9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Who started both World Wars?
- Thread starter 9/11-investigator
- Start date
- Status
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Oh really? Then you have an explanation for the fatal design flaw of thsi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant#Combat_history
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Or the time spent on the Maus. Could use the bridges, couldn't cross the streams. Rather like Christopher Lee in those Hammer films.
How about the stupid idea of using the ME-262 as a BOMBER?
Oh, and the P.I.A.T. Stupidest thing in the history of warfare.
Oops, that last one's British. My bad.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
How about the Sherman Tank? Rolling caskets, they called them.
On the plus side, there were a whoooole lot of them.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
One of the funniest I can recall was a 37mm German anti tank gun that they called the coffin knocker. All it did was tell the Russians were to fire lol
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Again, please explain why you feel that Kimmel and Short were not adequately warned.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
'Forced' to invade? You do realize how long it took to assemble the forces the Germans used, don't you? You don't put into position 150 divisions over a weekend.
Besides, you seem to have overlooked the one universal truth in military matters: defence is easier than offence. With the right defences, you can sit back and let the enemy come to you and chew them up quite effectively. Look no further than Dieppe or Omaha Beach for examples where the defenders made the most of their built-in advantage and made the attackers pay dearly.
The rule-of-thumb is that the attacker needs a three-to-one superiority in force to stand a good chance of winning.
The Germans could have simply fortified their eastern frontier with the appropriate defences and let the Russians bleed themselves dry attacking it. The German military was quite adept in conducting defensive battles, as the Western Allies learned in the Normandy campaign.
But rather than do this, the Germans rushed into an ill-prepared, insufficiently supported assault with inadequate forces. Congratulations, your theory makes them even more stupid than in my original assertion.
Last edited:
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
There's another famous incident involving Göring told by Adolph Galland. In September, 1943, several U.S. fighters were shot down near Aachen, an indication that the U.S. was extending the range of its escort fighters. Galland reported this to Göring, who dismissed it as fantasy. Galland repeated the facts. Göring again denied it, and said that what must have happened was that the U.S. fighters had been shot down at high altitude further to the west and then glided the long distance to their final crash positions. Galland pointed out that oddity of an Allied pilot gliding towards the east and towards the enemy, rather than gliding towards the west and his own side. Göring snapped and said it was his order that no U.S. fighters had been shot down near Aachen, and that is what would be reported to the Führer.
This is the quality of leadership that was found at the top levels of the Reich.
Or the Me 163, He 162, V-1, and V-2. Indeed, the latter two programs consumed a huge amount of resources for weapons which were militarily useless.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
What do you mean with this cryptic remark? Are you saying that Stalin expected to be ready by 1942 to realize his communist world revolution? If that is the case then you are a Suvorovian yourself. World revolution was the core mission of communism, in sharp contrast to Hitler, who was essentially an extreme nationalist. He wanted Germany for Germans remember, van vreemde smetten vrij. This does not fit at all with conquering endless territory filled with inferior 'undesirables'. I am still open for the idea that Hitler wanted some territory in the East for permanent German settlement (parts of the Ukraine, Baltics), but he was basically lacking enough precious Germans to fill new territory with. The idea the ethnically cleans all lands between Berlin and the Urals is ridiculous.
Simple explanation: they invaded although they were not prepared and knew it. The Germans gambled on the surprise element.
http://www.richardsorge.com/literature/books/suvorov_navrozov_review.pdf
Here is a good short review written by a Russian. He confirms that Anglos and Russians were complicit in maintaining there self-serving BS story that Germany had planned Barbarossa all along. It was Stalin who was the world revolutionary, aspiring a communist NWO, not nationalist Germany, who merely wanted to reverse Versailles, and maybe a 'colony or two' in the east.
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
The decision was made to out-produce the Germans in the panzer category. The gasoline engines were used because a farm-boy from Kansas could fix it, same principles as the T-model he drove on dates in 1940. And there were 50,000 of them. The King Tigers never reached 1,000 production models, IIRC.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
No, to have it out with Germany one way or another
Not in Stalins Soviet Union. This very question was the source of a major schism in the Communist party in the 20' between Stalin supporters and the Troskyites. And that was a lucky thing for Hitler otherwise Germany would have been a communist state by 1929 at the latest
So why did he create these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Exactly what I say. And your remark shows ignorance of what perspired at the 5th Soviet Congress in 1927. Trotzky was the one advocating a communist world revolution.
Not necessarily. It was a theory which transcended national or religious differences, but that does not mean communism had to be established at a world scale.
But those Untermenschen had to serve the Aryans. See what Hitler did with the General-Government, which was to be a sort of reservation for the Poles, ruled by Germans.
They were overconfident that Barbarossa would be over as quickly as Fall Gelb. So they didn't prepare for the winter. Here's what US Army Command researcher Allen F. Chew wrote in 1981:
The latter idea is ludicrous as well. 50 divisions to occupy hostile territory from Brest-Litovsk in the west to Moscow in the east, Leningrad in the north to Rostov-on-Don in the south? How many divisions had the Wehrmacht in occupied France? How many divisions had the US Army in Iraq after 2003? Then do the math.
And the German army had paid little attention to the lessons of earlier winter campaigns, e.g. the Allied invasion around Arkhangelsk in 1918-1919:
Suvurov's Icebreaker theory has been thoroughly debunked.
Another simple fact - of which you're undoubtedly ignorant too - that defies this theory is that Barbarossa initially was planned for 1-2 months earlier. However, Italy's failed invasion of Greece threw a spanner in the works and Hitler had to divert resources to conquering Yugoslavia and Greece, instead of building up the resources to attack the USSR. Why didn't Stalin attack in the meantime? That would have been the most logical time, to attack while over 1 million Axis troops were on the Balkan front.
Last edited:
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,858
Shermans were very good tanks.
Shermans were reliable, rugged and available in large numbers. They were produced in several variants with cast and welded hulls and several engine packages. This meant they could be produced by a large number of contractors depending on heir skills and expertise.
One of the problems with Tanks in the 1930s was the horsepower of engines and cooling them in the confines of a tank hull, high power means lots of heat. Diesels of the time were relatively low powered for example the Sherman M4A2 had a pair of V8 diesels as did the British Matilda. This was the version used by the US marines so it could use the same fual as the Landing Craft and also supplied to the USSR.
Sherman M4 and M1A1 the original variants were the same tank but produced with both cast and welded hulls, they had an air cooled Radial Engine, M1A4 was the main version supplied to the UK, it had 5 x 6 Cylinder engines on a common gearbox. It was harder to service but had the highest power of all varsions and had redundency.
M4A3 was the most widely produced version, it had an engine designed for tank use.
Suspension, Armour, Turret and Guns were all upgraded as the war went on.
it never had the thickness and firepower of the later german Tanks but it's usual opponent was the PzIV rather than a Tiger or a Panther.
Later German Designs from Tiger 1 onwards had impressive armour and guns but were it was over-engineered, expensive and time-consuming to produce. Only 1,347 Tiger 1s were produced before it was replaced with the even more unreliable Tiger 2.
panthers had the same reliablility problems. Increased complexity and unreliability meant that the Germans were never able to come close to the production of the allies and the increased size and firepower of the smaller number of tanks was negateed by the unreliablity and increased weight. Shermans could never match a panther 1 for 1 (apart from the British Firefly variant) but they could run for many hundreds of miles on their tracks between services and could be serviced quickly. Engines were in the form of 'Powerpacks' that could be changed in the field and all but engine spares were common. In practice the difference in engine spares wasn't important as versions weren't mixed in the same unit.
Germany would have been better off building a lot more of the PzIV and a simplified Tiger 1.
British Tannks for most of the war were a disaster until the Cromwell, this had the same gun as the Sherman and a derated version of the Merlin engine.
Where the main differences between german and Allied tanks came in was with the Tactics. At the start of the war the Germans like the Allies had Infantry Support tanks and seperate Battle Tanks. British Forces had Infantry Support Tanks and what were known as 'Cruiser' tanks. In the US Army there was the Tank force that were supposed to exploit any Infantry breakthroughs and provide support and a seperate 'tank Destroyer Force'
It can't be guarenteed that you will have the right vehicle in the right location when they have different functions. Germany was the first to switch to a 'universal' Tank using one force to do both jobs. They did however produce a whole seperate fore of dedicated Infantry Support guns which were effectively turretless tanks.
By the end of the war the USA was introducing the Pershing and the British the Comet and not quite in time for action the Centurion, these were the equal and even the superior of any german tank in the field. In fact Centurion is still in service in some parts of the world.
As an Irony When the French produced the 'Super Sherman' package for Israel in the 60s as well as a diesel engine upgrade they installed a 75mm gun that was a copy of the weapon fitted to WW2 Panthers and used for many years as the French standard tank weapon.
For the definative history of the Sherman see Hunnicutt : Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank Unfortunately they go fo about £160 to £200 now, I got mine new back in the 90s for £30
For the history of British Armour in WW2 see David Fletcher. The Great Tank Scandal: British Armour in WW2 part 1 and The Universal Tank: British Armour in WW2 part 2
For background on British Armour in WW2 see david Fletchers Book Mechanised Force British Armour between the Wars.
Shermans were reliable, rugged and available in large numbers. They were produced in several variants with cast and welded hulls and several engine packages. This meant they could be produced by a large number of contractors depending on heir skills and expertise.
One of the problems with Tanks in the 1930s was the horsepower of engines and cooling them in the confines of a tank hull, high power means lots of heat. Diesels of the time were relatively low powered for example the Sherman M4A2 had a pair of V8 diesels as did the British Matilda. This was the version used by the US marines so it could use the same fual as the Landing Craft and also supplied to the USSR.
Sherman M4 and M1A1 the original variants were the same tank but produced with both cast and welded hulls, they had an air cooled Radial Engine, M1A4 was the main version supplied to the UK, it had 5 x 6 Cylinder engines on a common gearbox. It was harder to service but had the highest power of all varsions and had redundency.
M4A3 was the most widely produced version, it had an engine designed for tank use.
Suspension, Armour, Turret and Guns were all upgraded as the war went on.
it never had the thickness and firepower of the later german Tanks but it's usual opponent was the PzIV rather than a Tiger or a Panther.
Later German Designs from Tiger 1 onwards had impressive armour and guns but were it was over-engineered, expensive and time-consuming to produce. Only 1,347 Tiger 1s were produced before it was replaced with the even more unreliable Tiger 2.
panthers had the same reliablility problems. Increased complexity and unreliability meant that the Germans were never able to come close to the production of the allies and the increased size and firepower of the smaller number of tanks was negateed by the unreliablity and increased weight. Shermans could never match a panther 1 for 1 (apart from the British Firefly variant) but they could run for many hundreds of miles on their tracks between services and could be serviced quickly. Engines were in the form of 'Powerpacks' that could be changed in the field and all but engine spares were common. In practice the difference in engine spares wasn't important as versions weren't mixed in the same unit.
Germany would have been better off building a lot more of the PzIV and a simplified Tiger 1.
British Tannks for most of the war were a disaster until the Cromwell, this had the same gun as the Sherman and a derated version of the Merlin engine.
Where the main differences between german and Allied tanks came in was with the Tactics. At the start of the war the Germans like the Allies had Infantry Support tanks and seperate Battle Tanks. British Forces had Infantry Support Tanks and what were known as 'Cruiser' tanks. In the US Army there was the Tank force that were supposed to exploit any Infantry breakthroughs and provide support and a seperate 'tank Destroyer Force'
It can't be guarenteed that you will have the right vehicle in the right location when they have different functions. Germany was the first to switch to a 'universal' Tank using one force to do both jobs. They did however produce a whole seperate fore of dedicated Infantry Support guns which were effectively turretless tanks.
By the end of the war the USA was introducing the Pershing and the British the Comet and not quite in time for action the Centurion, these were the equal and even the superior of any german tank in the field. In fact Centurion is still in service in some parts of the world.
As an Irony When the French produced the 'Super Sherman' package for Israel in the 60s as well as a diesel engine upgrade they installed a 75mm gun that was a copy of the weapon fitted to WW2 Panthers and used for many years as the French standard tank weapon.
For the definative history of the Sherman see Hunnicutt : Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank Unfortunately they go fo about £160 to £200 now, I got mine new back in the 90s for £30
For the history of British Armour in WW2 see David Fletcher. The Great Tank Scandal: British Armour in WW2 part 1 and The Universal Tank: British Armour in WW2 part 2
For background on British Armour in WW2 see david Fletchers Book Mechanised Force British Armour between the Wars.
Last edited:
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Here a description of the latest version of the Suvorov 'Stalin did it' book "Überfall auf Europa: Plante die Sowjetunion 1941 einen Angriffskrieg?", from the German amazon.de and google translation:
Suvorov is no longer an exotic singularity, a host of German and more important 9 Russian historians now support his thesis in this book: the German invasion was preventive.
The history of WW2 needs a total overhaul, everything was different then we were led to believe:
- WW1 was an attempt to destroy/curtail the new most powerful state in Europe, Germany.
- Versailles was designed to make Germany impotent.
- Versailles was the reason for the rise of Hitler, as Lloyd George correctly predicted; the defense against 'Jewish Bolshevism' was the 2nd reason.
- Hitler identified correctly the Jews as the ferment behind Bolshevism, hence the deportations, which was a dum move, the Anne Franks are harmless; instead he should have limited himself to the elite just as the Soviets did with the Polish elite, and send them to Madagaskar. Or he should have copied the behavior of Putin when he put the predators where they belong.
- The anti-Jewish measures by the Nazis had mobilized international Jewry everywhere at an early stage; war between Germany and the US had been planned soon after the rise of Hitler by Roosevelt and his Jewish advisors.
- Schultz-Rohnhof had shown us that Roosevelt did nothing to prevent to partion of Poland although he could have warned the Poles.
- There were serious negotiations going on between Berlin and London about the Danzig issue that failed in the end. Main reason for failure was that because of the backing by Britain and the US the Poles had no incentive whatsoever to give in to reasonable German demands.
- Hitler was forced to attack the USSR, otherwise he had been attacked by the USSR, thus having the advantage of surprise and first strike.
- The war with Japan was provoked via the oil-embargo followed by impossible conditions from the side of the Americans; the Japanse had to face the choice: either completely abandon their empire or attack PH.
- Pearl Harbour was a LIHOP pur sang. As a result Roosevelt and his Jewish gang got the war as desired and in addition the main prize, war with Germany. And while Europe was destroying itself in a war, the US (and hence the Jews) could rise to world prominence on the cheap.
- After the war a new power structure arose around the USA/USSR dualism; the role of the Jews in the USSR gradually diminished since the thirties and after the war antisemitism grew stronger causing most Russian Jews to emigrate to Israel or the US.
- The USSR collapsed leaving the USA as the sole super power, fully under control of the Jews
- 9/11 was the next step in an attempt to transform superpower USA in global hegemon. This attempt is in the process of failing.
- Thanks to the rise of the internet the role of the Jews is now declining as it circumvents Jewish media power.
- There will be no Jewish led NWO, instead we are going to see a multi-polar world of 8 blocks as described by Samuel Huntington. The US is going to collapse and fall apart much the same way as the USSR did earlier, due to imperial overstretch.
Suvorov is no longer an exotic singularity, a host of German and more important 9 Russian historians now support his thesis in this book: the German invasion was preventive.
The history of WW2 needs a total overhaul, everything was different then we were led to believe:
- WW1 was an attempt to destroy/curtail the new most powerful state in Europe, Germany.
- Versailles was designed to make Germany impotent.
- Versailles was the reason for the rise of Hitler, as Lloyd George correctly predicted; the defense against 'Jewish Bolshevism' was the 2nd reason.
- Hitler identified correctly the Jews as the ferment behind Bolshevism, hence the deportations, which was a dum move, the Anne Franks are harmless; instead he should have limited himself to the elite just as the Soviets did with the Polish elite, and send them to Madagaskar. Or he should have copied the behavior of Putin when he put the predators where they belong.
