PDA

View Full Version : Can any Brits help me on some WW 2 Q's



Graeme81
10-03-2006, 09:01 AM
Hi there

I have just joined the form, and I must say its been a long time in waiting to find such a place where yo can get some good solid info, and to be able to find experienced knowledgeable people who can help me.

I really needed to speak to some Brits about some questions about the war, maybe OZZ also.

any help would be greatly appreciated

ww2admin
10-03-2006, 09:11 AM
Well, go ahead and ask your questions!

Graeme81
10-03-2006, 09:35 AM
Hi, I sent a pm to you.

Graeme81
10-03-2006, 01:40 PM
10-02-2006, 11:28 PM #159
Zankou
Lowlife Bad***



Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,508
Status:
Most ***-kicking militarily is unquestionably the Germans. Name another country that could take on Russia, England, Poland, France, Norway, the U.S., Czechoslovakia, Greece, the Middle East, North Africa, and too many other countries to name -- *simultaneously* -- and make it a tough contest.

Britain has done well in wars, but it's a hell of a lot easier to do well in wars when you live on a GODDAMN ISLAND that you can run back to --- see, e.g., Japan, Australia, etc.

None of this has much to do with "toughness" as an individual quality however. If I had to pick toughness, I'd go with the Slavs, and among the Slavs, probably the Balkan slavs, with the Serbs near the top for the brutality thrown in.



Here is one of the posts I am talking about

Graeme81
10-03-2006, 01:43 PM
You need to re-read your history. After the British fled, tail between their legs, back to their island when they got their *** whipped trying to fight the Germans without Americans and Russians on their side, they fought the Battle of Britain --- air defense against part of the German air force, all of Britain striving desperately to survive on its own island against one part of one branch of the German military, and barely hanging on at that, even with massive American logistical support. Meanwhile, the Russians were out fighting the real war.

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

The British didn't blow up any German cities during the Battle of Britain (apart from mounting a feeble retaliatory strike on Berlin), they were too busy trying to survive. Only after the Russians had inflicted devastating losses on the Germans, and the Americans had entered the war, did the Brits become capable of striking back at Germany in any meaningful fashion.
__________________

Here is another post I quoted from the other board, how would you answer this back?

cheers

Nickdfresh
10-03-2006, 03:31 PM
Most ***-kicking militarily is unquestionably the Germans.[/quote]

"***-kicking?" :rolleyes: The Wehrmacht was very well trained and competent due to a variety of factors too numerous to list. The German troops had some excellent equipment, tactics, and could adapt very well.

However, they also had weaknesses. Ask an American soldier that fought in the Battle of the Bulge what he thinks of German infantry tactics (when you took away their armor) and he'll tell you they were suicidally incompetent (according to Ambrose "Citizen Soldiers") There are dozens of accounts of German soldiers simply walking to US positions during an attack, and getting mowed down in the snow, since they had forgotten to teach them offense.

German War industry was also wholly outproduced by the Allies, especially the US and USSR in nearly every category. And despite having some of the finest tanks, they also had a logistics system that was often horse and cart.


Name another country that could take on Russia, England, Poland, France, Norway, the U.S., Czechoslovakia, Greece, the Middle East, North Africa, and too many other countries to name -- *simultaneously* -- and make it a tough contest.

Now you're picking out favorable spin. For instance, you could also say that Britain was fighting Italy, Vichy France, Germany alone for a time, as well as hostile Middle Eastern States. You are also leaving out the fact that Germany had fascist allies in most of the countries they conquered. Italy, Vichy France, Finland, Romania, Hungry, Croatia --in addition, various factions in the Middle East and Europe were all German allies. And you make it sound as if Germany fought all of those countries at once. The Fatherland took them piece meal.


Britain has done well in wars, but it's a hell of a lot easier to do well in wars when you live on a GODDAMN ISLAND that you can run back to --- see, e.g., Japan, Australia, etc.

Britain also held out against the Germans and Italians alone for some months after France fell.

And perhaps you can tell us why Hitler never invaded Britain in Op. Sealion?


None of this has much to do with "toughness" as an individual quality however. If I had to pick toughness, I'd go with the Slavs, and among the Slavs, probably the Balkan slavs, with the Serbs near the top for the brutality thrown in.

I have no idea what this means. But the Germans were very smart and efficient as well as "tough" as they employed a level of technology and tactics that was initially ahead of the Allies that they had been rehearsing since even before Hitler took power while nations like France were just preparing to re-fight WWI. This is partly because of circumstances such as the Versailles Treaty, which ultimately causing the German Army to experiment with new ideas as they could not match their traditional border enemies. But the Allies caught up, and in many respects bettered them.

2nd of foot
10-03-2006, 04:51 PM
Most ***-kicking militarily is unquestionably the Germans. Name another country that could take on Russia, England, Poland, France, Norway, the U.S., Czechoslovakia, Greece, the Middle East, North Africa, and too many other countries to name -- *simultaneously* -- and make it a tough contest.

This is a very simplistic and inaccurate statement for people who have little knowledge of the subject and an inability to look up the facts.

The German army took on Czechoslovakia by removing its defences though very good diplomacy and use of western Europe’s unwillingness to go to war. They marched in with very little opposition. They also acquire some excellent tanks and weapons.

Poland was a prefabricated attack with the threat of Russia on the eastern Polish border. At this time Germany is allied to Russia. Poland was attacked and overwhelmed with attacks form the German army on 1st Sep39 and Russia on the 17th. At this time the United States proclaims neutrality and will remain so till the end of 42.

In April 40 the Germans invade Norway and Denmark. Norway surrenders in the second week of June.

France and the Low countries are next on May 10th. Holland surrenders 5 day latter and Belgium 13 days after. Dunkirk has already started by this time.

France surrenders towards the end of June, ho and Italy has declared war on Britain by this time.

By September Italy is invading Egypt and by October they attack Greece (no that can’t be right it was the Germans who were fitting every one all at once). It is not until the following year that the Germans enter Greece or Africa to support the Italians. Rumania and Hungary by this time are on the German side.

I could go on but you can see that the Germans are not fighting all at the same time. You also have a force that is confident they can win any battle, this is a major force multiplier. So they are a very competent force but not supermen.

Firefly
10-03-2006, 05:37 PM
Here is one of the posts I am talking about

What forum is this from? I would be interested in more of this purile uninformed drivel. Many diffrent years rolled into one as 2nd of Foots post so finely sums it up.

2nd of foot
10-03-2006, 05:42 PM
You need to re-read your history.

Yes he sertainly does.

After the British fled, tail between their legs, back to their island when they got their *** whipped trying to fight the Germans without Americans and Russians on their side,

No the Russians were on the German side at this time. And the US would not have been of much help as the US army consisted of about 175,000 men this would also include the air corps. So the BEF was over trice the size of the US army at this time.

they fought the Battle of Britain --- air defense against part of the German air force, all of Britain striving desperately to survive on its own island against one part of one branch of the German military, and barely hanging on at that, even with massive American logistical support.

Ho good one. So only one part of the German forces Was fighting only one part of one part of the British force (fighter command). Where was rest of the Luftwaffe at this time, getting pist in Paris? So a force of 1,260 bombers; 316 dive-bombers; 1,089 fighters is only one part, a sodding big part.

What massive US logistical support? Lend-lease was not signed till March 41 so 5 months after the BoB has ended.


Meanwhile, the Russians were out fighting the real war.

Again no. Operation Barbarossa started in June 41 almost a year after the start of the BoB.


The British didn't blow up any German cities during the Battle of Britain (apart from mounting a feeble retaliatory strike on Berlin),

Quite correct as he has already stated it was a defensive battle by the RAF. Bomber command had difficulties hitting the right country let alone the right city. They also had an aversion to attacking private property still.


they were too busy trying to survive. Only after the Russians had inflicted devastating losses on the Germans, and the Americans had entered the war, did the Brits become capable of striking back at Germany in any meaningful fashion.


No but the German High Seas Fleet remained in port and the Germans had been defeated at El Alamein.

So all-in-all not a very accurate assessment of the opening stages of the war and Britain is now fighting in the Far East.

Graeme81
10-03-2006, 06:22 PM
What forum is this from? I would be interested in more of this purile uninformed drivel. Many diffrent years rolled into one as 2nd of Foots post so finely sums it up.

www.sherdog.com

2nd of foot
10-03-2006, 07:12 PM
You will need to be a bit more specific as I have got to page 9and not found it.

Nickdfresh
10-03-2006, 10:03 PM
A professional wrestling forum? LOL

2nd of foot
10-04-2006, 03:23 PM
why not. some of the topics are interesting. i have come accross one ify one but hte rest seem very ok.

pdf27
10-04-2006, 03:40 PM
Does anyone else think that rant seems a little bit... Ferrous?

Graeme, does that poster ever rant on about how good the M1 carbine was, and how it was the first assault rifle?

pdf27
10-04-2006, 03:51 PM
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?t=436440&page=9&highlight=britain about two thirds of the way down.

redcoat
10-04-2006, 04:15 PM
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?t=436440&page=9&highlight=britain about two thirds of the way down.
I read about half a page, then I came across this


Originally Posted by explosives
In 1603 King James I of England led a massive assault on Scotland pillaging and ravaging through the land. The Scottish people were forced into labour, which in our modern day would look like slavery. Source Wikipedia :shock: :roll:

Where do they get such nonsense ? :mad:

James I of England, only became king of England on the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, before then he had another job, he was James VI of Scotland.
James I or VI (depending on what side of the border you live on) was the Scottish king who united the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, forming the United Kingdom.

Needless to say, he had no need to launch an assault on his own country:roll:

ps, He got the job because he was the closest blood relative of Queen Elizabeth I, his grandmother was Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII of England.

Nickdfresh
10-04-2006, 05:19 PM
I read about half a page, then I came across this

:shock: :roll:

Where do they get such nonsense ? :mad:
...


Mel Gibson films?:)

Nickdfresh
10-04-2006, 05:37 PM
why not. some of the topics are interesting. i have come accross one ify one but hte rest seem very ok.


You're right. Hell I mod a political forum on a board dedicated to a rock singer that hasn't been relevant since 1991 at the latest, maybe not even since 1985.

Cuts
10-04-2006, 05:55 PM
Does anyone else think that rant seems a little bit... Ferrous?

Graeme, does that poster ever rant on about how good the M1 carbine was, and how it was the first assault rifle?

It would seem so, rather typical of posts; poorly researched, historically inaccurate and full of vitriol.

However the screen name isn't close enough & I'd have thought he'd have been loath to give the name up - unless he's already been banned from that site in another guise.
I would really like to imagine that there are not two clowns of that calibre in the US, but experience and the law of averages would suggest otherwise.

That's the problem of the Internet - on cannot prevent mongs posting kak...

Graeme81
10-05-2006, 02:03 PM
A professional wrestling forum? LOL

No its not a wresting forum, its a Mixed martial arts forum. Which caters for kickboxing, Jujitsu, boxing, judo, strength and conditioning, and a war room with political issues.

Now in the Off topic section its gloves off more or less, you can really let fly and give people a real tongue lashing, that's why its good to get some real facts to give the two fingers up at them. So many people argue with each other its unreal.

Thanks for everyone contributing in this, your help has been very useful

Graeme81
10-05-2006, 02:24 PM
Does anyone else think that rant seems a little bit... Ferrous?

Graeme, does that poster ever rant on about how good the M1 carbine was, and how it was the first assault rifle?

Yes it is ferrous, but its a fighting forum so its pretty much goes with the territory.

