| Being proud of your country 14:07 - Feb 15 with 4900 views | onehunglow |
Should we be and if so why?
Countries are formed by lines drawn on a map by politicians often with disastrous results,like the Balkans.
If we live in a fascist/communist country or one with a murderous past-like Turkey for example, why should anyone be proud |  |
| |  |
| Being proud of your country on 15:02 - Feb 19 with 895 views | onehunglow |
| Being proud of your country on 13:22 - Feb 19 by Boundy |
That's the beauty of this country the diversity of the climate . I love visiting hot countries but its a nice to see the seasons change .( I wouldn't miss wet winters though) |
Depends on individual boundy.I like hot weather and detest cold.Snow does zero for me so Canada would be hell on earth although,when we've been in summer ,it's great.Wonderful people,outside Quebec anyway.
Bets climate and place to live for me would be Portugal west coast | |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 15:27 - Feb 19 with 887 views | controversial_jack |
| Being proud of your country on 11:53 - Feb 19 by Catullus |
Yes but the Spits tighter turning circle meant the Me couldn't bring it's firepower to bear unless they surprised the Spitfires. That was a tactic they used, diving out of the sun, if it didn't succeed the Spits usually did better in a dogfight.
The US army was much bigger than 100k. When Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 it was nearly 1.5 million, a year later it was over 3 miilion and doubled again in the next year. By the end of Torch the US army was nearly 7 million strong.
Germany wouldn't have had the naval capability to launch an invasion of the USA, it couldn't have transported enough men across the Atlantic. If Brtain had fallen all our troops would have beenn ordered to try and get to the USA, all our navy would have gone there and they would have been enough to stop an invasion.
The USa lost most of it's battleships at Pearlt but it's aircraft carriers escaped that. The USA military industrial complex went into overdrive after Pearl. in 1941 the US navy had around 700ships, by 1945 it had over 6000 ships and 3 million men. In 41 they also had over 2000 fighter aircraft which rose to over 5000 in 42 and nearly 12000 in 43.
If Germany was to beat the USA it needed nukes, Hitler had recognised that which is why Germany put so much into the V weapons, they wanted an ICBM, if they'd got it....well who knows. What we do know is the bombing of Peenemunde, the attack on Rjukan in Telemark and other operations helped delay Nazi plans long enough for the Allies to overwhelm Germany. |
The me109 employed the tactic of swooping from above as they had gained height quicker on their flight from across the Chanel, you are correct, but their cannon shells could do a lot more damage than a machine gun could.
Initially the US army was only about 100k and very poorly trained, it did increase in size, but didn't improve in quality until much later
The Germans would have had the British fleet to transport the troops across, that would have been part of the terms of surrender.
It wouldn't have taken that many Troops to overcome the defences on the east coast plus the guns of the warships and take over the major cities. That would have been game over then | | | |
| Being proud of your country on 16:44 - Feb 19 with 882 views | Catullus |
| Being proud of your country on 15:27 - Feb 19 by controversial_jack |
The me109 employed the tactic of swooping from above as they had gained height quicker on their flight from across the Chanel, you are correct, but their cannon shells could do a lot more damage than a machine gun could.
Initially the US army was only about 100k and very poorly trained, it did increase in size, but didn't improve in quality until much later
The Germans would have had the British fleet to transport the troops across, that would have been part of the terms of surrender.
It wouldn't have taken that many Troops to overcome the defences on the east coast plus the guns of the warships and take over the major cities. That would have been game over then |
The US army was bigger than that, even in 1939,
https://www.nationalww2museum.
Who said anything about Britain surrendering, I said beaten. We wouldn't have surrendered and we would never have handed our navy over to Hitler.
How many troops do you think it would take to over come the entire Eastern seaboard? It's over 2000 miles long. On D DAy the Allies landed around 156000 troops in what was a massive armada of nearly 7000 ships. So how many ships and how many troops to take over a much, much larger area? What you are suggesting just wasn't feasible back then. By the time Hitler would have been ready the US army was over 1.5 million strength, never mind the navy and airforce and by then training was turning out good soldiers.
It's crazy to suggest Hitler could have landed enough men to take a 2000 mile long coastline and the armada would have been seen long before it got near their coast, they would have come under continuous air attack and submarine attack. It would have taken over 2 weeks to sail that armada across, you couldn't keep that a secret. | |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 17:22 - Feb 19 with 872 views | controversial_jack |
| Being proud of your country on 16:44 - Feb 19 by Catullus |
The US army was bigger than that, even in 1939,
https://www.nationalww2museum.
