Re: Re: RepubliKKKan senator calls for 55 MPH national speed limit.

Topaz <mars1933@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:gb8u74pgou12r8bnddpn7jsadghi6vdr77
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>   Compare the size of Germany to the size of the Jewish controlled
> countries, the USA and the USSR. And still it was a close fight.

Actually it wasn't. Germany, Italy and Japan combined were not in a real 
strategic position to beat the US. Never, at no point. They could have
beaten 
the British if fatso Hermann had had a clue about conducting a strategic 
campaign, if Germany had paid more attention to the danger presented by 
English radar and destroying it, had stayed focused on RAF airfields
instead 
of bombing the cities, had had the foresight to not kill the 4 engine
bomber 
programmes by Junkers and Heinkel, had the Germans bothered to put drop
tanks 
on the fighters that early in the war, had Luftwaffe intelligence and post

strike analysis not deluded themselves regarding the results of the
attacks.

Shall I go on? Germany's only real chance was to get on British soil and 
occupy it. And they blew it. With the Royal Navy still in existence and
the 
US Navy soon to follow on, Germany never really had control of the seas,
and 
as a result was cut off from needed resources and could not stop the
allies 
from getting thier needed resources nor prevent the movement of finished 
materials into war zones.

Germany won the early battles because they had been training for years,
had 
blooded some of thier elements in the Spanish Civil War and were focused 
against unprepared opponents. The Poles while brave did not have really up
to 
date equipment. Despite some local successes thier aircraft were not a
match 
for the Luftwaffe, neither in performance or number. The ground elements
were 
no better. The small tanks and tankettes and horse borne cavalry were no 
match for the Stukas and then for the armored columns, even though the 
Germans for the most part used lighter vehicles it was still enough.

The Poles simply were not ready, nor properly equipped.

With the French it was a different story. Some of thier armor was quite 
modern by current standards, some types were regarded as being the best in

thier category. And there was plenty of it. Same with thier aircraft, some

were good, some were excellent. The main problem with the French was an 
overall air of antiwar, antidefense that thier young men had been raised
in, 
not entirely surprising given the events of 1914-1918, and an ossified 
coammnd structure that still largely depended on couriers and dispatach 
riders to collect info and disseminate orders. And an overall military 
strategy that was stuck in infantry tactics from 20 years previously.

The French lost because of poor doctrine and poor use of available
resources. 
It's a pretty standard exercise to handle the French forces more along the

lines of the Germans or late rhte US/British model and observe much better

results. Armor grouped together and used en masse vice wasting it in penny

packets amongst the infantry units, more aggressive use of the air assets,
to 
many were being held back (for what) in Southern France, supposedly to
keep 
them from being attacked on the ground. Unfortuneately they were were of 
little use there but of sufficient numner to have mattered.

The Brits fared little better, mainly because of errors in prewar thinking
by 
the RAF. Some of thier attack aircraft, it almost makes me cry when I read

about them. They were helpless against the Luftwaffe, thought the
Hurricans 
supplied did put up a good fight the fluid battlefield made basing a huge 
problem. The Brits did have some succees though, when Matildas of the BEF 
nearly broke Rommel's 7th Divsion. And of course there is Dunkirk. Overall
it 
was a victory for the allies, you can always make new weapons. It takes 18
or 
so years to make a new soldier.

Yugoslavia, Greece, no my friend none of the early battles were
particularly 
in the balance. In all cases the equipment was either inferior,
insufficeint 
in quality or the methods of employment were faulty.

No one ever suggested the Germans weren't good warriors. And German 
technology was good. Manufacturing OTOH was a great weak spot. While some
of 
thier weapons were quite good, they never seemed to be able to make enough
of 
the right ones. This is the fault of the decision makers as much as
anything 
else. The Me-262 was flown by Galland in June 43. He was out of his mind 
enthusiastic about it and wanted wings of it to defend the "open roof over

Fortree Europe". Hitler, ever the genius, wanted it as a bomber despite a 
very modest payload and ordered them developed into and only manufactured
as 
bombers. Thier ultimate use was to be to attack the Allies when they
invaded 
France. Bad weather and an almost complete control of the air and German 
airfields within viable range of the beachheads by allied warbirds pretty 
much diluted the strength of the attack to the point that I don't think
the 
allies even noticed it. Had they been in the air in numbers in late '43 as

bomber interceptors they very well may have made a difference, a big 
difference.

Same with thier armor, wonderful designs, hard to manufacture and for the 
most part let down by automotive components that weren't up to the job.

Plenty of "experimental" designs showing German engineering brillance,
both 
in the air and on the ground. But enormous amounts of resources were
wasted 
on essentially pipe dreams with little time to develop and taking valuable

manufacturing capacity from the weapons the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe needed

now.

The Germans were overall good disciplined soldiers with in many cases
quality 
weapons. They were also wasted in many cases by not enough of the good 
weapons, poor implementation, Tiger Is had no dedicated recovery vehicle, 
many were lost to simply not being able to bring in for repair, to the 
insanity of using Tigers to clear minefields with the thinking they were 
strong enough to withstand the blast mainly because the Germans had not 
prepared anything else.

Hitler also, thinling himself a genius, interfered with matters that were 
essentially on scene tactical decsisons. The Germans did  a pretty decent
job 
on D-Day. had the Panzers been made available to Rommel to deploy as he 
wanted, and he was one of the few German Generals who at that time 
appreciated what was coming, he might have stalled the invasion on the 
beaches.

But in the end Germany could not have prevailed. With the exception that
they 
had taken England and not declared war on the US. But in a global
conflict, 
they were not ready and it is questionalable whether they would ever been 
able to be ready enough.

Frank


Worst of all was Hitler's insane orders to not surrender and inch of 
conquered territory. You want to know why ot took so long to beat back the

Germans? The Allies were humanitarian in most cases to know when enough
was 
enough. The Germans were made to stand and fight when no advantage would
be 
gained and the losses inflicted would greatly impact later defenses. Think
of 
the Falaise Gap slaughter. Those men could have been pulled out sooner.