User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:21:23 AM EDT
[#1]
Snappy dressers too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:23:22 AM EDT
[#2]
Wehraboo thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:25:22 AM EDT
[#3]
Had some killer moves also.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:26:02 AM EDT
[#4]
Straight outa Berlin
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:26:04 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Snappy dressers too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:28:30 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always thought so, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Snappy dressers too. Hugo Boss, yo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:30:15 AM EDT
[#7]
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right.
ETA: Of course we were also tied up in a war in the Pacific. ETA #2: Didn't mean to leave out our Canadian neighbors, you guys pulled you weight too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:32:33 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. It seems to me, that often one evokes or even requires the other. A.W.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:33:26 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:35:01 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. ETA: Of course we were also tied up in a war in the Pacific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:36:28 AM EDT
[#11]
I always wondered what would have happened if Hitler hadnt been so hung up on taking Stalingrad and just bombed and gassed it in to oblivion. And then went on his merry way.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:37:50 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snappy dressers too. I have to admit they had the best looking uniforms and helmets hands down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:39:46 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:40:50 AM EDT
[#14]
Just got Herman Balck's Order in Chaos. Balck was commander of the 48th Panzer Corps and later Army Group G. He was thought of highly by his chief of staff, F. W. von Mellenthin who had previously served under Rommel. Balck's memoirs were penned late in his life and wasn't translated to english until recently.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:41:05 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have to admit they had the best looking uniforms and helmets hands down. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Snappy dressers too. I have to admit they had the best looking uniforms and helmets hands down. Hell, we're still using a variant of the helmet today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:42:06 AM EDT
[#16]
I don't see any way the US military could have defeated the German military in Europe, had we fought the German military of 1939-1940. By the time we entered the way they had already destroyed most of their best soliders and units fighting the Russians.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:42:29 AM EDT
[#17]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:42:56 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was just a wee bit too ambitious. I blame it all on methamphetamine. Had he taken the time and trouble to spread his conflict out over thirty or forty years he would have had a very different outcome. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. This. He expanded his empire way too quickly and it ended up overstretching his resources to the breaking point. If he did as the Romans done and gobbled up everything slowly, Berlin might have become the "Rome of the North". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:44:56 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see any way the US military could have defeated the German military in Europe, had we fought the German military of 1939-1940. By the time we entered the way they had already destroyed most of their best soliders and units fighting the Russians. We would have but it would have been a lot bloodier and a lot longer than it did take. We simply outproduced them, and that wouldn't change even fighting their best units. One would say that their units at the end had a lot more combat experience, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:49:37 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. Name some brilliant military plans hatched by Hitler, not a subordinate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:50:14 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just got Herman Balck's Order in Chaos. Balck was commander of the 48th Panzer Corps and later Army Group G. He was thought of highly by his chief of staff, F. W. von Mellenthin who had previously served under Rommel. Balck's memoirs were penned late in his life and wasn't translated to english until recently. Can you give me an idea of where they where ordered to? I'm still catching up on my ww2 history? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:50:54 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Just watching some videos on Youtube about how they fought and to what extent they did. I tried to Join the MARINE Corps. when I was 17, I felt I was my duty. I didn't make the physical test at MEPS, oh well. Over the years as I've grown up a bit I started to notice just how amazingly capable this country is. How amazingly capable our Professional military is. It renewed my interest of the people, and tacticians our forces have fought against and while I find the Japanese and Vietnamese to be superb defenders and infiltrators (Brits get a honorable mention too), I think the Nazis were absolutely terrifying. Professional soldiers with the arguably the best training and equipment. Ruthless, determined to the point of suicide. I am so glad I never had to engage a force like that. Thank Christ their leader was a madman. If you look at the average kit, the Germans didn't have the best equipment. Sure, some of their equipment was superb, but their mainline fighting was done by guys equipped with K98 bolt action rifles, their most common AFV was the Pz IV, qualitatively no better than a Sherman. Their most common fighter, the Bf-109, was mediocre. Most of the German army's supplies were horse drawn. As was most of their artillery. They had the initial, singular advantage of fighting WW2 while most of their enemies were still prepared to re-fight WW1. Read "When the Odds Were Even" to see how the Germans - elite SS units at that - did when matched up against American units without air support (weather) and in mountainous terrain that heavily favored the defender. Spoiler: the Germans didn't do so great. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:51:54 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. He expanded his empire way too quickly and it ended up overstretching his resources to the breaking point. If he did as the Romans done and gobbled up everything slowly, Berlin might have become the "Rome of the North". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. This. He expanded his empire way too quickly and it ended up overstretching his resources to the breaking point. If he did as the Romans done and gobbled up everything slowly, Berlin might have become the "Rome of the North". had he not, the germans would of had rockets, jets, computers, radar and atomic weaponry in 1950 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:52:08 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always wondered what would have happened if Hitler hadnt been so hung up on taking Stalingrad and just bombed and gassed it in to oblivion. And then went on his merry way. It wasn't just Stalingrad. Hitler opposed giving up any Soviet land the Germans took, which was completely idiotic and backwards (WWI mindset). If he had ordered the army to fight Russia but given guys like Manstein absolute freedom to fall back / counter attack as they saw fit...fighting a completely fliuid / mobile WWII-tank warfare model, they may have defeated the Soviets. The key to the German's superiority on the Eastern Front was their mobility and tactics, not their cool weapons. Once you take that edge away (or give it away under Hitler's orders), the advantages of a bigger population, more land, winter, and (in some cases) more resources of the USSR became the prime factors and Germany was never going to win that fight. The Germans had a system that the Russians couldn't contend with and they gave it away for purely propaganda / ego-driven reasons. So long as Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad were unable to function as industrial production centers, they had no real strategic value. Let them die on the vine and conquer them when it is easy to do so rather than bashing your head against that wall and getting bogged down for years on end. Becoming static allowed the Russians to build up their forces, built up their defenses, and it provided a fixed target to attack. No kraut WWII army should stand still for that long. When they did, they either lost or "won" with heinous losses. When on the move, they were almost unstoppable...at least until the end of the war when a lack of gas meant that they couldn't stay on the move. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:52:44 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We would have but it would have been a lot bloodier and a lot longer than it did take. We simply outproduced them, and that wouldn't change even fighting their best units. One would say that their units at the end had a lot more combat experience, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't see any way the US military could have defeated the German military in Europe, had we fought the German military of 1939-1940. By the time we entered the way they had already destroyed most of their best soliders and units fighting the Russians. We would have but it would have been a lot bloodier and a lot longer than it did take. We simply outproduced them, and that wouldn't change even fighting their best units. One would say that their units at the end had a lot more combat experience, too. If the Germans had lasted longer, our ace in the hole would have debuted in Germany, not Japan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:55:18 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wehraboo thread. Noiice |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:56:40 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Name some brilliant military plans hatched by Hitler, not a subordinate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. Name some brilliant military plans hatched by Hitler, not a subordinate. Why would you think his brilliance is in planning military movements? Allow me to be a little egotistical and say I am pretty good at running this business, but I know to keep smart, talented people in my employ that I listen to. Hitler did too. Every good leader does. However, I do believe Hitler had a direct hand in the overall military strategy. But we are talking about a man who inspired a nation to rise from the ashes and become the greatest world power of the time in a very short time frame. A man who convinced a nation to commit genocide for the Father Land and feel good about it. If his ideals had not been so evil he could be argued to be one of the greatest leaders of all time. Actually an objective mind would be willing to admit that even now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:56:52 AM EDT
[#28]
yes, it's all about production. My WWII history teacher once told us that if the war had gone on until 1948, the US would have been able to launch more planes from our carriers (all of them combined) than any other country in the world could from land. yikes. The ultimate weapons in WWII was production, not the garand or nukes or carriers or the B29.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:57:35 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hugo Boss, yo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snappy dressers too. Hugo Boss, yo. I was just going to say that! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:57:47 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Name some brilliant military plans hatched by Hitler, not a subordinate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. Name some brilliant military plans hatched by Hitler, not a subordinate. The stand-fast order in December of 1941, despite the orders of his generals. But Hitler's genius wasn't really in military matters, it was politics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 11:59:10 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you look at the average kit, the Germans didn't have the best equipment. Sure, some of their equipment was superb, but their mainline fighting was done by guys equipped with K98 bolt action rifles, their most common AFV was the Pz IV, qualitatively no better than a Sherman. Their most common fighter, the Bf-109, was mediocre. Most of the German army's supplies were horse drawn. As was most of their artillery. They had the initial, singular advantage of fighting WW2 while most of their enemies were still prepared to re-fight WW1. Read "When the Odds Were Even" to see how the Germans - elite SS units at that - did when matched up against American units without air support (weather) and in mountainous terrain that heavily favored the defender. Spoiler: the Germans didn't do so great. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just watching some videos on Youtube about how they fought and to what extent they did. I tried to Join the MARINE Corps. when I was 17, I felt I was my duty. I didn't make the physical test at MEPS, oh well. Over the years as I've grown up a bit I started to notice just how amazingly capable this country is. How amazingly capable our Professional military is. It renewed my interest of the people, and tacticians our forces have fought against and while I find the Japanese and Vietnamese to be superb defenders and infiltrators (Brits get a honorable mention too), I think the Nazis were absolutely terrifying. Professional soldiers with the arguably the best training and equipment. Ruthless, determined to the point of suicide. I am so glad I never had to engage a force like that. Thank Christ their leader was a madman. If you look at the average kit, the Germans didn't have the best equipment. Sure, some of their equipment was superb, but their mainline fighting was done by guys equipped with K98 bolt action rifles, their most common AFV was the Pz IV, qualitatively no better than a Sherman. Their most common fighter, the Bf-109, was mediocre. Most of the German army's supplies were horse drawn. As was most of their artillery. They had the initial, singular advantage of fighting WW2 while most of their enemies were still prepared to re-fight WW1. Read "When the Odds Were Even" to see how the Germans - elite SS units at that - did when matched up against American units without air support (weather) and in mountainous terrain that heavily favored the defender. Spoiler: the Germans didn't do so great. Well, the German Infantry squad/platoon was built around their superb MG-34 and later the spectacular MG-42. The guys with the 98k's were there to support/defend the MG...so that point is moot... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:00:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Think of the resources Hitler wasted trying to exterminate the Jews.
I wouldn't call that "brilliant." His decision to attack Russia, and to declare war on the U.S., were unforced errors. Attacking Russia when he did cost him the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:04:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It wasn't just Stalingrad. Hitler opposed giving up any Soviet land the Germans took, which was completely idiotic and backwards (WWI mindset). If he had ordered the army to fight Russia but given guys like Manstein absolute freedom to fall back / counter attack as they saw fit...fighting a completely fliuid / mobile WWII-tank warfare model, they may have defeated the Soviets. The key to the German's superiority on the Eastern Front was their mobility and tactics, not their cool weapons. Once you take that edge away (or give it away under Hitler's orders), the advantages of a bigger population, more land, winter, and (in some cases) more resources of the USSR became the prime factors and Germany was never going to win that fight. The Germans had a system that the Russians couldn't contend with and they gave it away for purely propaganda / ego-driven reasons. So long as Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad were unable to function as industrial production centers, they had no real strategic value. Let them die on the vine and conquer them when it is easy to do so rather than bashing your head against that wall and getting bogged down for years on end. Becoming static allowed the Russians to build up their forces, built up their defenses, and it provided a fixed target to attack. No kraut WWII army should stand still for that long. When they did, they either lost or "won" with heinous losses. When on the move, they were almost unstoppable...at least until the end of the war when a lack of gas meant that they couldn't stay on the move. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I always wondered what would have happened if Hitler hadnt been so hung up on taking Stalingrad and just bombed and gassed it in to oblivion. And then went on his merry way. It wasn't just Stalingrad. Hitler opposed giving up any Soviet land the Germans took, which was completely idiotic and backwards (WWI mindset). If he had ordered the army to fight Russia but given guys like Manstein absolute freedom to fall back / counter attack as they saw fit...fighting a completely fliuid / mobile WWII-tank warfare model, they may have defeated the Soviets. The key to the German's superiority on the Eastern Front was their mobility and tactics, not their cool weapons. Once you take that edge away (or give it away under Hitler's orders), the advantages of a bigger population, more land, winter, and (in some cases) more resources of the USSR became the prime factors and Germany was never going to win that fight. The Germans had a system that the Russians couldn't contend with and they gave it away for purely propaganda / ego-driven reasons. So long as Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad were unable to function as industrial production centers, they had no real strategic value. Let them die on the vine and conquer them when it is easy to do so rather than bashing your head against that wall and getting bogged down for years on end. Becoming static allowed the Russians to build up their forces, built up their defenses, and it provided a fixed target to attack. No kraut WWII army should stand still for that long. When they did, they either lost or "won" with heinous losses. When on the move, they were almost unstoppable...at least until the end of the war when a lack of gas meant that they couldn't stay on the move. Germany was a dead man walking by January 1942, whatever tactics they employed. Had Stalin been less aggressive during the winter counter-offensive, he could have crippled the German army right then and there, but he tried to win the war in one fell swoop, just like Hitler did in the summer of '41. It boiled down to Germany not having sufficient manpower to take and hold Russia. Nothing the Germans ever came up with came close to the grand operational mastery that was Bagration to the end of the war. The Russians immediately counter-attacked after Kursk failed, and then were relentless from then on to the end of the war with offensives sweeping over the entire German-Russian front. No pause, no rest. The casualty/capture ratio from Bagration was similar to the best successes the Germans had in the opening days of 1941. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:06:06 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Name some brilliant military plans hatched by Hitler, not a subordinate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. Name some brilliant military plans hatched by Hitler, not a subordinate. His brilliance was economic and political. Look at Germany in the early 30's, and again in 1942 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:06:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, the German Infantry squad/platoon was built around their superb MG-34 and later the spectacular MG-42. The guys with the 98k's were there to support/defend the MG...so that point is moot... I don't think the point is moot - see the German propensity for picking up enemy weapons like the PPSH. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:07:35 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Think of the resources Hitler wasted trying to exterminate the Jews. I wouldn't call that "brilliant." His decision to attack Russia, and to declare war on the U.S., were unforced errors. Attacking Russia when he did cost him the war. I am not saying he wasn't evil and insane to boot. He definitely made mistakes that cost him the war...hence, we won. But my god man, look what it took to defeat Germany. A country that was devastated after WWI just 20 years earlier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:09:00 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. He expanded his empire way too quickly and it ended up overstretching his resources to the breaking point. If he did as the Romans done and gobbled up everything slowly, Berlin might have become the "Rome of the North". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. This. He expanded his empire way too quickly and it ended up overstretching his resources to the breaking point. If he did as the Romans done and gobbled up everything slowly, Berlin might have become the "Rome of the North". He had already wrapped up all of Europe and had the British on the ropes. It's definitely arguable whether the North Africa campaign was worthwhile but war with the Russians was inevitable. Hitler may have been a brilliant politician and leader but he was a poor military commander. His meddling in tactical matters may not have changed the course of the war but it certainly didn't help and got a lot of his troops killed. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:10:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Just watching some videos on Youtube about how they fought and to what extent they did. I tried to Join the MARINE Corps. when I was 17, I felt I was my duty. I didn't make the physical test at MEPS, oh well. Over the years as I've grown up a bit I started to notice just how amazingly capable this country is. How amazingly capable our Professional military is. It renewed my interest of the people, and tacticians our forces have fought against and while I find the Japanese and Vietnamese to be superb defenders and infiltrators (Brits get a honorable mention too), I think the Nazis were absolutely terrifying. Professional soldiers with the arguably the best training and equipment. Ruthless, determined to the point of suicide. I am so glad I never had to engage a force like that. Thank Christ their leader was a madman. Uhhhh...The Germans were determined to the point of suicide?  The Japanese were, probably equal to the Germans as soldiers and professionals, but they far surpassed the Germans in ruthlessness, determination, aggressiveness and fanatical commitment to their leader. Proof? Compare the numbers of killed and captured Germans to the numbers of kill and captured Japanese. In the ground battles of the Pacific, the troops and Marines had to kill damn near the entire garrison for each island. And the casualties that they inflicted on us were horrible. I would say that they were far more terrifying than the Nazis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:13:09 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. ETA: Of course we were also tied up in a war in the Pacific. ETA #2: Didn't mean to leave out our Canadian neighbors, you guys pulled you weight too. I can't say Hitler was brilliant. He was clever, but he defeated opponents who weren't ready for his attacks after he telegraphed his intentions for over a decade. You do not have to be brilliant to defeat the stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:19:13 PM EDT
[#40]
I've never been overly impressed by the WWII German military. To be fair, much of my reading has focused on the American portion of the war, so I am not as well versed in the initial German military operations early on. But in most of the stuff I've read, I saw a far different situation than that described by the OP. It seems that German units would surrender in mass anytime you put the slightest bit of pressure on them. The same was the case of their individual soldiers. I have read numerous books about WWII battles. And the ones involving Germans all had a common theme.....the word "komerad", meaning I surrender in German seemed to pop up quite frequently. The SS units may have been pretty hardcore, but the German units overall just weren't that impressive to me. The Germans had good training, they had good equipment and outside of Hitler, they had some incredibly smart leaders. But I don't think they were the ten feet tall and bulletproof soldiers many make them out to be. The toughest Germans were teddy bears compared to the Imperial Japanese. Now there was some fanatical MF'ers! Never throughout the course of the Pacific campaign did the Japanese surrender in mass during battle like the Germans. Hell, entire German divisions at times surrendered. Only a small fragment of Japanese troops would survive their battles to be taken prisoner. Most chose to fight to the death. The Germans weren't even close to being that committed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:22:32 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only a small fragment of Japanese troops would survive their battles to be taken prisoner. Most chose to fight to the death. Hell, during the invasion of Okinawa, about 100,000 Japanese civilians killed themselves |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:22:56 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think the point is moot - see the German propensity for picking up enemy weapons like the PPSH. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Well, the German Infantry squad/platoon was built around their superb MG-34 and later the spectacular MG-42. The guys with the 98k's were there to support/defend the MG...so that point is moot... I don't think the point is moot - see the German propensity for picking up enemy weapons like the PPSH. They had to-at 1200 RPM, their MG42s probably went Winchester early into extended firefights thanks to their horse drawn log train. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:28:29 PM EDT
[#43]
The Germans were tough and innovative tactically. They were scientific innovators; a fact which actually undermined their war effort.
