Anti-Americanism- at all time high!

[horse]

hello fellow german. it seems that our troups will be enhanced numberwise - i second that. source: spiegel

 

[welsh]

Honestly, I have little hope for a UN peacekeeping operation.

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

Peacekeeping normally involved soldiers from developing countries that often contract their militaries out to the UN. Fine, especially as many are from Muslim countries. But many peacekeeping operations often involve many problems similar to the ones we see in Iraq.

But more to the point- what you are seeing in Iraq is a lot like the UN's operation in the Congo- a state weakened and incapable of controlling insurgent groups. Worse yet, those insurgent groups are fairly well mixed together.

Peacekeeping soldiers often work when they are placed between two otherwise opposing armies that have decided to stop fighting. The peacekeepers essentially can serve as a buffer between the two opposing sides, to keep both from accidently triggering another conflict.

In Iraq, they are already shooting. What they need is not peacekeeping but peacemaking- impose rule of law and order on society and rebuild the state to effectively administer the nation. One reason why the US has had such trouble was because the concept of the state- as forwarded by the neo-cons, was a very weak state that relied on private actors- so the neo-cons wanted to privatize hospitals, infrastructure, etc. This may be part of structural adjustment programs imposed by the IMF/World Bank during economic crisis- but doing so during war-time is precarious at best.

What you need in Iraq is a stable centralized state that is capable of mediating conflicts between social groups and undertaking developmental economic policies. It means squashing any and all non-state challengers to the legitimate use of state violence. It also means constraining political contest over power and wealth to a stable constitutional order that all parties must try to uphold.

That's hard to do with Iran and Saudi Arabia supporting rival insurgent groups.

 

[DarkCorp]

Welsh

The thing is Saddams regime did bring order. Sure it was order through the gun but it was order nontheless. How can one tell people not to do what they want without the threat of violence?

How does one catch every terrorist that creeps into the country just to fan the flames of war for their own gain?

I think in every scenario force must be used. Just like Putin has clamped down hardcore to get Russia back together, so must any other leader who really wishes to unite his country under one banner, one goal, and one people.

 

[Bad_Karma]

The question really is, what are you playing in a country?
Are you playing a better police, or are you playing some sort of goverment yourself?

That's a big difference, wich actually makes a big difference when your talking to different groups of insurgents.
There are groups that are willing to put their weapons down, when you're doing the right policy. Simply because they first took the weapons to play police themselves, because the occupants didn't really defend them or even worse offended them thorugh doing the wrong things.

Also it's a lot easier if you have troops the 'insurgents' trusts.
Nearly no country outside of europe trusts the US. Simply because the US installed dictators in a lot of regions. Promised some insurgents to help them beat the dictators and then let them alone in the dirt....

So yeah, a mission might be hard, but i think it would me more succesfull, then what the US is doing there alone...

 

[welsh]

So Darkcorp- you are saying dictatorship is a good thing? Is it a necessary condition for peace in Iraq?

My position is that the UN peacekeepers are sometimes good at peacekeeping, but not at peacemaking.

By the way- while the world hates america, we have it on (??) authority that America is the "greatest best country God has ever given Man on the face of the earth."

Don't believe me-
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=174546

If you're Iraq- well, your fucked.

But lets give the Mexicans some credit- at least they know that they can do better.

 

[Snackpack]

Thanks for the education, I've heard the term "UN peacekeeping force" before and glibly repeated it as an off-the cuff step towards a solution.

Obviously, if there is no peace, it can not be kept

My thinking behind that was to turn things over to international oversight so the situation would no longer be McDonaldsville fucking Iraqtown in the ass.

@Bad_karma:

No need to apologize mate, you're right as it was a poorly thought out and poorly worded idea. And while in most situations I would agree with you about taking responsibility for your actions and living with the consequences, I don't think the States continued occupation of Iraq will ever make the situation better.

I don't have a solution, I just know I don't want my taxes going to supply an invasion force. Luckily I just got some fairly lucrative off the books part time work

There is no gravity, the world just sucks.

 

[Demetrious]

And the US won WW2 by themselves right. No British involvement, the French (resistance) wasn't there. Not to mention the Russians who suffered more and who inflicted so more looses on and took more land from the Nazis then the Americans did (and yes i'm talking specifically about Europe and not about Japan because of the simple fact that Japan didn't have Nazis and that this person is specifically mentioning Nazis)

Way to acknowledge your allies in all those wars.

Actually, the Russian war effort was greatly propped up by incredibly generous amounts of aid from the United States. Most of the Soviet Union's front-line equipment was their own- only about 20% was American-made- but it did plug terrible gaps in the Soviet order of battle.

