A different outcome to WW2

[webmaster]

Folks, when you want to make a point to somebody, the best way to do is NOT to call the other person an idiot or on "dope." It will only take you AWAY from the topic and AWAY from the point that you want your other friend to see and understand.

Those in Defense Professionals groups need to be extra careful when exchanging ideas and thoughts with other members.

Thank you!!!

 

[KGB]

the soviet tactics often were blunt simply atacking along a broad front dissregarding losses,it differed much from the german tactic of encirclement thats why i think some german commanders were the best of the war(unlike patton and macarther who only won because of more men and material not superior tactics) and i think most german soldiers werent nazis but simply fighting for there homland,also tactics efected it some but in my opinion in an offensive atack a t-34 was better than a tiger,but if that tiger is dug in and holding a position it is not going to be overun by a t-34

In his war memoirs, Gen von Mellinthin, a senior German staff officer during the russia campaign, had the utmost respect for his Russian opponents. Given that he had an incentive to play up the quality of the army that beat him, his respect seems genuine. In stalingrad and kursk for example, the Germans did play right into Marshal Zhukov's plans. There were many cited examples of deceptions inflicted on the Germans, such as sneaking an entire tank army across a bridgehead.

What i wonder is why the Americans didn't use a better tank design than the sherman. They had the ability and resources anyway. The Sherman had features that the russian crews who got some of them appreciated; comfort, waterproofing (rain apparently entered t-34's), less tendency to brew up when hit, etc. However it had an old suspension which gave it a rather high profile compared to its peers, and wasn't as tough as the t-34's.

 

[mikehotwheelz]

Having a Brew

The Sherman had features that the russian crews who got some of them appreciated; comfort, waterproofing (rain apparently entered t-34's), less tendency to brew up when hit, etc.

Sorry, KGB, I have to take issue with one point you made. The air-cooled petrol (gasoline) engine of the Sherman earned it the unfortunate nicknames of the "Ronson Lighter" (as it never failed to catch) by the Brits and the rather grisly "Tommy Cooker" by the Germans. The T-34, by contrast, had a much less flammable diesel engine.

 

[long live usa]

what were some of the british tanks of WW2 like dont hear much about them did they perform very well?

 

[mikehotwheelz]

Missed oportunities

what were some of the british tanks of WW2 like dont hear much about them did they perform very well?

Despite having two of the foremost tank theorists (Fuller and Liddell-Hart) who were very influential to the likes of Guderian in Germany after WW1, British tank philosophy in WW2 was deeply flawed. They believed there should be two distinct types of tank; the Cruiser for fast mobile work and the Infantry tank used in infantry support. The Cruisers (Crusader, Cromwell etc.) were under-armed, under-armoured but very nimble (often with Christie suspension and a detuned version of the Spitfire's Rolls-Royce Merlin called the Meteor), while the Infantry tanks (Matilda, Valentine, Churchill etc.) were under-powered and REALLY slow (they made the Tiger look like a greyhound!) as they only had to keep up with the infantry, had fairly ineffective guns, but were very well armoured.

It wasn't until the last year of the war that the British had a decent Cruiser tank in the guise of the Comet which had an excellent 77mm gun while the heavy Cromwells justified their existence as a platform for various "special" vehicles like the "Crocodile" flame thrower, bridge layers and mine clearers where their lack of speed didn't matter.

The scandal is that the "Top Brass" knew that the allied tanks (including the Sherman) were far inferior to the Panther and Tiger but logistically it would have been too much to re-tool to make something better before the D-Day deadline (Stalin was impatient for the second front to open). They were prepared to use quantity over quality with the resultant high losses in Allied tank crews, who had been told before setting off across the English Channel that their equiptment was just as good if not better than the German's. The resultant encounters came as a very nasty shock indeed.

It wasn't until the last 2 months of the war that the British, having finally re-thought their design philosophy, fielded what was to mature into the finest tank of the 50's, namely the Centurian, but by that time it was too late to see combat

 

[Boolag]

Italians in WWII = pathetic, when I heard the stories of Italians taking beatings from Ethiopians I almost laughed. Hitler said about Italy as an ally " It's better to have weak allies than no allies at all" and after he had to spend so much manpower defending Sicily he said "We'll, maybe I was mistaken."

Hey..My Dad was a partisan under Tito in Yugoslavia..He's still round(pushing 80) At his very young age at the time he was a Combat soldier with the Sandrac' Regt.(I think thats the name anyway) And he told me that after Italy capitulated the partisans found themselves swamped with Italian units wanting something to fight for..he said an Italian mountain unit joined his regiment and that they were some some of the hardest bastards he's ever fought alongside..Later he was stationed in Sidi-Bel-Abes in a different uniform and had NCO status in a Company consisting mostly of former SS, Hitler youth..etc due to his ability to speak Deutsch and I dont think he'd even bother comparing them with the Italians..point I'm trying to make is Ideology isnt always enough especially if its Full of bollocks like fascism was..a soldier needs a reason to fight..the former SS didnt have that anymore..they were just looking for somewhere to hide..the Italians post capitulation had a reason, their homeland was in turmoil and anything they could do to make their former allies lives hell seemed a good idea...

By the way the Allies + the partisans nearly started fighting over trieste at the end of the war..my old man was there too and he reckoned the partisan forces were given notice to go into the NewZealand held sector at night and take the knife to Freybergs boys..Never happened in the end though, Freyberg pointed out to the partisan C.O's that allied airpower was supreme(thanks to some well timed fly-by's by Tactical air command.) and a couple days later the Kiwi's woke to find the partisans had abandoned their forward positions...(Just as well otherwise I would probably never been born in good old NZ)...Full scale conflict in Trieste could have potentially brought the West + the Soviets into direct conflict with each-other, as this was before Tito's rift with stalin..Bit of history there for ya, its not official history..but Dad dosent talk to many people 'bout the war:rel so I figured I'd share some of his experiences with ya...I think I'm starting to ramble?!?

 

[long live usa]

there may have been some places were italian units were doing well but when i think back on there performance its seems very pathetic masses of italian armor being captured in yugoslavia italain efforts there and in africa being saved by german forces in my opinion it was one of the worse performances in militarty history

 

[Boolag]

Yeah, i guess at a command level upwards the italians were outclassed tactically not to say they didnt have good commanders..A lot of the troops lacked morale too, especially after Albania, and the army was operating gear that was obsolescent in '39..the Navy was relatively well equipped though as was the airforce(by about '42) +both arms generally proved themselves to be well-trained and capable opponents.

Just a pity Italy's re-equipment programmes didnt start kickn in till '43..By then Il'duce's goose was cooked...

as a footnote many Jagdwaffe pilots in the Med and in Reich defense had quite a high reputation of their italian counterparts..but felt the italian airfoce upper echelons were utter meatheads..

 

[Boolag]

In a more relavent issue re the topic, dont forget the Soviets were engaged in very fierce yet brief combat in Manchukuo..er..Manchuria involving a LOT of manpower + equipment, after this they got acess to jap Biological+Nuclear research( and many of the nuke scientists)...I recall a rumour that the japs tested a similar -but smaller-device to smallboy somewhere round that general reigon, maybe korea? Can anyone back me up?

 

[mikehotwheelz]

.I recall a rumour that the japs tested a similar -but smaller-device to smallboy somewhere round that general reigon, maybe korea? Can anyone back me up?

Never heard anything like that before, but it sounds bogus. I can't believe that a country who had huge problems supplying it's own troops with decent, up-to-date equiptment had the recources or facilities to come close to building such a device.

 

[Boolag]

What?? you never heard of the Nazi U-boat ferry service between japan and the reich? the japs supplied morphine and the germmans supplied designs,equipment, weapons (Mk-108s,Mg-151s,Aero engines, at least 1 panther and a tiger for trials and allegedly a quantity of fissile materiel that was intercepted by the yanks(about six boxes, enough for at least two or more uranium bombs)..You ever wondered why the US only tested One weapon- a plutonium bomb,t hen they dropped 2 different kinds on japan, plutonium and uranium, The uranium bomb went first on hiroshima..How did they know It was going to work if they'd never tested that type of nuke..unless someone else tested it first and the US aquired the technology when that someone else surrended...there is a book by Fredrich Georg called "Hitlers miracle weapons:Secret nuclear weapons of the 3rd Reich and their carrier systems." In it the author states that the germans prefected a uranium nuke, tested it, Allegedly on concentrarion camp inmates and begun mass production, and were on the verge of using them in suicide airstrikes on The Us forces in the Ardennes..(According to the book Hitler was scared shitless by the power of the new weapon)But the US captured all the delivery units and covered up all knowledge of the find in order to augment their nuclear arsenal...
If there is anyone with a knowledge in nuclear physics could you please help me out here?!? If you had Two different kinds of Nuclear device, ie uranium bomb and plutonium bomb..would you use the untested weapon first.. the uranium bomb or would you subject it to a weapons test in a safe environment and use the tested weapon instead???...Something definitley stinks..just remember history is written by the winner.
Dont forget most military Technology developed in the east +west during the early cold war[..the descendants of whom are still in use today as established technologies..] can trace its roots back to Nazi Germany. The F-86 sabre wing design is based directly on the Messerschmidt Me.p1101 (whose airframe was later developed into the X-5 variable geometry test aircraft..it was originally of fixed geometry) and the Mig 15 - wing design is based directly on the Focke-wulf Ta 183..to give but two examples..what other little known technologies did the Allies scavenge?the russians broke the sound barrier in a German DFS test vehicle...the worlds most powerful turboprop engines on the TU-95 Bear were based on a german design..etc etc

The US welcomed the Japanese scientists of unit 731 with open arms and tested weakened biological weapons based on 731's research on its own people in the 1950's to study the effects of a biological attack on large metropolitan areas...Point i'm making is when the other guy gives up, you can put your name on his stuff and say its yours...

 

[KGB]

Sorry, KGB, I have to take issue with one point you made. The air-cooled petrol (gasoline) engine of the Sherman earned it the unfortunate nicknames of the "Ronson Lighter" (as it never failed to catch) by the Brits and the rather grisly "Tommy Cooker" by the Germans. The T-34, by contrast, had a much less flammable diesel engine.

Oops I didn't know that. However, it was the tendency of the ammo blowing up that was being referred to. I picked the info up from 'the russian battlefield" site. Lots of personal accounts.

 

[mikehotwheelz]

What?? you never heard of the Nazi U-boat ferry service between japan and the reich? the japs supplied morphine and the germmans supplied designs,equipment, weapons (Mk-108s,Mg-151s,Aero engines, at least 1 panther and a tiger for trials and allegedly a quantity of fissile materiel that was intercepted by the yanks(about six boxes, enough for at least two or more uranium bombs)...

...The US welcomed the Japanese scientists of unit 731 with open arms and tested weakened biological weapons based on 731's research on its own people in the 1950's to study the effects of a biological attack on large metropolitan areas...Point i'm making is when the other guy gives up, you can put your name on his stuff and say its yours...

I'm in full agreement with you on acknowledging that the Germans and the Japanese had some world beating scientists, although many of the leading German nuclear physicists escaped to England and then to America where they were then employed to help work on the Manhatten Project. But at that time the sheer COST of producing a viable atomic weapon was way beyond the reach of any country other than the US.

Even though Ernest Rutherford split the atom with a particle accellerator in Cambridge before the war, there's a world of difference between a controlled experiment in the lab and making a nuclear bomb.

Yes, the Japanese were given the plans or parts to build a Me163, Me262 (sort of) and Panther but they didn't have the production facilities or the raw materials to mass produce them. The Japanese were so starved of war materiel by the American submarine blockade that before the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan they were arming the general population with sharpened bamboo poles to face off the expected invasion.

 

[long live usa]

i heard about that the germans sending japan some nuclear material in a sub but the crew supposedly killed the japanese on board and decided to surrender,also japan did really need some new form of tank very badly ever hear about that battle on saipan when the largest japanese tank force in the pacific got wiped out by a group of lost American soldiers(with no armor support) the japanese tanks really sucked badly

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

there may have been some places were italian units were doing well but when i think back on there performance its seems very pathetic masses of italian armor being captured in yugoslavia italain efforts there and in africa being saved by german forces in my opinion it was one of the worse performances in militarty history

Mate the Iatlian soldiers oftern performed well, most of Rommells units in Africa were italian including mobile forces (motorised infantry, your right Italian tanks were pathetic) and proved that under adequate command they could hold their own. i generally agree with you that their performance was pretty dismall, but this can not be blamed on the italian soldier, rather on outdated equipment, a lack of emdemic professionalism and more importantly anchent operational dotorine.

 

[KGB]

Wasn't it the italians who fired their tankl guns while the tank was moving?

 

[long live usa]

the japaneses tanks were badly made but if X day would have proceeded we would have had alot of losses because they were even building low grade rifles for fresh recruits i forget what the rifle was called though

 

[Big-E]

the japaneses tanks were badly made but if X day would have proceeded we would have had alot of losses because they were even building low grade rifles for fresh recruits i forget what the rifle was called though

While we're talking about japanese invasion do any of you think the US could have taken and held the Japanese home islands with no a-bomb or submission from the emperor?

 

[long live usa]

macarthur really wanted an invasion of the home islands(he really wanted some glory!!)i think the plan was for America to atack to the south while russia came from the north,also i read somwere(this may not have been so)that macartur was planning some feint atacks in wich he planed on losing at least 30,000 a piece then the main invasion would have taken place to the south of tokyo i think we could have held it,but at a horrible price,i dont know if the figure of 1 million would have taken place but at least 400,000(American troops) we would have 90 percent control of the skies(with all the jet fighters they had in the mountains who knows) and seas the japanese would have been dug in deep like on okinowa it certainley would have been bloody

 

[long live usa]

came across yet another theory the japanese invasion of australia,what if we had been beaten at coral sea(or if the japanese hadent gotten cold feet after losing one light carrier)and the japanese plans for port morsby and there plans for australia had not been stoped,doubtful America could have provided much help convoys already going to britain and the us naval forces in the pacific were nil espeacially over that long distance,i wonder if australia was in any position to stop this?