Who said anything about Britain surrendering, I said beaten. We wouldn't have surrendered and we would never have handed our navy over to Hitler.
How many troops do you think it would take to over come the entire Eastern seaboard? It's over 2000 miles long. On D DAy the Allies landed around 156000 troops in what was a massive armada of nearly 7000 ships. So how many ships and how many troops to take over a much, much larger area? What you are suggesting just wasn't feasible back then. By the time Hitler would have been ready the US army was over 1.5 million strength, never mind the navy and airforce and by then training was turning out good soldiers.
It's crazy to suggest Hitler could have landed enough men to take a 2000 mile long coastline and the armada would have been seen long before it got near their coast, they would have come under continuous air attack and submarine attack. It would have taken over 2 weeks to sail that armada across, you couldn't keep that a secret. |
We would have had to surrender at some point, Churchill was full of bluster. when you are defeated you don't dictate the terms,you accept them. They would have had any resources they want from us, just ask the other defeated nations how that went.
He wouldn't have had to take 2000 miles, just Washington and a few cities. govt paralysed, game over. Take London , Paris, Berlin and game over It would have been a massive undertaking of course, but there was no Atlantic wall on the east coast of the USA it wouldn't have been like D Day.
The figures you have seen include the reservists etc, Most were poorly trained and spread out all over the country. They were no match for the Germans in combat, indeed they weren't later on either, neither were British troops. in equal numbers the German always prevailed over the allies in conflicts. that won't go down very well with the nationalists, but it's true | | | |
| Being proud of your country on 21:07 - Feb 19 with 853 views | Boundy |
| Being proud of your country on 15:02 - Feb 19 by onehunglow |
Depends on individual boundy.I like hot weather and detest cold.Snow does zero for me so Canada would be hell on earth although,when we've been in summer ,it's great.Wonderful people,outside Quebec anyway.
Bets climate and place to live for me would be Portugal west coast |
The cold's ok , used to working out in it but the damp knows a killer for me , cortisone injections, heat pads and ample use of painkillers , they say you pay the price for your youth and i'm afraid they were right | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 21:11 - Feb 19 with 853 views | Catullus |
| Being proud of your country on 17:22 - Feb 19 by controversial_jack |
We would have had to surrender at some point, Churchill was full of bluster. when you are defeated you don't dictate the terms,you accept them. They would have had any resources they want from us, just ask the other defeated nations how that went.
He wouldn't have had to take 2000 miles, just Washington and a few cities. govt paralysed, game over. Take London , Paris, Berlin and game over It would have been a massive undertaking of course, but there was no Atlantic wall on the east coast of the USA it wouldn't have been like D Day.
The figures you have seen include the reservists etc, Most were poorly trained and spread out all over the country. They were no match for the Germans in combat, indeed they weren't later on either, neither were British troops. in equal numbers the German always prevailed over the allies in conflicts. that won't go down very well with the nationalists, but it's true |
Why would we have to surrender? How does Hitler force Churchill to hand over our navy? How does Churchill force every ships captain to surrender to the Nazi's, they just sail to America.
The Nazi's would have had to invade us. We wouldn't just have caved in.
Until the USA and Rusiia joined in the British army in Europe fought alone. At it's height the British army had around 3 million men, the Germans over 13 million men. Commonwealth and colonial troops brought our numbers up to about 15 million but they were fighting the Japanese and Italians mostly, until later on.
Do you really think, in an invasion, the USA government would sit in Washington and wait to be captured? That is naive at best. Do you think Churchill would have waited in Downing street for the Germans to turn up?
America in 1942, population around 134 million and very many adults owned guns. The Nazi's would have found tough resistance and been massively outnumbered. Where would the nazi's get fuel for their tanks? They'd need a lot of tankers to cross the Atlantic and they would have been the first targets of air strikes.
PS, Hitler didn't even want to invade Britian without guaranteed air superiority and Germany had 2 aircraft carriers in 1939, one not even finished. [Post edited 19 Feb 2021 21:14]
| |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 22:15 - Feb 19 with 837 views | controversial_jack |
| Being proud of your country on 21:11 - Feb 19 by Catullus |
Why would we have to surrender? How does Hitler force Churchill to hand over our navy? How does Churchill force every ships captain to surrender to the Nazi's, they just sail to America.
The Nazi's would have had to invade us. We wouldn't just have caved in.
Until the USA and Rusiia joined in the British army in Europe fought alone. At it's height the British army had around 3 million men, the Germans over 13 million men. Commonwealth and colonial troops brought our numbers up to about 15 million but they were fighting the Japanese and Italians mostly, until later on.
Do you really think, in an invasion, the USA government would sit in Washington and wait to be captured? That is naive at best. Do you think Churchill would have waited in Downing street for the Germans to turn up?
America in 1942, population around 134 million and very many adults owned guns. The Nazi's would have found tough resistance and been massively outnumbered. Where would the nazi's get fuel for their tanks? They'd need a lot of tankers to cross the Atlantic and they would have been the first targets of air strikes.
PS, Hitler didn't even want to invade Britian without guaranteed air superiority and Germany had 2 aircraft carriers in 1939, one not even finished. [Post edited 19 Feb 2021 21:14]
|
It's all conjecture mate, obviously, but under terms of surrender or defeat you have to do what the victor wants, because you have lost.
We would have caved in, ask other countries that were defeated by the NAZIs how they managed
The British army wasn't really in Europe after the BEF was driven out at Dunkirk. We had forces in N Africa, the med etc, but not on mainland Europe
If the Polish, French British armies couldn't halt the Nazis, a rag tag bunch of civilian could have done nothing at all
The US then was not the US that is today. It was weak militarily | | | |
| Being proud of your country on 12:18 - Feb 21 with 769 views | Catullus |
| Being proud of your country on 22:15 - Feb 19 by controversial_jack |
It's all conjecture mate, obviously, but under terms of surrender or defeat you have to do what the victor wants, because you have lost.
We would have caved in, ask other countries that were defeated by the NAZIs how they managed
The British army wasn't really in Europe after the BEF was driven out at Dunkirk. We had forces in N Africa, the med etc, but not on mainland Europe
If the Polish, French British armies couldn't halt the Nazis, a rag tag bunch of civilian could have done nothing at all
The US then was not the US that is today. It was weak militarily |
It is all conjecture but I'll repeat, we may have been beaten, invaded and taken over but that doesn't mean surrernder apart from bit by bit as areas were over run. Churchill may well have preferred the fitring squad to complete surrender.
Again, Hitler could not have invaded the USa without enough ships and air cover, he would have had neither. The point about D Day was the sheer size of the armada needed to put 150,000 troops ashore after a relatively short crossing.
Hitler didn't have that many ships and just 2 aircraft carriers, logistically he couldn't have taken an army across the Atlantic. Even if he could have you could expect the Americans to see it coming and be more prepared than you are willing to admit, the Germans couldn't have disguised their target and they would have found themselves met by hundreds of thousands of troops and would have been pummelled by thousands of aircraft before they got near to shore. Hitler couldn't have replaced any ship lost, any aircraft lost, he couldn't have quickly brought up fresh troops or supplies.
On D Day the Allies had millions of tons of supplies and had the Mulberry harbours so they could keep resupplying the troops. How would Htler have gotten his supplies ashore?
The logistics are impossible.
However, if Hitler had gotten hold of nuclear weapons and his scientists had prefected the long range misslles no german soldier would have needed to cross the ocean, maybe a few ships, 4 or 5 nuclear missiles, Washington left looking like Hiroshima would probably have been enough. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Being proud of your country on 14:35 - Feb 21 with 740 views | controversial_jack |
| Being proud of your country on 12:18 - Feb 21 by Catullus |
It is all conjecture but I'll repeat, we may have been beaten, invaded and taken over but that doesn't mean surrernder apart from bit by bit as areas were over run. Churchill may well have preferred the fitring squad to complete surrender.
Again, Hitler could not have invaded the USa without enough ships and air cover, he would have had neither. The point about D Day was the sheer size of the armada needed to put 150,000 troops ashore after a relatively short crossing.
Hitler didn't have that many ships and just 2 aircraft carriers, logistically he couldn't have taken an army across the Atlantic. Even if he could have you could expect the Americans to see it coming and be more prepared than you are willing to admit, the Germans couldn't have disguised their target and they would have found themselves met by hundreds of thousands of troops and would have been pummelled by thousands of aircraft before they got near to shore. Hitler couldn't have replaced any ship lost, any aircraft lost, he couldn't have quickly brought up fresh troops or supplies.
On D Day the Allies had millions of tons of supplies and had the Mulberry harbours so they could keep resupplying the troops. How would Htler have gotten his supplies ashore?
The logistics are impossible.
However, if Hitler had gotten hold of nuclear weapons and his scientists had prefected the long range misslles no german soldier would have needed to cross the ocean, maybe a few ships, 4 or 5 nuclear missiles, Washington left looking like Hiroshima would probably have been enough. |
I'll say this for the last time. War is not about gaining territory or even body counts, it's about convincing the other side that they cannot win.
To take over the cities , ports, infrastructure and seat of govt is sufficient to do this.It's why the Nazis headed for Paris, Moscow etc.It was irrelevant to overcome a band of resistance fighters out in the country or in some Small town, that could be done later as a police action.
If the Germans would have won the battle of the Atlantic they would have starved us into submission. They didn't have to defeat us man for man, and we would have had to ask for a conditional surrender - as Lord Halifax and others thought we may have to do.
Hitler would have insisted on an unconditional surrender and part of those terms would have been to have possession of our navy and various other things.
That is how it works in wartime in the real world | | | |
| Being proud of your country on 17:39 - Feb 21 with 714 views | Catullus |
| Being proud of your country on 14:35 - Feb 21 by controversial_jack |
I'll say this for the last time. War is not about gaining territory or even body counts, it's about convincing the other side that they cannot win.
To take over the cities , ports, infrastructure and seat of govt is sufficient to do this.It's why the Nazis headed for Paris, Moscow etc.It was irrelevant to overcome a band of resistance fighters out in the country or in some Small town, that could be done later as a police action.
If the Germans would have won the battle of the Atlantic they would have starved us into submission. They didn't have to defeat us man for man, and we would have had to ask for a conditional surrender - as Lord Halifax and others thought we may have to do.
Hitler would have insisted on an unconditional surrender and part of those terms would have been to have possession of our navy and various other things.
That is how it works in wartime in the real world |
The Polish government surrendered and how many Polish soldiers, sailors and airmen cam to the UK?
If we did surrender, Churchills last message to the troops would be to tell everyone to get to America and to ignore any further orders because Britain was surrendering. Ships captains would have done just that.
War is exactly about gaining territory. No war, until nuclear weapons had ever been won without boots on ground and even after nukes the USA stilloccupied Japan and the Allies occupied Germany.
Halifax was seen as an appeaser, he suggested a negotiated peace when Hitler reached the channel, Churchill had other ideas.
Hitler would have demanded those things, I agree, where I do not agree is that Churchill would hve complied. He would have refused and his last message to the nation would be to prepare for the consequences. | |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 19:06 - Feb 21 with 702 views | Boundy |
| Being proud of your country on 17:39 - Feb 21 by Catullus |
The Polish government surrendered and how many Polish soldiers, sailors and airmen cam to the UK?
If we did surrender, Churchills last message to the troops would be to tell everyone to get to America and to ignore any further orders because Britain was surrendering. Ships captains would have done just that.
War is exactly about gaining territory. No war, until nuclear weapons had ever been won without boots on ground and even after nukes the USA stilloccupied Japan and the Allies occupied Germany.
Halifax was seen as an appeaser, he suggested a negotiated peace when Hitler reached the channel, Churchill had other ideas.
Hitler would have demanded those things, I agree, where I do not agree is that Churchill would hve complied. He would have refused and his last message to the nation would be to prepare for the consequences. |
I wonder what turned around Russia fortunes in 1942 or ours in 1944 , could it have been the Russians did enough to hold out whilst rearming, retraining then when ready pushed the German army back westwards with superior numbers better equipped troops, it wasn't words that won the second world war but superior numbers , in other words boots on the ground .The same can be said about WW1 or our war with France at Waterloo when we along with our Allies ( a lot of a soldiers ) . There seems to be a theme , military might and not words win wars . Insurrection , insurgency is a different matter and far more complex. | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 21:23 - Feb 21 with 676 views | controversial_jack |
| Being proud of your country on 19:06 - Feb 21 by Boundy |
I wonder what turned around Russia fortunes in 1942 or ours in 1944 , could it have been the Russians did enough to hold out whilst rearming, retraining then when ready pushed the German army back westwards with superior numbers better equipped troops, it wasn't words that won the second world war but superior numbers , in other words boots on the ground .The same can be said about WW1 or our war with France at Waterloo when we along with our Allies ( a lot of a soldiers ) . There seems to be a theme , military might and not words win wars . Insurrection , insurgency is a different matter and far more complex. |
The allies , Russia included, defeated the NAZIs through attrition. Probably not so much boots on ground either, but artillery, aircraft and logistics, plus Hitler was clueless
Britain turned it around in Burma too, under the magnificent General Bill Slim and the superb Indian and British troops. From having our arses kicked in South East Asia to turning it around and giving the Japs the biggest land army defeat they suffered during the war - two entire Jap armies routed. He managed it with better training and tactics, not through attrition or superior numbers either. The best allied General of the war imo. | | | |
| Being proud of your country on 09:34 - Feb 22 with 633 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Being proud of your country on 14:15 - Feb 18 by controversial_jack |
Yes, the British use and application of radar was better than the Germans, but the Germans actually had better more advanced equipment and technology.