No ha ha, the poster will not know anything about a M1 carbine assault rifle, they wouldn't even know what a rifle is to be honest, but the do know what being arrogant and ignorant is.

pdf27
10-05-2006, 02:29 PM
Sorry, the "ferrous" bit was something of an in-joke on the forum. There used to be a member named "Ironman" who posted in exactly that style. Further detail can be found in either of the links below:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/IRONMAN
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=245&start=0

The guy really was rather funny (unintentionally) if an utter troll.

Graeme81
10-05-2006, 02:38 PM
Sorry, the "ferrous" bit was something of an in-joke on the forum. There used to be a member named "Ironman" who posted in exactly that style. Further detail can be found in either of the links below:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/IRONMAN
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=245&start=0

The guy really was rather funny (unintentionally) if an utter troll.

Do you know I think he is a member on the board. Also You are not allowed to troll in the MMA section you will get banned, but in the OT section you can get away with it more.

Graeme81
10-05-2006, 02:43 PM
Lowlife Bad***



Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,542
Status:
Actually many historians think the Germans couldn't ever have taken the British isles, because their navy was so inferior to the British navy. The titanic logistical and military superiority required for a successful "D-Day" type invasion was far beyond them.

The Germans had overwhelming superiority in land combat against the Brits, and roughly equal air combat abilities. They could've crushed the Brits in a land war, but they had no ability to cross the channel. The Brits were saved, as always, by the channel and their navy ... to to mention the relative disinterest from the Germans in conquering them. The Germans wanted to pacify the Brits, but they didn't want to have to conquer them ... their real land grab intentions were to the East.


Here is another post from the same guy, how would you answer it?
if you were to answer is it possible if you could just quote it in one quote if you know what I mean
are you a Brit by the way?

Graeme81
10-05-2006, 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by REAR-NAKED JERK
Hitler tried to take Britain and failed thats when he turned to the eastern front. The Brits denied them air superiority so they couldn't mount a sea invasion. I say this because it is the truth even though Britt/Scott denies that America was the key in men and machines to mount an invasion of Europe.


they did not make a serious attempt to take Britain; their war machine could have easily produced the necessary materiel (ships, etc) to take Britain, had it been the key target. The flower of their army, morale, and war materiel perished in the russian snow. you really don't think the men and metal they sent into russia wouldn't have crushed Britain like a garden snail, brave as they undoubtedly were? LMFAO
__________________


Here is another idiot, the first quote is from one guy, then the second one I have is the one idiots response to it

(what an idiot)

2nd of foot
10-05-2006, 05:46 PM
Graeme I must put my hand up to my error, I tried to edit it but the system would not let me. Of course the US entered the war at the end of 41 not 42.

I think you should be a little calmer when talking to the num nuts. Don’t get mad, get even.

As for Scots food the Haggis must be as well know as the burger, the difference is the haggis has more class. Who else would have deep fried mars bar, smocked salmon, and oats. Ask the colonials to take a trip to the local top class eating house and order Aberdeen Angus and see how much they pay for a product you can get at you local butcher. Not forgetting the drink that is exported around the world, whisky (I personally prefer Bush but when needs must).

What government official local cop or statesperson on the US would go the there grave without the sound of cats being throttled? What police department does not have a pipe band.

Where would the industrial revolution have been without the Scots. The Enterprise would have crashed and burnt in the first season without Scotty to patch it up. What able Mr Bell, as fighter many must owe there lives to Alexander Fleming and Penicillin.

Knowing the sweaty socks probably half a dozen of the founding father would be jocks.

2nd of foot
10-05-2006, 06:08 PM
Here is another post from the same guy, how would you answer it?
if you were to answer is it possible if you could just quote it in one quote if you know what I mean
are you a Brit by the way?

Like many “experts” they fail to understand that if you cannot re-supply you forces they cannot fight. Battle of the Bulge ring any bells. As for Op Sealion, this operation was war-gamed at Sandhurst in the late 70s using a number of the German general staff who would have been taking part in the operation. It was a resounding defeat for the Germans and would have changed the war totally. Germany would have lost the cream of its panzer army and its experienced officers. The retreat from the home counties by the German army would have made Dunkirk look light one of the greats victories the British army ever had. With the RN in the channel they would be lucky to get any thing out.