However, more then half of Russia's raw materials and close to two-thirds of its trucking fleet came from America. Without American raw materials, Soviet war production would have been precipitously hampered, and without the massive fleet of trucks and support vehicles donated by America, the Soviet war machine simply would not have been half as dangerous as it was. The vast amount of supply trucks donated is the real kicker- without those, the Soviet supply line would have been non-existent.

I can't find that old copy of WWII Magazine with the relevant article, or I would gladly quote the numbers for you.

As for the British, they were likewise supported with vast US aid- notably "lend-lease-" and a great number of British forces fought the war with American-made M4 Sherman tanks, with various alterations. ("Firefly" tanks.) This is principally because the much-maligned Sherman tank was produced in numbers of around 50,000 or so, which is more then twice the total production run of tanks in Germany. They needed tanks, and there were plenty of Shermans.

Just my two cents.

 

[Ashmo]

Actually it doesn't matter what Ally put what equipment where. Germany killed itself with bad strategies throughout the entire Russian campaign.

The victory was decided more by letting the enemies run dry than actually opposing them -- which is a much superior victory anyway.

 

[Paladin Solo]

And German soldiers saying how they would rather fight the Americans than the Soviets says nothing about the brutality of the Eastern Front.

No really, it was just a footnote to a footnote, and the Americans were the note.

 

[Demetrious]

And German soldiers saying how they would rather fight the Americans than the Soviets says nothing about the brutality of the Eastern Front.

No really, it was just a footnote to a footnote, and the Americans were the note.

The Americans actually took prisoners, which is more then you can say for the Russians most of the time. Lets not even talk about the weather. Remember that German guard in "The Great Escape?" "And if you don't behave... (slashes hand across throat)- THE RUSSIAN FRONT."

Still, I find it astounding that the country that propped up most of the war industry of the allies, contributed a vast amount of the ammunition, ships, trucks, and tanks, and most importantly singlehandedly broke the back of German industry with daylight bombing raids (using vast numbers of B-17s and B-24s and all their thousands of escort fighters,) would find it's contributions today dismissed as a "footnote."

Don't forget how perilously close the Russians came to total defeat. The Germans were upon Moscow itself, and were only repelled in a violent pitched battle. Moscow. It was that close to being all over.

If America had not destroyed the Polesti oil fields in a series of daring low-level bombing raids, nor intervened in North Africa, the Axis would have had a guaranteed supply of oil, more then enough to keep the Luftwaffe operating and their vaunted Panzers rolling. With the British trounced, Rommel's Africa Korps, all those many many tanks, and all those battle hardened veteran divisions would have been free to reinforce positions anywhere in Europe, and probably would have been moved up to the Russian front. Not to mention, without American involvement, there would have been no campaign in Italy, and no German troops diverted to defend it, nor would there have been nearly a fraction of the troops or armor waiting around Normandy for the great invasion- since Britain didn't have a chance in hell of launching such a thing alone.


That is a footnote? Or do you just speak of the actual invasion of Europe?

 

[DarkCorp]

Not to play down American involvement but I do agree that the Germans royally fucked themselves as well. Fate kind of also had alarge role as the germans happened to ally themselves with the japanese which turned out to be a HUGE mistake.

The nazis were well on their way to victory with all of Europe conquered. The only resistance they had left were the English. (America was still heavily isolationist at the time). Had Hitler finished off the English with the Vunderwaffen (and then proceed with operation Sea Lion), the Nazis would have had ample resources to win operation Barbarossa.

Also Hitler seemed to think the extermination of jews was worth continuing even though those same trains going to the death camps could have been doing supply runs to badly pressed eastern front forces.

Imagine a Nazi germany that controlled europe and the british isles, then pretty much focused their forces and bowled over russia (stalins purges most likely would have continued and the soviet military would have been even weaker).

With so many resources, germany would have been able to mass produce all of their superweapons from the ME262 and the first swept wing bomber to state of the art weapon technologies like the STG44 and their Vampir night vision technologies. One could even question whether the US would have continued with nuclear weapons research had they not become involved in the war. German with nuclear weapons, definitely a scary thought.

Now come to think of it, were it not for Pearl Harbor, the US would have remained isolationist and most of europe would have continued to burn.

PS: Forgot to mention that the american military/industrial complex during the war was completely untouched thankfully. Therefore no matter what the germans did, the guns, ammunition, vehicles, supplies for the allied cause would have continued to roll.

 

[Paladin Solo]

That is a footnote? Or do you just speak of the actual invasion of Europe?

Nevermind that the Eastern Front was the largest and most brutal of the war? Nevermind it saw more combat than all the other World War II theaters? Nevermind that on it's own, the Great Patriotic War would still be considered the bloodiest conflict in history? Nevermind that Germany outweighing the Soviets in industrial capacity still could not defeat the Soviets? Nevermind the huge ratio difference in death and destruction compared between the Eastern and Western fronts? Nevermind how many divisions the USSR had available to them compared to the Americans (500 divisions compared to nearly 100 by the end of the war, and that includes the Pacific theater for the Americans)? Nevermind that even well after the US joined the war and invaded Europe, Germany had more divisions tasked against the USSR than any other front combined? Nevermind that Germany lost almost half of their oil supply after the Soviets captured Romania? Nevermind that even by 1944, more than half of Germany's divisions were on the Eastern front? None of these come into mind when a German soldier remarks how the Western front is prefered to the Eastern front, none.

I seriously wonder the outcome of the war had Germany not been at war with the USSR and instead focused its attention against the UK and US. That's a lot of war effort that could've been freed up to fight the Allies had there not been and Eastern front, especially considering the Allies still had to deal with Japan.

Also, you fail at humour. The whole "footnote" thing was just a joke about how some Americans view themselves and only themselves as the saviours of Europe from Nazi oppression. When for one, the UK and the USSR were essential allies. Germany's industrial strength did not save them from losing their capital to the USSR.

 

[Demetrious]

That is a footnote? Or do you just speak of the actual invasion of Europe?

Nevermind that the Eastern Front was the largest and most brutal of the war? Nevermind it saw more combat than all the other World War II theaters? Nevermind that on it's own, the Great Patriotic War would still be considered the bloodiest conflict in history? Nevermind that Germany outweighing the Soviets in industrial capacity still could not defeat the Soviets? Nevermind the huge ratio difference in death and destruction compared between the Eastern and Western fronts? Nevermind how many divisions the USSR had available to them compared to the Americans (500 divisions compared to nearly 100 by the end of the war, and that includes the Pacific theater for the Americans)? Nevermind that even well after the US joined the war and invaded Europe, Germany had more divisions tasked against the USSR than any other front combined? Nevermind that Germany lost almost half of their oil supply after the Soviets captured Romania? Nevermind that even by 1944, more than half of Germany's divisions were on the Eastern front? None of these come into mind when a German soldier remarks how the Western front is prefered to the Eastern front, none.

And yet despite all that, operation Barbarossa steamrolled through Russia like a freight train, and the Germans came within an ace of capturing Moscow itself. If it hadn't been for the massive material assistance via Lend-Lease, and the added complication of the destruction of the German war industry by American daylight bombing... the eventual Soviet counter-offensive might never have materialized. Just take a look at American lend-lease aid. It's notable that the deliveries were not of tanks and weapons so much as they were of trucks and freight trains- the things you need so crucially to keep supply lines open, and offensives rolling. It says flat out in this wiki article what state the Russian supply line was in:

Deliveries of M3 half-tracks from USA to USSR were a major benefactor to mechanized Red Army units. Soviet industry did not produce any armoured personnel carriers at all, so lend-leased American vehicles were in great demand for fast movement of troops in front-line conditions. While M3s gave only limited protection, the common trucks had not any protection at all. Moreover, the big part of Red Army trucks were American Studebakers, which were highly evaluated by Russian chaffeurs. After the war, Russian designers paid a lot of attention to create their own 6x6 army truck and the Studebaker was the sample for this development.

Simply put, the Russians wouldn't have been assaulting anybody if it wasn't for the hundreds of thousands of trucks sent to the USSR by America, not to mention the locomotives.

My doubts as to the Russian's ability to launch a counter-offensive all on their ownsome are not ill-founded. Consider this quote from WWII Magazine's June/July issue:

According to research by a team of Soviet historians, the Soviet Union lost a staggering 20,500 tanks from June 22 to December 31, 1941. At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow- that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, WEstern, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types, and most of their strength was concentrated in the Western Front, with the Kalinin Front having only two tank battalions (67 tanks) and the Southwestern Front two tank brigades (30 tanks.)

This was the precarious situation of a nation that would, by 1945, have produced 50,000 T-34 tanks- a production level only matched by the 50,000 or so American Sherman tanks built during the war- about 18 percent of which were sent to the Soviet Union.

Given this pathetic dearth of armor in Russia in 1941, the 1,300 M3 Lee tanks supplied by America starting in early 1942 was quite crucial, especially since "it is important to note that Soviet production of the T-34 (and to a lesser extent the KV series) was only just getting seriously underway in 1942, and Soviet production was well below plan targets," according to WWII magazine. The M3 was unpopular, because it had been a budget tank since the beginning- but the only other tanks they had to supplement their nearly non-existent homegrown tanks were British Valentine and Matilda tanks, mounting hopelessly weak , low-velocity 40mm guns.

