Customer Discussions > History forum

FDR's "Unconditional Surrender" Did iit make a difference in Germany's defeat?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 77 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2012 11:39:31 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 29, 2012 11:39:49 AM PDT
Pete,
Talk about loading the odds.... The anti-aircraft mount on the Panther was even more rigid than the tripod. Besides if you couldn't beat me with the machine gun, a canister round would certainly do the job. :-(

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2012 4:00:24 PM PDT
1874Sharps says:
Richard
I saw a cartoon once where two duelists were going at it in the forest and since one had challenged the other the other got to chose weapons. He chose a maxim gun and the other guy got a brick. You then see a scene of the peaceful forest and the the sounds: "BRAAAAAAAAAAATAAAAAAAAAAATAAAAAAAAAAATAAAAAAAAAA." "Throw' "BRAAAAAAAAAAATAAAAAAAATAAAAAAAATAAAAAAAAAAATAAAAAA..."

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2012 8:28:08 PM PDT
I never saw that cartoon. But if the guy with the brick waited until the Maxim ran out of ammo, he would then have the superior weapon. Circumstances always dictate superiority. If I was on the defensive and had unlimited ammo, I would opt for the German squad, on the offensive, I would opt for the more flexible American squad. On the defense I would opt for a Jagdtiger or King Tiger, on the offense I would opt for a Centurian or Pershing. We have different ideas about machine guns, but have you ever considered how quickly the MG42 would of through all the ammo it's 4 ammo bearers could carry? Rate of fire isn't everything, or our troops would be carrying M134 miniguns instead of SAWs. I can speak from experience, when you have to hump your own ammo, conserving fire units becomes important. Sustained fire is more important than rate of fire. The MG42 was a wonderful weapon, but it wasn't a wonder weapon.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2012 9:34:07 PM PDT
1874Sharps says:
Richard

All excelent points!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2012 10:07:42 PM PDT
Thanks,
I was worried that our discourse was getting a little acrimonious. I enjoy debating, but would rather learn than offend. Sometimes my opinions can be a little strong.

Posted on Aug 29, 2012 11:31:44 PM PDT
1874Sharps says:
Richard,
You always make well thought out, and well reasoned/acurate posts

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2012 11:32:56 PM PDT
1874Sharps says:
Richard,
i too would go with the Jagdpanther.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2012 11:44:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 29, 2012 11:53:16 PM PDT
Rachel says:
I know I am coming late to this discussion, having been away all day, and my post might be seen as a disconnect but it has to do with the comparison Stalin Hitler, and this what I think:
that comparison is not valid.
Different circumstances drove each leader.
Both were butchers, but to start a scale of who is worse, it would be a matter of opinion, and a way not to answer the question that was posed above.
I find the question interesting, intriguing, and it made me think about it.
I wished all fora asked good questions instead of attacking.
Rachel

Posted on Aug 29, 2012 11:46:56 PM PDT
1874Sharps says:
just watched a training type film from WWII and talking about MG's and German heavy armor: a P-47 pilot was talking about tactics against Tigers and I would image panthers. The tigers almost always had a gas tanker following them down the road. They would shot up the tanker with their .50s, and if didn't have bombs or rockets, would aim their .50's to ricochet off the tarmack into the Tiger's bellies. Showed the whole thing in color. Those pilots on the deck had true grit.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2012 5:53:45 AM PDT
*I saw a cartoon once where two duelists were going at it in the forest and since one had challenged the other the other got to chose weapons.

I saw another where Napoleon challenged the biggest guy to a duel choose time place and weapons and the big guy chose sledge hammers in 68 inches of water...

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2012 5:58:17 AM PDT
*I was worried that our discourse was getting a little acrimonious. I enjoy debating, but would rather learn than offend. Sometimes my opinions can be a little strong.

As an observer it was an informative discussion with good points on both sides. From my experience in the miliary and the side that wins is just less messed up than the other side. I was going around FT Hood and they had Shermans all over the place. I was suprised how big they really were. I have not seen any German tanks in real life but if you have not encountered the enemy the Serman is impressive. I have seen a T34/85 it was much smaller.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2012 6:02:42 AM PDT
*i too would go with the Jagdpanther.

Incredible machine. One the most underrated "tanks." We get all kinds of stuff on the Tigers and to some extent the panthers but many of the German SP guns were the back bone of the armored force late in the war. The STG was rated one of the best overall German vehicles when production was factored in. You take an outdated PZ3 or PZ38 chasse take off the turret accept the limitation and it can be raised to the next generation in armor and firepower.

I was suprised to learn that until the 70s the 90mm was the main tank gun for US forces. The German 88 is in that same class and the Jagdpanther could have been effective for decades just as the Sherman and Centurion were.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2012 6:05:59 AM PDT
*Different circumstances drove each leader.

Both has essentialy the same selishness of where they were the center of utopian movements. We often lose in our view of pure evil that the Nazis did not see themselves as evil. They were persuing utopian ends. It was not under a universal banner but a nationalist banner. Hitler wanted to create and ideal society but to do that he and Himler and others wanted to create the ideal Germans. This was based on ideas that were out there and they really added nothing new.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2012 7:45:57 AM PDT
Jagdpanther would be good as well, more mobile than the Jagdtiger and the same gun as the Tiger. Prettier as well. I tend to forget them since there were so few of them built.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2012 7:48:05 AM PDT
Joseph,
Two things always influence victory, first making fewer mistakes than you opponent and second remembering that he isn't a superman and is just as tired, cold and hungry as you are.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2012 8:31:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 30, 2012 8:32:04 AM PDT
Lientje says:
Pete: I would say that the wrap up of WWI had a lot to do with Germany after the War.

They seriously did not like the terms. They decided to have another one.

Maybe it would be something to consider. Don't make the loser grovel. It may come back to haunt you.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2012 6:56:22 PM PDT
Rachel says:
Happy Labor Day week-end, Joseph.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2012 7:05:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 5, 2012 6:56:28 PM PDT
Rachel says:
Says Lily the historian?

NO, she is just an accountant with a lot of opinions many of them just that.

Each war should be considered on its own terms.
The only tie is the Versailles Treaty, and 75 years after, historians have reviewed this event in great detail,and come there is such a book narrating all episodes to a satisfying conclusions for historians.

Grovel?

Ahem.................

There was a big difference between what France wanted to do with Germany -after the First World War- not WWI, since we are not expecting a series- and what the British said it was fair and should be done.


Problem was the Germans- as a population- were not told in the First War why it ended up that way, and the legend of the stab in the back started.................

We are discussing the impact of FDR's words - not poor Germany. Twice no way.
Also, if we say poor Germany regarding the First World War, are we also going to say poor Nazis?

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012 8:11:17 AM PDT
*Two things always influence victory, first making fewer mistakes than you opponent and second remembering that he isn't a superman and is just as tired, cold and hungry as you are.

Good enough...

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012 8:11:43 AM PDT
*Happy Labor Day week-end, Joseph.

Thanks...

Posted on Aug 31, 2012 4:57:56 PM PDT
1874Sharps says:
Richard M. Smith,

You said: "Jagdpanther would be good as well, more mobile than the Jagdtiger and the same gun as the Tiger." I agree absolutely, and I know what you are saying is "the same gun as the Tiger II, the KwK 43 88mm." A terribly effective killing machine. People sometimes forget that the tank destroyers, the Stug's to the Jagdpanthers were not in the panzer corps but in the artillery. You are obviously very well educated with an incredible knowledge of WWII. If I could ask your opinion: What do you believe was the most important/influencial tank in history? I know the first tanks in WWI are so important because they were the first, but I've always leaned toward the T-34.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012 5:07:36 PM PDT
1874Sharps says:
Lily,
The Versai Treaty did come back to haunt us. There is a saying, "Don't kick someone when they are down. They might get up." There of course is the theory from Machiveli that after you beat an enemy, you show no mercy, you hurt them so badly that they will forever be broken in spirit and will always fear you. Hitler came to power by power by giving the Geman people an answer to why things were so bad in post war German. He gave them a focus for their fear and anger. He told them what they wanted to hear, that they had been wronged in the terms of the treaty, that they faced external enemies in the Soviets, and internal enemies in the Jews. But to get into two two front wars in 20 years was of course madness.

Posted on Sep 1, 2012 1:58:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 1, 2012 2:00:23 AM PDT
DarthRad says:
The Stugs and Marders were always kept with the artillery section, but late in the war, as Germany increasingly was unable to produce tanks fast enough, the Jagpanthers and JagTigers and Jagdpanzer IV started being put into Panzer divisions as replacement tanks.

The assault guns were always best for defensive actions, ambushes mainly. They were sitting ducks on the offense. When forced to move and attack, the turretless assault guns were at a serious disadvantage to real tanks. Now, no tank in WWII could shoot while on the move, until the gyro stabilized gun of the M26. But still a tank could move in one direction while turning and aiming its turret in another direction. An assault gun could not do that - it always had to turn the hull towards its target, and this was much slower than most tank turrets could traverse. So on the offense, an assault gun would get shot at first, which was often fatal.

Because the Stugs and Marders were kept with the infantry, as Germany's need for tanks went unfilled, the remaining Panzers were pulled from one crisis to another as mobile reserves trying to stamp out the latest Allied/Soviet breakthrough. This meant that the infantry usually did not have tanks with them other than the Stugs and Marders. This was different from the early days of the war where German infantry usually advanced with their tanks. And so knowing that tanks would get taken away from them, the infantry continued to ask for more Stugs even though they would have been able to attack and counterattack much more capably with real tanks.

So it was this weird organizational structure of the Stugs and Marders being kept with the artillery that caused Germany to keep producing them - the infantry loved them because they were theirs, not to be taken away. Otherwise, there was actually not a huge industrial advantage to producing a tank that had no turret - the savings in time and cost were probably only about 20%.

The Soviets were the only other army that used any of these turretless assault guns and abandoned the concept after WWII. The US and British never adopted this concept. Germany, however, continued its love affair with these assault guns and produced a postwar version that remained in service for years.

Posted on Sep 1, 2012 2:17:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 1, 2012 10:41:25 AM PDT
DarthRad says:
Also, just like there was a tendency to call every German AFV encountered a "Tiger" tank, there was a huge tendency for Allied soldiers and tankers to think that every German gun that fired on them was an "88"mm gun.

In fact, the vast majority of gun kills of Allied tanks was in all probability from the 75mm KWK 40, since this was by far the most common anti-tank gun that the Germans manufactured, used on Stugs, Marders, the Pz IV, and as a towed anti-tank gun. And it was more than adequate for punching holes in the Sherman tank as well as the T-34.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 1, 2012 10:32:48 AM PDT
Pete,
As long as you are saying most influential and not best, I'll go along with the T34. It was a true game changer. Sloped armor, large caliber dual purpose gun, good mobility. I don't think it was the best tank even of WWII, but in many ways it set the standard for modern tanks. Of course that's just my opinion and opinions are like ... noses, everyone has one and they're all different.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  77
Initial post:  Aug 7, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 1, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions