The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
China Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America needs an Erwin Rommel
Croaker8989    12/29/2004 1:10:17 AM
I think it would be great to have a general that knew what he was doing and became a face (in a good way) and would speak out agaisnt poor leadership.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Carl D.    Generals and Politicians   12/29/2004 3:01:15 PM
The issue of Auchinleck, Montgomery and Churchill is a classic example of political meddling, as is Hitler's influence on the Russian campaign. Big politicians with big egos (yes that is a double up) and conducting a war is always a bad combination. Considering how good a job that the Anwher did in getting Stalin to replace good field commanders with political officers, if they'd waited until the following spring they could well have taken Moscow. Remember, until the Germans invaded, the USSR was for all practical purposes a member of the Axis. As for attacking a machine gun in a mounted charge, didn't our guys in Afganistan do that?
 
Quote    Reply

Croaker8989    RE:Generals and Politicians Afghanistan   12/29/2004 3:43:54 PM
O yah right after the we launch hundrededs of missles and droped even more bombs.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Patton sends his regards.   12/30/2004 5:50:26 AM
Fall Out - Germany did not mobilize until February 1945 - that is when Steinweg was told to stop making pianos - by which time the economy was nearly collapsed. And it NEVER outproduced Russia in tanks. It was not even competative. The Russians also made BETTER tanks, but more important it made them in numbers that counted. To the extent USA sent Shermans to Russia, they were a second string thing. The Panther was an attempt to make something competative with the T-34.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Patton sends his regards.   12/30/2004 5:54:46 AM
Don't get me wrong - I am a fan of Rommel. And I am not impressed with Monty - although I think you fail to grasp the problem of losing men was for the UK - and that may have made him more risk averse than he otherwise might have been. But it is clear that Germany could not compete economically, and interestingly enough, it could not do so just with Russia. On the other hand, I disagree with you about Japan. I think war with Japan was avoidable. If we were going to get upset about China enough to cause a war, we should have done so in 1935 or 1937. By 1941 it is a bit late to say we care a lot about China's fate.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Patton sends his regards - you guys need to hit the books.   12/30/2004 5:58:48 AM
It is not X box games that say WWII was won by the Russians. It is history. The only thing more rediculous than saying the US/UK did it all is the Russian version - which says the US/UK did virtually nothing. [No, the Russians do NOT teach US aid saved them. Stalin did say nice things during the war - sometimes - and he also denied them other times - see his denial that the allies ever sent what they said on PQ13. But Russian propaganda says Red Army did it all - or maybe ALL. Well, that is bunk. But so is the Russians were not decisive. No serious student thinks we would have won the war if Russia had capitulated.]
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Generals and Politicians   12/30/2004 6:02:44 AM
On horseback??? I didn't know we still had horses in the Army! [In fact, the only time we sent a major unit, the First Cavalry, overseas, we quickly converted it to mechanized - because the cost of lifting horse fodder was too great in shipping tonnage.]
 
Quote    Reply

BLUEMOON    RE:Patton sends his regards - elcid get a life.   12/30/2004 6:26:21 AM
Leand lease : It's that simple. Have you ever seen photos of of all of those American planes we built for those two-bit loser Russians ? When the Germans first invaded Moscow Stalin was begging FDR for support week after miserable week. Maybe I'll put up the whole book so you can curl up in a ball and cry ? Russia lucked out. Face it, they surrendered over 1 million soldiers and the only reason they kept fighting is because the guy behind you would kill you. They had no great strategy whatsoever. This is why after 4 years the Germans were killing a hundred to one. Had the Germans anymore soldiers the Russians would have been held down for years. You need to read up on the mass of German soldiers in France and Italy that you say were not there ( Rommel was too ! ) and they got their but kicked by cheap old Patton of all things with some of the cheapest weapons on earth. So so much for your ZERO HEROS the Russians and Germans. I am writting to you from AMERICA, presently we are capable of destroying China, N.Korea, Russia and any other nut that gets in our way. You keep reading up on some old war that did'nt turn out the way you had hoped. Nobody screws with us and and this is why you just see and hear boasts about the supposed great day when you guys take over ? Ha ha ha ha ! What a joke..
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Patton sends his regards - elcid get a life.   12/31/2004 7:32:37 AM
You just make it up, right Nomad? 100 to 1 is a nice round figure - and I guess 10 to 1 is not enough. I am amazed you didn't claim 1000 to 1. Interested in the truth? 3:1. The Germans killed 3 Russians for every German killed on the Eastern Front - and it was not good enough - they lost. Lets look at some other facts - real ones. According to World War Two Tanks "When Germany attacked Poland, the total number of tanks they had in service...was just 3,195, of which the PxKpfwI and IIs accounted for all but 300, there being only 98 PcKpfwIII and 211 PzKpfwIVs in operational units...Tank production...the monthly average for 1939 was 140 vehicles [increasing] to 720 per month by 1944...Germany could never hope to match the output of the United States or the Soviet Union, both of whom consistently outproduced them." The same author lists Soviet Tank production by year as 2,950 in 1939 2,794 in 1940
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Patton sends his regards - elcid get a life.   12/31/2004 7:34:35 AM
6,590 in 1941 24,446 in 1942 24,089 in 1943 28,963 in 1944 15,419 in 1945 105,251 total for Soviet Union 26,030 total for Germany
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Patton sends his regards - elcid get a life.   12/31/2004 7:37:45 AM
US tank production for WWII was 88,410. That is, the Russians OUTPRODUCED the USA in tanks, and they also produced BETTER tanks. It is outrageous to suggest that US aid was greater than Russian production - even if EVERY US tank went to Russia it could not be so. So who is it, exactly, that lives in this planet, and who lives in a fantasy world of his own imagination? (Vapid)
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Patton sends his regards - elcid get a life.   12/31/2004 7:47:25 AM
World War II Nation by Nation gives the proportion of German troops engaging Russians: 75% in 1941, 67% in December 1943, 64% in March 1945. So much for the Russians didn't take on the brunt of the German forces. They did so consistantly, with nary a break.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Patton sends his regards - elcid get a life.   12/31/2004 7:55:38 AM
The Air War 1939-1945 (Overy) has a table Aircraft and Aeroengine Production of the Major Powers 1939-1945 on page 192. It cites the USSBS. It gives German production as 99,339 from 1941 to 1945. It gives Russian production for the same period as 137,271.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl D.    Cavalry charges--Thread Drift   1/2/2005 5:10:15 AM
It was reported that in 2001 US Special Forces rode with Coalition Tribal Forces in Afganistan when they over ran Taliban trench lines on horse back. The last horse mounted charge of the US Cavalry was made on 16 January 1942, when 27 men of E Troop, 26th Cavalry Regiment lead by then Lt. Ramsey, on Luzon, using .45 pistols and M1903 rifles charged an advanced guard of Imperial Japanese Army infantry holding the town of Morong and expelled them from the town, and then held the town until relieved.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Cavalry charges--Thread Drift   1/2/2005 5:28:28 AM
The last significant cavalry attack in history occurred on the Eastern Front - about 1943 I think - when an Italian cavalry unit won a fair sized action.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    PLA horse soldiers (vice cavalry)   1/2/2005 5:30:59 AM
The PLA was the last major army to field major units mounted on horses. These were not, however, cavalry, but dragoons. They were retained until the Deng reform era. In rural areas they were a significant asset because of the lack of road infractructures. Only today has China addressed both the infrastructrue and the need for off road vehicles in a major way.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy