A German tank commander who holdup one armour division
- Thread starter King Tiger
- Start date
- Status
King Tiger
Active Member
giddygoat said:for those of you interested check out http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm
The Germans may be the "bad guys" then but they were a truly formidable force. Very professional and advanced. Cool equipments too
Hats off to the Allied troops who bravely fought against them. It's not easy hunting Tigers when you're driving a "Ronson Lighter". To actually succeed as they did was a truly remarkable achievement.
The Germans are considering the most formidable force in the world.
Germany almost won World War II, had not been the the strategic error done by Hilter.
1. At the begining, Battle of France, June 1940, had the German armour divisions smash all their way to capture Dunkirk, they would have capture another additional 300,000 combine British and French armed force.
This would leave England with totally no available combat experience force and equipment to fight Germany in 1940.
However, order of advance was halt under the direct command of Hilter, and the trapped armies evacuate from Dunkirk to England by sea.
2. Operation Sea Lion, the operation code name to invade England after the fall of France, was cancel by Hilter after the heavy losses suffer by the German AirForce, Luftwaffe during the air Battle of Britain.
Should Hilter continue to persist to fight the air battle, dispite the heavy losses, the Germans would have wipe out the RAF and control the sky.
By controlling the skies, they would control the English channel, send the German Army across the sea and meet with little or no resistance at the ground of England. Hence, England would then be conquer by Germany.
3. Should Hilter authorise the use of all the naval resources to built a huge fleet of superior numbers of U- boats instead of building the 2 Battleships, Bismark and Tirpritz, they would have the strength to control the Altantic Ocean.
By then, there would be no way for USA to launch D-day to recapture Europe
with Altantic Ocean under Germanr control.
4. Operation Barbarossa, invasion of Soviet Union in June 1941.
Hilter should take England first before challenging Russia, hence, creating an unneccessary 2nd front for Germany to fight.
5. Had the German invade Russia 2 months earlier in April 1941 and capture Moscow in Oct 1941, and capture the whole of Crimea (1/3 of Russia's oil rescources), including Staingrad by Dec 1941, the Battle of Russia would have won by the Germans.
It was all "what ifs". They certainly came very close. Certainly, the war against Russia before subduing England was a mistake and ended up with the germans facing a two front battle against forces of overwhelming numbers. What if the japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbour and US was not drawn into the war? What if the germans had encircled Stalingrad and moved on to secure the oil fields rather than get caught up in street fighting where their technological and training edge was meaningless? What if Hitler just let his generals plan the war rather than trying to do it his way?
Hitler gambled one hand too many and lost all his chips. And I for one am not sorry it ended this way
Too many lives were lost for one man's ambition, let's hope it doesn't happen again.
Hitler gambled one hand too many and lost all his chips. And I for one am not sorry it ended this way
Too many lives were lost for one man's ambition, let's hope it doesn't happen again.
King Tiger said:
German armour under Guderian and Rommel advanced boldly and risked stretching their supply lines. Had the French not considered the Ardennes to be "impassable" and pinned too much defensive hope on the "impregnable" Maginot Line, the Germans may not have been able to break through. Furthermore, the British Expeditionary force can hardly be described as the most experienced soldiers Britain could muster at that time.
The defeat of the luftwaffe was partly due to the strategic error by the germans to bomb london in retaliation for the RAF's bombing of Berlin. Had they continued to pound the British airfields, the outcome could have been harder to predict. The luftwaffe was also guilty of grossly over-reporting enemy kills, so that Luftwaffe high command greatly underestimated the strength RAF. Perhaps the biggest reason why the RAF won the Battle of Britain is because Sir Hugh Dowding, the Air Force Chief, refused to send any fighters to France during the German invasion, preferring to keep his precious fighter pilots to defend Britain.
Likewise, the Americans could use their resources to build a huge submarine and destroyer fleet to neutralise the German U-boat threat.
America fought on 2 fronts, and succeeded. Germany was unlikely to match America's industrial and military might.
If Hitler had not been hell-bent on exterminating the russians, he might have a better chance of holding the rest of Europe. The Germans were defeated by the harsh Russian winter, for which they were woefully unprepared, as much as the resilience of the Russian soldiers.