By 1942, the M3's 75mm gun was considered underpowered- and yet, in 1941, those even more inferior 40mm armed tanks made up a huge amount of all tanks in Russian hands: "Researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941..." In early 1942 the situation wasn't much better, with the T-34 and KV heavy tanks still barely being produced. Those 1,300 M3 Lee tanks made all the difference.

The Soviets might have just barely halted the German advance in 1941, but they would have never been able to push them back and chase them into Berlin without massive Allied assistance.

It's also interesting to note that the M3, a hasty stopgap tank cranked out in large numbers until the M4 Sherman could be made- totally saved the British's asses in North Africa. The best the British had at the time were Crusader Tanks, which had pathetically thin armor and a laughably underpowered gun. German Panzer III's and IV's were shooting the hell out of them. The M3 not only had comparable armor protection t o the Panzer, but a much better gun, and thus was a lifesaver despite it's numerous shortcomings.

Nevermind the huge ratio difference in death and destruction compared between the Eastern and Western fronts?

That shows more of the folly of Stalin then it does any noble sacrifices. The Russians had only one resource in any quantity- people. Not even boots, not even guns- just people. And they used them. The Russians had vast quantities of incredibly green, barely armed troops and made a habit of getting hundreds of thousands of them slaughtered in mass-wave attacks. Those who tried to flee were cheerfully gunned down by political officers in the rear.

All of this, of course, was due to the fact that Stalin, ever paranoid, had gleefully murdered a huge amount of the experienced Soviet officer corps, leaving his conscript hordes with equally clueless officers.

This is precisely why the Germans had the Soviets on the very edge of total defeat in 1941, despite their vast numbers of barely-armed conscripts. If the Germans had available to them the many units tied up in a defensive battle on the Italian peninsula, or the ones awaiting the American invasion of the Atlantic Wall, or the veteran African Korps forces decimated after America first joined the war in North Africa, and without the vast destruction of the German war industries inflicted by daylight bombing raids, it is nigh inconceivable that the Russians could have gone from being nearly defeated in 1941 to pushing the Germans back all the way to Berlin.

I seriously wonder the outcome of the war had Germany not been at war with the USSR and instead focused its attention against the UK and US. That's a lot of war effort that could've been freed up to fight the Allies had there not been and Eastern front, especially considering the Allies still had to deal with Japan.

That very what-if scenario is probably the most oft asked one on the whole topic, and for good reason. The flip side is; what would have happened if America had stayed out of the war, and all the Western Front and Italian theater forces had instead fought in Russia? Worse, what if Hitler had fully honored his alliance with Russia, and they had fought together?

Scary, isn't it?

Long story short- they'd still both be boned by American air superiority and daylight bombing, but with so much of Russia's industrial capacity safely out of reach of even the bombers, the land battles following the invasion would have been twice as bad. It would have been very, very bad.

I'm not to worried about Japan, actually. Not only did America subdue Japan all by itself anyhow (no, the incredibly marginal contributions of British troops in Burma don't count,) but the Allies had a Germany First policy, and in addition to THAT, all the infantry actions in the Pacific were mostly aggressive battles. They weren't needed to wage a holding action. America's naval fleet was of little use in Europe against a nearly nonexistent German surface fleet; so no resources were actually being diverted away from Europe.

Also, you fail at humour. The whole "footnote" thing was just a joke about how some Americans view themselves and only themselves as the saviours of Europe from Nazi oppression. When for one, the UK and the USSR were essential allies. Germany's industrial strength did not save them from losing their capital to the USSR.

The temptation to not credit the Soviet Union for their part probably stems largely from the fact that the lousy rotten bastards started the war as Hitler's allies, which is not something that was easily forgotten. The disdain might also have something to do with the way the Soviets raped their way into Germany, in their typically friendly fashion.

And to be fair, that insistence on discrediting the Soviet Union for it's perpetuation of a second front has a lot to do with the Cold War hostility. It's also only fair to note that it worked both ways- the Soviets insisted for years and years that Lend-Lease aid was totally insignificant. The WWII Magazine article I was quoting from stems directly from just-released research and documents from the old Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union played a vital role in the war, but it irks me greatly when people insist that America's involvement in Europe was nominal and that Russia would have defeated Germany all on its own. That's why I didn't get your footnote joke- all too often people say that in dead earnest.

 

[Ashmo]

Erm. The problem for Germany was that they DID push on like a steamroller thereby thinning out their supply line for the Ruskies to capture.

Really now, I think if there was ONE major combatant who can be blamed for the German defeat it's Germany. America did Japan, but Germany did itself in.

Had they followed their own initial strategies, Germany would have controlled its own airspace and taken over Africa and Russia with ease. In fact, hadn't they insisted on their racial supremacy, the Eastern Front would have been childsplay.

The US only ever had a gripe with Japan and that's what brought them into the war. Apart from that, they only ever had a support role.

Now WW1, that's where they were really only ever a footnote to the war. At least in WW2 some of them actually died at the front.

 

[4too]

Single Issue Panaceas

Single Issue Panaceas



@Demetrious

I am aware this is a contest with ""hand grenade and horse shoe rules"", and I feel your ideology is limiting your flings of factoids.

Sorry, I don't buy the myth of Nazi Ubermenschen punched into submission by corn fed fly boys, ... alone.
One factoid about real men, german 'experts', that were caught up in their own trash talk:
You might know from your readings that the germans made significant reductions in tank production in 1941, because they considered the Soviets beaten?

Demetrious:

... and most importantly singlehandedly broke the back of German industry with daylight bombing raids ...

If the God Almighty U. S. Army Air Corp -->

... singlehandedly broke the back ...

then ... why D-Day, why the need for Eisenhower's continuous front, why were teen age germans still firing panzerfausts at T-34s in the Battle For Berlin?


True, air power was crucial, the german fighters and AA guns, that caused significant losses to the bombing forces, were Nazi assets that could not be applied against any other local fronts. Certainly the industrial damage was immense,
and this gave Albert Speer the opportunity to shine as an organizer and be later convicted as a war criminal.

Hollywood and the proponents for the nex' generation of stealth fighters might not concur, still, WW2 was a war of attrition, attrition in blood and 'treasure'.

Have you read anything by Paul Fussell? I paraphrase one of his observations.
The germans ran out of 88 shells before the Allies ran out of Shermans ... (and I add) -- T-34s.

The apologist mind set singing sophomoric semantics, ---> hyping air power
is a dangerous drugged vision addicted to a single answer panacea.
This 'easy' and immature marketing of the quick and painless solution haunts American foreign policy to this day.

Consider a rhetorical question:

In Iraq and Afghanistan, did, or, --- does -- the American "Coalition Of The Willing" need more Stealth Fighters, or more Boots On The Ground?

My nephew might appreciate air support from his *sister* services, (these marines are no strangers to trash talk),
still I'd like to believe there will be some actual ^nation building^, and more volunteers for all martial disciplines,
so he doesn't have to serve more than 3 (- 4 - 5?) 'boots on the ground' tours in Iraq.


4too



//////////////////////



Footnote from 4too Family History



@Ashmo

... Now WW1, that's where they were really only ever a footnote to the war. At least in WW2 some of them actually died at the front.

Had a grandfather, was a large animal veterinarian, that served in the ' Remount Service',
as a horse doctor. Great uncle killed in the War To End All Wars, so influenced next gen not to be cannon fodder --

Dad's dad stayed in Kansas National Guard, liked the horses. Day job, worked the meat industry, making pig serum .
Early 1942 and Dad's dad was in Iceland, looking at the spectacle in the POW stockade,
a single, genuine Luftwaffe airman, knocked down during recon by a cloud blinded pursuit ship.



4too

 

[Bad_Karma]

No bombing without information and a base in reach.
Really so the US couldn't have done much there without GB's help. By being the best 'air carrier' for bombers in front of europe.
Also there wouldn't have been much information about what germany was doing, if not for french and polish resistance (and other).
By the way, you heard of the Air-fights around GB in 1940 ? And that the british alone build 1400 fighters to fight the germans off?
So the british also had some airforce, just to begin with.

Now about the war on land.
No US war on european land if your navy got sunk before reaching the coasts. And that would have happened if not for gb royal navy. Really, they had the biggest and best navy in that time.
Also i would guess a lot more of africa would have been conquered if not for Commonwealth troops.
And don't forget another thing, germany only went there because of italy being unable to do it.
And nearly no allied tank matched the german ones. The russians were more closer to the german ones. I mean we copied the angles of the T-34's armor because shoots had the possibilite to slip off while doing no real damage on the T-34.
Alone in early 1944 the resistance destroyed about 800 german trains.

And the war would have been somewhat longer if not for german leaders (after the death of Hitler) would have feared loosing more german land to russia (that was a real fear).
And you know who also helped a lot in defeating the Axis? The Axis countries themselves.
Through bad strategies and whatnot.

But yes, the US did a big thing. But so did the british by not signing peace with Hitler (wich he would have wanted to have). And so did all the allied involved. I mean really, US is more or less as big as the european continent, and also out of the reach of germany, so you can't really think that a country like Egypt or so should be able to do the same, and so you should really watch how much they were able to do and if they did that.
And i think most did all they were able to do...

 

[Demetrious]

Erm. The problem for Germany was that they DID push on like a steamroller thereby thinning out their supply line for the Ruskies to capture.

Really now, I think if there was ONE major combatant who can be blamed for the German defeat it's Germany. America did Japan, but Germany did itself in.