- The anti-Jewish measures by the Nazis had mobilized international Jewry everywhere at an early stage; war between Germany and the US had been planned soon after the rise of Hitler by Roosevelt and his Jewish advisors.
- Schultz-Rohnhof had shown us that Roosevelt did nothing to prevent to partion of Poland although he could have warned the Poles.
- There were serious negotiations going on between Berlin and London about the Danzig issue that failed in the end. Main reason for failure was that because of the backing by Britain and the US the Poles had no incentive whatsoever to give in to reasonable German demands.
- Hitler was forced to attack the USSR, otherwise he had been attacked by the USSR, thus having the advantage of surprise and first strike.
- The war with Japan was provoked via the oil-embargo followed by impossible conditions from the side of the Americans; the Japanse had to face the choice: either completely abandon their empire or attack PH.
- Pearl Harbour was a LIHOP pur sang. As a result Roosevelt and his Jewish gang got the war as desired and in addition the main prize, war with Germany. And while Europe was destroying itself in a war, the US (and hence the Jews) could rise to world prominence on the cheap.
- After the war a new power structure arose around the USA/USSR dualism; the role of the Jews in the USSR gradually diminished since the thirties and after the war antisemitism grew stronger causing most Russian Jews to emigrate to Israel or the US.
- The USSR collapsed leaving the USA as the sole super power, fully under control of the Jews
- 9/11 was the next step in an attempt to transform superpower USA in global hegemon. This attempt is in the process of failing.
- Thanks to the rise of the internet the role of the Jews is now declining as it circumvents Jewish media power.
- There will be no Jewish led NWO, instead we are going to see a multi-polar world of 8 blocks as described by Samuel Huntington. The US is going to collapse and fall apart much the same way as the USSR did earlier, due to imperial overstretch.
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
This is a bit of a derail, but I don't think there was a real chance for Germany to turn communist/socialist after the failed 1918/1919 revolution. The aftermath of the 1920 Kapp Putsch is a good example in point: the SPD part of the government called for a general strike, which incapacitated the putschists, and when the strikers in the Ruhr area wanted more than restoration of the government, the government happily sent the troops who had just insurrected against it to defeat the workers. Kapp and his conspirators never were sentenced. Throughout the Weimar era, the social-democratic SPD was the largest and best-organized force on the left, and it consistently sided with the anti-democratic forces on the right against the communists.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Ah yes, in your eyes the description the publisher makes determines its value. Let's see - the publisher is "Pour le Merite". From the German wiki page on Dietmar Munier:
So, Mr. Munier owns 4 publishing houses which, together, publish ca. 50 books, posters, CDs and DVDs. Furthermore, he was a member of the youth organization of the NPD and 1991, he founded a group which wanted Germans to settle in the Kaliningrad Oblast. Someone yearns for Lebensraum, it seems.
For the preventive war thesis, you need to prove three things:
1) the USSR actually deployed its troops in an offensive fashion and prepared for attack;
2) Nazi Germany actually knew of (1);
3) knowledge of (2) was a driver in German planning.
Suvorov's thesis has been debunked. Can you cite one single primary source from which offensive deploymend would follow?
Moreover, Suvorov only claims (1). You additionally need to prove (2) and (3). Can you cite a single German intelligence report which attests (2)? And can you cite a single German document which ties that to German planning?
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
I'll stand corrected for now - I am trying to find a book I read in the early 90's that went into the German elections between the wars. The book made a point about Stalins influence on the German Communist party lead to a catastrophic split in the party
When you look at Wiki, the election results posted there are different to what I recall in the book (possibly the book was using polling data as well, I just dont recall)
So if I find anything I will gladly respond.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Utterly irrelevant argumentation. Ddt does not like publisher, hence statements made in books in publishers portfolio can't be true. I am sure my skeptic friends here have a name for this kind of defective argumentation.
One of the plausible scenario's, indeed. I have the 'old icebreaker' on my shelve, never found time to read it. Maybe I will. Will start with the IHR articles.
So has 9/11.
I am not endorsing Suvorov yet. We will see.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
It is a very relevant argument - The publisher of a book can tell you a lot about the quality of the document being produced
- Status