Radar was used as rough guide, the observer corps then had to fill in the details; how many, what height, what aircraft etc. |
Really is incorrect that German radar was more advanced than the UK'S. The biggest advantage was the UKs radar had far longer range the German radar had relatively little range that is why they stopped developing it. | |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 10:17 - Feb 22 with 624 views | controversial_jack |
| Being proud of your country on 09:34 - Feb 22 by felixstowe_jack |
Really is incorrect that German radar was more advanced than the UK'S. The biggest advantage was the UKs radar had far longer range the German radar had relatively little range that is why they stopped developing it. |
The Freya radar was more advanced than its British counterpart, Chain Home. Freya operated on a 1.2 m (3.9 ft) wavelength (250 MHz) while Chain Home used 12 m. This allowed Freya to use a much smaller antenna system, one that was easier to rotate, move and position. It also offered higher resolution, allowing it to detect smaller targets. Because of its complex design, only eight Freya stations were operational when the war started, resulting in large gaps between the covered areas. The British Chain Home radar, although less advanced and more prone to errors, was simpler, which meant that the complete Chain Home network was in place in time for the Battle of Britain. | | | |
| Being proud of your country on 10:22 - Feb 22 with 621 views | onehunglow |
Fair play lads,I'm lost amongst your briliance here.
keep it up | |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 12:18 - Feb 22 with 599 views | Boundy |
| Being proud of your country on 10:17 - Feb 22 by controversial_jack |
The Freya radar was more advanced than its British counterpart, Chain Home. Freya operated on a 1.2 m (3.9 ft) wavelength (250 MHz) while Chain Home used 12 m. This allowed Freya to use a much smaller antenna system, one that was easier to rotate, move and position. It also offered higher resolution, allowing it to detect smaller targets. Because of its complex design, only eight Freya stations were operational when the war started, resulting in large gaps between the covered areas. The British Chain Home radar, although less advanced and more prone to errors, was simpler, which meant that the complete Chain Home network was in place in time for the Battle of Britain. |
This continued to be a flaw in the germans radar system which wasn't as coordinated between anti aircraft batteries but it was very effective for night fighting , at the terrible cost to Bomber command .Although not a new phenomenon this was an example electronic warfare with the germans blocking our system and the use of chaff to block theirs and one of the reasons why the raid on Bruneval was so important to the allies in trying to ascertain what the germans were doing to be so effective in jamming and disrupting our radar system | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 13:33 - Feb 22 with 593 views | onehunglow |
| Being proud of your country on 21:07 - Feb 19 by Boundy |
The cold's ok , used to working out in it but the damp knows a killer for me , cortisone injections, heat pads and ample use of painkillers , they say you pay the price for your youth and i'm afraid they were right |
I sinned too much in my youth and was told I d regret it.
I'm still here | |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 13:56 - Feb 22 with 577 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Being proud of your country on 10:17 - Feb 22 by controversial_jack |
The Freya radar was more advanced than its British counterpart, Chain Home. Freya operated on a 1.2 m (3.9 ft) wavelength (250 MHz) while Chain Home used 12 m. This allowed Freya to use a much smaller antenna system, one that was easier to rotate, move and position. It also offered higher resolution, allowing it to detect smaller targets. Because of its complex design, only eight Freya stations were operational when the war started, resulting in large gaps between the covered areas. The British Chain Home radar, although less advanced and more prone to errors, was simpler, which meant that the complete Chain Home network was in place in time for the Battle of Britain. |
The British radar had a much longer range as the British sorted out the problem of increasing the range a lot quicker than the Germans which gave the British a great advantage. The problem was to increase the range you had to increase the power of the transmitter but this led to the valves overheating and the burning out. A bit like sticking 440 volts through a 240v light bulb it gets very bright briefly before going pop.