Had they followed their own initial strategies, Germany would have controlled its own airspace and taken over Africa and Russia with ease. In fact, hadn't they insisted on their racial supremacy, the Eastern Front would have been childsplay.

Indeed. Germany came within an ace of defeating Russia and wouldn't have suffered nearly as many setbacks in Russia if not for Hitler's fanatical mismanagement of his troops. Other things, like Hitler's insistence on making the ME-262 into a "terror bomber;" instead of a fighter, which was what it really was, also contributed greatly to German defeats. Not to mention, the entire idea of attacking the Russians in the first place.

The US only ever had a gripe with Japan and that's what brought them into the war. Apart from that, they only ever had a support role.

A support role? A support role? If it was not for American participation, Germany would have crushed the British in Africa and probably would have rolled up Russia, too. See my above post.

Another interesting thing to remember is that the real American war was in the air. You were four times more likely to die as an airman as you were as an infantry soldier. Four times. In fact, if memory serves, more Americans actually died in the air then on the ground in Europe. The daylight bombing raids preceding D-Day was where the war was truly won.

Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that America "only ever had a gripe with Japan." Despite all of Roosevelt's talk about peace, the fact that America was already sending vast amounts of virtually free war materials to Britain shows that America could see the writing on the wall. The fact that America also adopted the "Germany First" policy shows that they certainly weren't treating Europe as a sideshow- they considered Germany to be the biggest threat.

American troops in Europe were armed with all the newest weapons, while Marines in the Pacific continued to fight on with bolt-action 1903 Springfield's and Reisen sub-machine guns, and WWI era water-cooled .30 caliber machine guns, because the Thompsons and M1119 .30 cals were being sent to Europe.

Now WW1, that's where they were really only ever a footnote to the war. At least in WW2 some of them actually died at the front.

Y'know, the significance of a military action is not signified solely by how many soldiers were killed. The Germans managed a breakout at the very end of the war, and after years of trench-locked stalemate, they were finally steamrolling through towards Paris. The introduction of America into the war introduced fresh troops that were not exhausted by four years of war, and the Americans won decisive battles that halted the German advance permanently.

If America had not intervened at the end of the war, Germany would have won. Yeah, turning defeat into victory. That's a hell of a footnote, in my book. "There was a big war in Europe." P.S. We won.

Okay, on to 4too. I'll preface this by saying that, man, I'm not quite sure what you're saying in parts of this, but I'll try.

I am aware this is a contest with ""hand grenade and horse shoe rules"", and I feel your ideology is limiting your flings of factoids.

So, using facts makes me an ideologue? I thought that went the other way around.

then ... why D-Day, why the need for Eisenhower's continuous front, why were teen age germans still firing panzerfausts at T-34s in the Battle For Berlin?

We still needed to actually invade and defeat their extant armies- destroying the war machine allowed us to win the battle of attrition.

As for the Panzerfaust, it was incredibly easy to manufacture. Quoting directly from the Wikipedia article:

The construction was so simple that they could be made in the city while it was under siege, allowing wheelbarrow loads of Panzerfausts to be delivered to the defenders... During the last stages of the war, many conscripts were given a Panzerfaust and nothing else, causing several German generals to comment sarcastically that the tubes could then be used as clubs.

So, yeah, they had plenty of Panzerfausts, but no guns. What they really needed were more heavy tanks and more airplanes, and they just couldn't build them with their industry shattered. More importantly, they couldn't move the tanks they did build to the Russian front in time because American daylight bombing smashed their transportation network, which in the end was even more damning.

You might know from your readings that the germans made significant reductions in tank production in 1941, because they considered the Soviets beaten?

I don't know, actually. And just from a practical standpoint, I don't believe for one second that Germany would ever slack off production of their single best weapon, the weapon that allowed them to win all of their most important battles- the Panzer, the heart of Blitzkrieg. Not with the threat of American involvement looming large.

The apologist mind set singing sophomoric semantics, ---> hyping air power
is a dangerous drugged vision addicted to a single answer panacea.
This 'easy' and immature marketing of the quick and painless solution haunts American foreign policy to this day.

Man, I'd love to meet the author that wrote that- and beat the hell out of him with a Clue Bat. I have never, ever, ever heard the American daylight bombing campaign described as "quick and painless." The losses suffered by the long-range bombers were simply horrendous in number, and didn't slacken off any until the P-51 Mustang arrived to escort bombers all the way into Germany. Like I said before, more Americans died in the air in Europe then on the ground.

And of course, if we were so addicted to the "single answer panacea," why did we invade Normandy at all? Stalin was desperately egging the Brits and Americans on to invade and open a second front to relieve pressure on the Russians.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, did, or, --- does -- the American "Coalition Of The Willing" need more Stealth Fighters, or more Boots On The Ground?