This site will shoot down any but the thickest num nuts who thinks Sealion would have worked.

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

Nickdfresh
10-05-2006, 07:21 PM
Here is another post from the same guy, how would you answer it?
if you were to answer is it possible if you could just quote it in one quote if you know what I mean
are you a Brit by the way?

Ask him why then did the Eighth Army "Desert Rats" hold their own despite successive defeats initially, then finally beat Rommel?

Nickdfresh
10-05-2006, 08:00 PM
Sorry, the "ferrous" bit was something of an in-joke on the forum. There used to be a member named "Ironman" who posted in exactly that style. Further detail can be found in either of the links below:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/IRONMAN
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=245&start=0

The guy really was rather funny (unintentionally) if an utter troll.


Ha! I remember spending a couple hours one day reading his drivel...

I was wondering if he was this guy, The Riddler. (http://hitchworld1969.com/CIRCLEofTRUST/forums.cgi?forum=8) The classic troller to end all trolls.

Only the Riddler can write and is intentionally funny...

pdf27
10-06-2006, 08:41 AM
Do you know I think he is a member on the board. Also You are not allowed to troll in the MMA section you will get banned, but in the OT section you can get away with it more.
Where! We've been looking for him ever since he left this board to go and have some fun at his expense. Come to think of it, taking the piss out of some of his wilder ideas was the only reason some of us joined the board in the first place (myself included).

pdf27
10-06-2006, 08:42 AM
I was wondering if he was this guy, The Riddler. (http://hitchworld1969.com/CIRCLEofTRUST/forums.cgi?forum=8) The classic troller to end all trolls.

Only the Riddler can write and is intentionally funny...

Ow! I think my eyes are bleeding after looking at that website for 30 seconds. Has nobody told them scrolling text all over the place looks really bad?

Nickdfresh
10-06-2006, 11:24 PM
Ow! I think my eyes are bleeding after looking at that website for 30 seconds. Has nobody told them scrolling text all over the place looks really bad?

Oh, it's purely intentional. :D The site's not what once it was however, very little traffic these days. But there is some good comedy there.

The trolls are hysterical...

arhob1
10-13-2006, 05:35 PM
Graeme81 said "Britain has done well in wars, but it's a hell of a lot easier to do well in wars when you live on a GODDAMN ISLAND that you can run back to".

To be fair to him (her?) he has a point. 22 miles of sea is extremely helpful when you are in defence and in disarray and need to regroup - such as just after Dunkirk.

However it is also a pain in the backside when you want to go on the offense - such as on 6th June 1944.

So swings and roundabouts really? Or masterly strategic use of the available terrain?

2nd of foot
10-13-2006, 06:28 PM
It also ensures you have a good navy. :D

Graeme81
10-20-2006, 05:01 AM
Graeme81 said "Britain has done well in wars, but it's a hell of a lot easier to do well in wars when you live on a GODDAMN ISLAND that you can run back to".

To be fair to him (her?) he has a point. 22 miles of sea is extremely helpful when you are in defence and in disarray and need to regroup - such as just after Dunkirk.

However it is also a pain in the backside when you want to go on the offense - such as on 6th June 1944.

So swings and roundabouts really? Or masterly strategic use of the available terrain?

No it was not me that said that lol, it was the person I was quoting from another board.

Nickdfresh
10-20-2006, 12:33 PM
Graeme81 said "Britain has done well in wars, but it's a hell of a lot easier to do well in wars when you live on a GODDAMN ISLAND that you can run back to".

To be fair to him (her?) he has a point. 22 miles of sea is extremely helpful when you are in defence and in disarray and need to regroup - such as just after Dunkirk.

However it is also a pain in the backside when you want to go on the offense - such as on 6th June 1944.

So swings and roundabouts really? Or masterly strategic use of the available terrain?

LOL As opposed to America having two oceans as a buffer of any major military powers?

2nd of foot
10-21-2006, 07:30 AM
And a northern border they do not need to protect.