, in actuality it was more like 50%. A US infantry division could move either all its gear or all its troops. However, some units could have full motorization due to aquisition of enemy vehicles or enacting gross/dangerous overload on their tanks and trucks.

Hosenfield
08-21-2005, 11:55 AM
the germans never achieved this because of the amount of vehicles they lost during the war with russia/russian winter. If my memory serves me correctly, 60,000 trucks were lost in Stalingrad. Also, the size of the german army was larger then the enlgish army.

BDL
08-21-2005, 11:55 AM
was it really fully motorized? While many sources say that the US army was fully motorized, in actuality it was more like 50%. A US infantry division could move either all its gear or all its troops. However, some units could have full motorization due to aquisition of enemy vehicles or enacting gross/dangerous overload on their tanks and trucks.

The British Army was fully, 100% motorised by about 1938.

1000ydstare
08-21-2005, 11:57 AM
1938 was when the last Cavelry regiments gave up their horses.

Although does the reintroduction of donkeys in Burma mean they backtracked? :D

Hosenfield
08-21-2005, 11:58 AM
I know that the BEF was fully motorized at the beginning of the war, but was this mostly on paper or did it actually happen? the US certainly didn't have enough vehicles to move its whole army. and the us was the world's biggest automobile manufacturer.

BDL
08-21-2005, 12:04 PM
I know that the BEF was fully motorized at the beginning of the war, but was this mostly on paper or did it actually happen? the US certainly didn't have enough vehicles to move its whole army. and the us was the world's biggest automobile manufacturer.

It actually happened mate, the British Army got rid of their last horses in 1938.

Hosenfield
08-21-2005, 12:10 PM
so did the americans. I meant, did the british have to perform gross/dangerous overload of their vehicles? I think a lot of british equipment was american.

BDL
08-21-2005, 12:14 PM
so did the americans. I meant, did the british have to perform gross/dangerous overload of their vehicles? I think a lot of british equipment was american.

Not as far as I'm aware - and most of the vehicles were British before the war started - there were a few truck manufacturers in Britain back then.

Sturmtruppen
08-21-2005, 12:24 PM
The top armies were German,American and Soviet

Hosenfield
08-21-2005, 12:27 PM
is this question about best army in terms of total power or best army in terms of quality?