Actually, crushing American air superiority is what's winning the war. More often then not, insurgents will fire at US troops, then retreat to a building to make some kind of "last stand." The army calls in an air strike, and that's that. They call them "Alpha Whiskey Romeo's-" Allah's waiting room.

Things like predator drones, which can keep watching eyes on thousands of acres, and then pop a hellfire missile into anything they see, are making war in Afghanistan possible.

No bombing without information and a base in reach.
Really so the US couldn't have done much there without GB's help. By being the best 'air carrier' for bombers in front of europe.

They would have simply sortied all their bombers out of captured Italian territory, if it came to that. But, it's interesting to note that the B-36 was first developed as a request from the army for a trans-continental bomber, because it was accepted that Britain might fall to the Germans any day.

If Great Britain had been defeated, America could have done nothing in Europe because the battle for Europe would have been over.

Also there wouldn't have been much information about what germany was doing, if not for french and polish resistance (and other).

Don't forget about the code-breaking projects and signal intercepts.

By the way, you heard of the Air-fights around GB in 1940 ? And that the british alone build 1400 fighters to fight the germans off?

Haha! You made a funny!

According to the graph inside this book "Hunters in the Sky- A visual guide to WWII aircraft," in the peak production year for all nations, 1944, Germany built 39,800 military aircraft, the USSR, 30,000, Great Britain, 29,200 and Japan, 28,180.

In 1943 America built 96,318 military aircraft. That's more then double any other nations production, and about the same number of aircraft as Japan, Germany, and the Soviet Union built that year combined.

Forgive me if I am not overly impressed by British aircraft production.

No US war on european land if your navy got sunk before reaching the coasts. And that would have happened if not for gb royal navy.

Hahahahaha! No. The British Navy was so overstretched trying to fight off U-boats that the Americans actually sold them 50 obsolete destroyers to help "the biggest and best navy." The battle of the Atlantic wouldn't turn in the Allies favor until America joined the war- it was mass production of light, fast "destroyer escorts," small submarine hunters, that tipped the balance.

Oh, and the American navy was winning the battle in the Pacific at the same time.

And nearly no allied tank matched the german ones.

Actually, this little bit of common knowledge isn't quite correct. While it is true that the German Panther and Tiger heavy tanks were far superior to the American Shermans, it misses the fact that at least half of the German tanks made were tanks like the Panzer III which was still being built in 1943, and the Panzer IV, which was built until the very end of the war alongside the "heavy" tanks. Tank destroyers like the StuG were produced in even greater numbers. About 10,00 StuG's and 9,000 Panzer IV's were built, compared to 6,000 Panther tanks and about 1,500 Tiger and Tiger II tanks. Right there, you have 7,500 or so "heavy" tanks compared to 19,000 medium tanks and tank destroyers- more then half of Germany's armor strength.

Now consider that the M4 Sherman was more then a match for the Panzer IV and the older Panzer III and the StuG III, and you can see how the Sherman doesn't deserve nearly half of the bad rap it's gotten. When the Sherman was first introduced in North Africa, it could handle any armored fighting vehicle the Germans could offer, and even in the later war in Europe, it could spar decently with a great deal of the foes it met. The significance of this is that US donated tanks, like the M3 and lots of Shermans, fought in a lot of crucial 1942 battles at a time when all the heavy tanks- the T-34 and the German Panther and Tigers- were only just beginning production. The battlefield was still ruled by medium tanks, and that is a niche that the Sherman and M3 Lee ruled nicely.

The relatively low numbers of German heavy tanks were somewhat offset by the fact that when one- just one- did show up, they proceeded to royally flip out and waste everything. Of course, we've only addressed American tanks, and haven't even touched on all the other things they had to counter German armor, including the whole bevy of tank destroyers.

The more you know~

And i think most did all they were able to do...

Indeed. Nobody in that war slacked off, nobody.

 

[4too]

Combined Arms Victory

Combined Arms Victory



@ Demetrious

As you broaden your front I find less and less that fosters disagreement.

The irrational deification of the role air power is a hot button issue for me.
I am never comfortable when the politicians preach easy victory via carpet bombing.
Some poor SOB in boots still has to 'win the field'.

You have lines of facts in depth and are not a shallow stealth bomber disciple.
So, ...
The only clue I need: you have shown that you have a clue about combined arms for victory.

''Horse shoes and hand grenades'' (?) an archaic phrase, for, from the hip historical expostulations, close is good enough.
I fear that I must lower my documentation standards and fall back on reminisces of long ago studies.