The ingenious solution was to increase the power for only a a few milliseconds and repeated every 100 milliseconds or so . The overall power going through the valves was the same over a period of a second so did no burn the valve out. This pulsing of the valve vastly increased the range and also led to small radar sets. | |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 23:34 - Feb 23 with 523 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Being proud of your country on 13:56 - Feb 22 by felixstowe_jack |
The British radar had a much longer range as the British sorted out the problem of increasing the range a lot quicker than the Germans which gave the British a great advantage. The problem was to increase the range you had to increase the power of the transmitter but this led to the valves overheating and the burning out. A bit like sticking 440 volts through a 240v light bulb it gets very bright briefly before going pop.
The ingenious solution was to increase the power for only a a few milliseconds and repeated every 100 milliseconds or so . The overall power going through the valves was the same over a period of a second so did no burn the valve out. This pulsing of the valve vastly increased the range and also led to small radar sets. |
Must be ‘cut and paste’ shirley ? |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Being proud of your country on 11:06 - Feb 24 with 482 views | Catullus |
| Being proud of your country on 21:23 - Feb 21 by controversial_jack |
The allies , Russia included, defeated the NAZIs through attrition. Probably not so much boots on ground either, but artillery, aircraft and logistics, plus Hitler was clueless
Britain turned it around in Burma too, under the magnificent General Bill Slim and the superb Indian and British troops. From having our arses kicked in South East Asia to turning it around and giving the Japs the biggest land army defeat they suffered during the war - two entire Jap armies routed. He managed it with better training and tactics, not through attrition or superior numbers either. The best allied General of the war imo. |
Russia used a scorched earth policy, retreat and destroy everything they couldn't take with them, deny Germany food, water and any other supplies.
I wish my grandad was here to argue the point of attrition with you, he had his boots on the ground in Europe, Africa and the far East. He was at Tobruk (operation Agreement), El Alamein and D Day.
Tell all those Americans who stormed the beaches after thousands had parachuted in there weren't boots on ground AND al those GI's in the Pacific war too.
Hitler hadn't been so clueless early on but he was descending into madness. He had some top quality Generals, Roomel, Von Manstein (who worked miracles on the Eastern front and his tactics are still being taught by NATO) Paulus, Jodel, Kesselring, Von Runstedt, Model and more. As Hitler grew worse though, he turned on his own | |
| |
| Being proud of your country on 15:42 - Feb 24 with 465 views | controversial_jack |
| Being proud of your country on 11:06 - Feb 24 by Catullus |
Russia used a scorched earth policy, retreat and destroy everything they couldn't take with them, deny Germany food, water and any other supplies.
I wish my grandad was here to argue the point of attrition with you, he had his boots on the ground in Europe, Africa and the far East. He was at Tobruk (operation Agreement), El Alamein and D Day.
Tell all those Americans who stormed the beaches after thousands had parachuted in there weren't boots on ground AND al those GI's in the Pacific war too.
Hitler hadn't been so clueless early on but he was descending into madness. He had some top quality Generals, Roomel, Von Manstein (who worked miracles on the Eastern front and his tactics are still being taught by NATO) Paulus, Jodel, Kesselring, Von Runstedt, Model and more. As Hitler grew worse though, he turned on his own |
An army relies on supplies, huge amounts of food clothing and ordnance and has it's supply lines, it doesn't scavange for it's dinner like in medieval times. A scorched earth policy was a euphemism for locating it's industry hundreds of miles further east.
The Western front was small in comparison to hat happened in the East - that's not denigrating what your granddad and other did, but Russia broke the German army, not the Americans or us
Hitler was clueless in the East, he issued orders not to retreat and to hold out in impossible situations against the advice of his top generals. Hitler had never commanded any unit in the field.He knew strategy, because as fuhrer he decided most of it, but tactically he was useless.If he had listened to his Generals there may have been a different outcome, but the Russians were riled and there really was no stopping the red army once it got rolling. It's why Eisenhower called a halt to the allied armies pushing east despite Churchill wanting to proceed.Churchill was a fool if he thought the allies could take on the red army, but Eisenhower knew differently | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.