The Germans simply could not capture the large Russian cities because they underestimated the desperate tenacity of Russian Resistance there. Even if the Germans had captured the oilfields of the Caucasus, it would not guarantee victory because Russia's natural resources are so vast. Furthermore, if Stalin had not been so preoccupied with oppressing his opponents and modernised the Russian army instead, the Germans would have been sent packing much earlier.
King Tiger
Active Member
giddygoat said:It was all "what ifs". They certainly came very close. Certainly, the war against Russia before subduing England was a mistake and ended up with the germans facing a two front battle against forces of overwhelming numbers. What if the japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbour and US was not drawn into the war? What if the germans had encircled Stalingrad and moved on to secure the oil fields rather than get caught up in street fighting where their technological and training edge was meaningless? What if Hitler just let his generals plan the war rather than trying to do it his way?
Hitler gambled one hand too many and lost all his chips. And I for one am not sorry it ended this way
Ironically, it did happen again in our present situation.
Saddam Hussien is another Hilter, when came to power, he led Iraq into a war with neighbouring Iran 10 1980, believing he could defeat Iranian in 6 months.
However, Iranian resistance was strong, athough they do not have international support nor either the Iranian are well equip.
The war drag for 8 years until a cease fire in 1988, ending with millions of lives lost on both sides.
In 1990, Saddam conquer Kuwait, declare Kuwait under one of Iraq's provinces. This lead to Iraq losing almost all dipolmatic relationship wih all countries including Europe and US whom have support Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. International UN force lead by US during the 1st Gulf War, ending with Iraq's defeat, follow by international trade embargo and pinned down by US over the next ten years.
In the end, Saddam was telecast by media hiding in a hole capture by US troops.
King Tiger said:
yeah agreed. i mean, it sounds good on theory and technical ..but really i dont think u will want that to happen lor..i mean..if it really happened back in the 40's, imagine what life in sg will be like, say now?
anyway..has anyone read the book " fatherland"? last time my best buddy in sec school lent it to me and read..but too cheem..i didnt really understand the whole thing
King Tiger
Active Member
zaren said:
Zaren
Good military analysis :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Very fews will study and understand the concept of stragetic and tactical warfare like you.
King Tiger
Active Member
clive said:yeah agreed. i mean, it sounds good on theory and technical ..but really i dont think u will want that to happen lor..i mean..if it really happened back in the 40's, imagine what life in sg will be like, say now?
anyway..has anyone read the book " fatherland"? last time my best buddy in sec school lent it to me and read..but too cheem..i didnt really understand the whole thing
If you read on those stragetic/tactical or analysis on warfare, it is usualy very cheem unless you have a deep interest on it.
Go to Borders bookstore, under History/Warfare section, there is a lots of good books there.
I start reading all these books during the 1980s, during the time when President Ronald Reagan announce the military air strike against Libya.
last time i didnt go to OCS..so all the while i was wondering.. does OCS and SAFTI teach all the cadets/officers somethign of the same level as all those military analysis material as u described? :think:
keke..like what our dear Zaren has analysed..i still recall last time after/during history lessons when we talked and debated a lot about WWII and who is fighting who...all that "what if " talk...really engaging :thumbsup:
keke..like what our dear Zaren has analysed..i still recall last time after/during history lessons when we talked and debated a lot about WWII and who is fighting who...all that "what if " talk...really engaging :thumbsup:
King Tiger
Active Member
clive said:
They do have textbook on this topics.
But for those regular whom promote to capatin and above, they are require to study the stragetic, tatical, analysis, logisitics and so on at Mindef and take exam.
clive said:
i believe advanced military strategy & doctrine would be taught at senior commander level, for those going to hold CO appointments and above. anyway, a bit of trivia for you... the Germans studied the writings of BH Liddell Hart, a British War Strategist, and used much of his theories during WWII. I'm not sure about Sun Tzu's "Art Of War" though, mebbe the Japanese studied that instead.
Jay said:
Get the video off the web (K**za) and watch it for yourself. There are snippets of the props dept cutting up the T-34. Or get the BOB DVD set, the 'making of' video is part of the set.
It isn't a hard do if you have the budget like Steven Spielberg has. With money, you can do anything. In the last James Bond movie, the production crew even built 3-4 hovercraft for the opening scene. A couple of which they crashed unintentionally.
Actually, it's a smart move on their part coz they now have an authentic looking tiger tank that they can reuse for other movies and or rent out to other productions. It fooled you didn't it? It sure fooled me when I watched SPR.
King Tiger said:
didn't even had the guts to kill himself. at least hitler and his some of his cronies did.
Thanks for the great analyses! it was very enlightening to read. You guys are all really well read on this!
This is what i believe. Although the industrial might of the US is unmatchable, if the germans had taken england, it may have been a very different war. The allies would have no longer have a staging area for an attack onto the european continent and even with America's strenght, i seriously doubt it can successfully conduct a large scale beach landing and certainly not be able to maintain the supply lines to hold the beachhead. Unlike the japanese front, island hopping would be out of the question.
They can join the soviets at the eastern front but given the massive ideological diffences between the americans and the communists, it is unlikely that they'd ever be able to achieve the kind of cooperation seen between the brits and the americans that was so vital for the success. So i doubt it'd have gone beyond just providing lend-lease equipments to the soviets and letting them fight their war.
So it all boils down to the decision to terminate Sea Lion and to open a new front by attacking the soviets. Amazing how decisions can come back and haunt you.
It's kinda fun to guess what may had happened if..... especially in the comfort of the knowledge that things worked out for the best in the end. would have been scary to live through all that though :sweat:
if lets say the nazis took england and didnt touch russia...yeah it will be damn difficult for US to enter europe..but the US still can enter europe by africa..but still not easy coz they got to overcome the U-boats in the atlantic and face rommel in the desert :think: ...headache :sweat:
King Tiger
Active Member
clive said:
Germany committed more resource on the Russian Front than any other theatre of the war.
If Germany did not invade Russia in 1941, they would be able to divert their resources on training, development and mass production to upgrade the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and their Panzers.
Should US able to control the Altantic ocean due to her superior naval power, it would be difficult for US army to fight against the German Army in Africa (let say around 1943), not to say even Europe. :nono:
By then, for sure there will be a lots of well-equip Panther, Tiger I, King Tiger Panzer Divisions to welcome the American at the African beadhead.
To add on to King Tiger's post above,
Air superiority over Europe would also be achieved with the Me 262A-1a. With their high speed and use of unguided rockets against US heavy bomber formations, Me 262A-1a scored considerable kill rates with light losses.
With Luftwaffe fighters establishing air superiority over the Atlantic Ocean, Luftwaffe bomber formations can proceed to pound approaching Allied naval units in round the clock sorties. When the Allies land on Africa, it would be under the German sky.
Hitler had other advanced weapons of war, eg. the V-1 (cruise missile) & the V-2 (Long Range Ballastic Missile). Both Allied & Axis powers were researching atomic weapons too, however it was the US with their superior resources who won the race.
Assuming Hitler had not been so ambitious to fight on two fronts and given opportunity and time to improve these weapons, it is possible that the Axis could have tilted the odds more in their favour to avoid their rapid collapse of Axis resistance in Europe & Africa when it mattered.
Air superiority over Europe would also be achieved with the Me 262A-1a. With their high speed and use of unguided rockets against US heavy bomber formations, Me 262A-1a scored considerable kill rates with light losses.
With Luftwaffe fighters establishing air superiority over the Atlantic Ocean, Luftwaffe bomber formations can proceed to pound approaching Allied naval units in round the clock sorties. When the Allies land on Africa, it would be under the German sky.
Hitler had other advanced weapons of war, eg. the V-1 (cruise missile) & the V-2 (Long Range Ballastic Missile). Both Allied & Axis powers were researching atomic weapons too, however it was the US with their superior resources who won the race.
Assuming Hitler had not been so ambitious to fight on two fronts and given opportunity and time to improve these weapons, it is possible that the Axis could have tilted the odds more in their favour to avoid their rapid collapse of Axis resistance in Europe & Africa when it mattered.
- Status
Similar threads