Most of my world war history readings predates ''wiki'', if I was to try to recall the source of 'pfennig' pinching by the germans after the fall of France,
my first guess might be Albert Speer's book. Doubt it. We would be looking for the secondary sources, or some ones scholarly analysis, far from populist romanticism.
Second try would be essays in the board game magazine from the 1960 -1970's 'Strategy And Tactics'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_&_Tactics

Allow me to mumble out this, to replace any over dramatic posturing.
The tank production story seems more about human nature and people believing what they want to believe while missing the point that they were in a WORLD war in 1941.
After the fall of France, there was some Wehrmacht reorganization, any demobilized manpower was seen better used in agriculture and industry.
Tank production at one point fell off. Not sure if mistake, economizing, hubris, or retooling former Pz2 lines to Pz3 or Pz4.
The gist was the krauts got cocky and FUBAR-ed. Some monthly totals stunningly low, so Pz's not where needed in late 1941 and early 1942.

The german spare parts fiasco is still timely for any one who maintains any vehicle or mechanical system. If you find writings that include the rampant cannibalism of equipment before repair then you found the type of analysis I was reading.

The Paul Fussell reference was wrong.
Forget who told the story of the kid american guard and the captured german 88 gunner.
His name?
The '88 -- Sherman tanks' antidote was heard during a book tour interview of one of those rogue Vietnam commanders that harangued the army bureaucracy.
That close enough for 'horse shoes'?




4too

 

[Bad_Karma]

They would have simply sortied all their bombers out of captured Italian territory, if it came to that. But, it's interesting to note that the B-36 was first developed as a request from the army for a trans-continental bomber, because it was accepted that Britain might fall to the Germans any day.

If Great Britain had been defeated, America could have done nothing in Europe because the battle for Europe would have been over.

So no Italy without GB... Because no Africa without GB.
And trans-continental flights have majo down-sides

Don't forget about the code-breaking projects and signal intercepts.

I count that toward informations

Haha! You made a funny!

According to the graph inside this book "Hunters in the Sky- A visual guide to WWII aircraft," in the peak production year for all nations, 1944, Germany built 39,800 military aircraft, the USSR, 30,000, Great Britain, 29,200 and Japan, 28,180.

In 1943 America built 96,318 military aircraft. That's more then double any other nations production, and about the same number of aircraft as Japan, Germany, and the Soviet Union built that year combined.

Forgive me if I am not overly impressed by British aircraft production.

And america splitted them more or less between Asia and Europe right?
I mean yeah sure america had air-superioty and build up a lot of the airforce in that time.
But if you ever watched german documentation (wich often have old german soldiers involved) you will see that the pilots are speaking about the british Spitfire and the different american bombers, but only a few times about some american fighter, so i guess that means something...

Hahahahaha! No. The British Navy was so overstretched trying to fight off U-boats that the Americans actually sold them 50 obsolete destroyers to help "the biggest and best navy." The battle of the Atlantic wouldn't turn in the Allies favor until America joined the war- it was mass production of light, fast "destroyer escorts," small submarine hunters, that tipped the balance.

Oh, and the American navy was winning the battle in the Pacific at the same time.

Right... GB wasn't equipped to fight of a big Submarine fleet.
But Subs didn't only got destroyed by Destroyers (Destroyers aren't that of a problem) but because of technological advancements like sonar and such.
And if not for GB's major battleships germany would have build more battleships and even carriers themselves. There is a reason why germany's naval leaders feared the british fleet...
This could have changed quite a few things, i guess.

Actually, this little bit of common knowledge isn't quite correct. [...]

Somewhat right, but not completly.
The Sherman wasn't much better than the Panzer IV at least not after that modifications the Panzer IV undergone through 1941, given that the Panzer III was weak, but later it became mainly used as an support tanks for infantry.
Also most of the weaker tanks got send to russia, while there were more bigger tanks in europe. So again you had quite a 'lot' of harder tanks.
Not to mention that again the 55.000 Shermans got 'split' between europe and asia.

Comparing the Stug to a Sherman? A 'MBT' against some 'Assault gun' ? - Not a good comparison if you ask me. And not to forget that the cannon of the StuG could destroy a Sherman on a much bigger distance and it had a armor that was as thick as the Shermans ones.

Also you know why british soldiers called the sherman ronson or german called it tommy cooker? Because a hit from nearly any german tank let the tank go up in flames.
So the Sherman somewhat deserved the bad rep it got, even if some american/english generals had another opinion of it.

The more you know~

The problem is, that it really often comes down to the fact wich side you're listening too.
And i guess in this discussion i, got the unlucky advantage, that germans were fighting on all fronts (okay not really on the japanese one...).

The US saved the ass of europe, but not single-handedly. And that's really all i'm saying.

 

[Lange]

America is just a young ignorant country, they'll grow up (hopefully)