They were clownishly incompetent in virtually all other respects. The more I read, the more I'm convinced their early success in the war is because they got a "head start" and it took everybody else two years to catch up. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:29:14 PM EDT
[#44]
You're always hip in Hugo Boss yo.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snappy dressers too. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:32:20 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you look at the average kit, the Germans didn't have the best equipment. Sure, some of their equipment was superb, but their mainline fighting was done by guys equipped with K98 bolt action rifles, their most common AFV was the Pz IV, qualitatively no better than a Sherman. Their most common fighter, the Bf-109, was mediocre. Most of the German army's supplies were horse drawn. As was most of their artillery. They had the initial, singular advantage of fighting WW2 while most of their enemies were still prepared to re-fight WW1. Read "When the Odds Were Even" to see how the Germans - elite SS units at that - did when matched up against American units without air support (weather) and in mountainous terrain that heavily favored the defender. Spoiler: the Germans didn't do so great. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just watching some videos on Youtube about how they fought and to what extent they did. I tried to Join the MARINE Corps. when I was 17, I felt I was my duty. I didn't make the physical test at MEPS, oh well. Over the years as I've grown up a bit I started to notice just how amazingly capable this country is. How amazingly capable our Professional military is. It renewed my interest of the people, and tacticians our forces have fought against and while I find the Japanese and Vietnamese to be superb defenders and infiltrators (Brits get a honorable mention too), I think the Nazis were absolutely terrifying. Professional soldiers with the arguably the best training and equipment. Ruthless, determined to the point of suicide. I am so glad I never had to engage a force like that. Thank Christ their leader was a madman. If you look at the average kit, the Germans didn't have the best equipment. Sure, some of their equipment was superb, but their mainline fighting was done by guys equipped with K98 bolt action rifles, their most common AFV was the Pz IV, qualitatively no better than a Sherman. Their most common fighter, the Bf-109, was mediocre. Most of the German army's supplies were horse drawn. As was most of their artillery. They had the initial, singular advantage of fighting WW2 while most of their enemies were still prepared to re-fight WW1. Read "When the Odds Were Even" to see how the Germans - elite SS units at that - did when matched up against American units without air support (weather) and in mountainous terrain that heavily favored the defender. Spoiler: the Germans didn't do so great. The first thing I thought of was how Easy Company wiped out 2 companies of SS troops. Dick Winter called it a "duck shoot" I believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:45:20 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Germans were tough and innovative tactically. They were scientific innovators; a fact which actually undermined their war effort. They were clownishly incompetent in virtually all other respects. The more I read, the more I'm convinced their early success in the war is because they got a "head start" and it took everybody else two years to catch up. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Necessity is the mother of invention |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:49:41 PM EDT
[#47]
I'm a huge fan of 'Time-Travel' and 'Alternate History' books. I've always wondered what would have happened, if Hitler had decided that the Arabs were the source of the German Peoples woes and not the Jews, and he had invaded the Middle East instead of Europe. What would the world look like if he had taken all the oilfields and then consolidated his power before turning towards Europe and Russia?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:54:46 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always wondered what would have happened if Hitler hadnt been so hung up on taking Stalingrad and just bombed and gassed it in to oblivion. And then went on his merry way. Megalomania. Germany had some of the best generals, but Hitler often ignored their advice or ordered them to do incredibly idiotic things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 12:56:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
His brilliance was economic and political. Look at Germany in the early 30's, and again in 1942 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. That's the often overlooked part. A brilliant sociopath. Name some brilliant military plans hatched by Hitler, not a subordinate. His brilliance was economic and political. Look at Germany in the early 30's, and again in 1942 Hitler didn't authorize a full war economy until '44, when it was too late. So economically, his policies were a nightmare. He started a war with the entirety of Europe with Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary as allies. He failed to exploit any possible political alliances with White Russians against the Bolsheviks. Germany in the early 30s was mostly Red or Pink politically, and was wipe to fall to socialism/communism. Hitler coming to power stopped that, momentarily. If he had actually kept his ambitions in check, as his non-Nazi German political allies had hoped, Nazis probably would still control Germany to this day. Instead, he went crazy and with unchecked power launched Germany into an unwinnable war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2015 1:00:35 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It seems to me, that often one evokes or even requires the other. A.W.D. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hitler was a madman for sure. However, he was also brilliant. I wouldn't be quick to say Germany lost because of him rather it took Russia, Australia, America, Britain and a host of others to finally overwhelm the war machine he inspired and created. A scary mofo in his own right. It seems to me, that often one evokes or even requires the other. A.W.D. Intelligence + Insanity always equals Dangerous |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
