Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/10/2017 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    The Nazis lost WW2 because Hitler, (a bloody incompetent corporal), insisted on detailing the specifics of campaigns. While the plans laid down by Wehrmacht's general staff won them France Hitler insisted on letting the British expeditionary force escape when he let Göring take the lead in bombing them. Not only did they botch the plans Luftwaffe had for reducing British defenses when they reordered to bomb cities as petty revenge, but they insisted on a two front war with operation Barbarrossa, nay, a three front war when they went to the aid of Mussolini before Barbarossa. Then there were the grandiose schemes. Building giant guns and giant tanks. While at the same time Hitler stopped the production of assault rifles and jeg fighters. Last but not least, spending logistical resources on cruel and cowardly genocide against civilians. I repeat: Hitler lost the war all by himself.
  2. 3 points
    How about the "Peace for out time" deal in Munich?
  3. 3 points
    Yew agree with all that. Just wanted to quickly add Hitlers major mistake was indeed not taking Moscow as he diverted central divisions south which led to the battle for Stalingrad which was the turning point in the war where the myth of nazis was destroyed and people realised they could and would be beaten.
  4. 3 points
    The strategic errors that Hitler made during Operation Barbarossa were probably the cost him his attack on the eastern front. Hitler grossly underestimated the total fighting force of the Red Army which could yield 400 divisions when fully mobilised instead of the 200 divisions Hitler had estimated. Another thing he may have not estimated properly was the vastness of the Russian landscape. This actually tired the soldiers and stretched the German supply line to its limit. Hitler's greatest mistake probably was not taking over Moscow before the Russian winter set in during Operation Barbarossa. With the German Army just 200 miles away from Moscow during the summer of 1941, Hitler decided to flank his attack southwards in an attempt to take the industrial cities of Leningrad and Stalingrad instead of going for an all-out attack on the Russian capital. Had he taken over Moscow he would have assumed control of almost all the major communication and transport lines of Russia. Thus Hitler's inability to adapt to the situation cost him Operation Barbarossa and probably the entire war.
  5. 3 points
    And following on from Joris' remark: "Failure to take Britain out of the war...", the Axis powers' failure to take out Malta. By holding on to Malta, the British navy and air force were able to pretty well control attempts by Germany and Italy to supply and reinforce their armies in North Africa. This in turn pinned down German forces in North Africa - they had to defend themselves against British and Commonwealth forces - and they were stopped at El Alamein from advancing into the Mandate of Palestine and on towards the Caucasus mountains where they cause havoc to Soviet forced and help capture the oil fields around the Caspian Sea. Malta was strategically important out of proportion to its small size. And by the German forces being pinned down in North Africa by Britain and its allies in North Africa, this effective German war machine was prevented from joining the fighting anywhere on the Eastern Front. - I agree also with Philip Whitehouse that Italy's attack on the Balkans hampered Germany's military strength on the Eastern front both in terms of war material and the wastage of time in a 'silly' war that could have been avoided.
  6. 3 points
    He was a general and a Field Marshal and relied on giving tactical orders which meant that he was doing everyone else's jobs and ignoring his own which was supposed to be strategic decisions. He routinely went to the front to meddle because he couldn't help himself which meant that during critical stages of battles no one knew where he was to make those higher level decisions.
  7. 3 points
    My father CSM George DuRante joined the US Navy during WW1 in 1917. At the start of WW 2 he switched to the US Army in which he served til retired medically in 1970, for a career of 53 years. I've been told on good authority that he served longer than any other enlisted man. He and my mom are buried at Arlington,and his tombstone lists-WWI,WW2,Korea,and Vietnam.I served in the Navy,did a tour in Vietnam,then was discharged.
  8. 3 points
    Indeed. Why the yanks allowed them to keep face by keeping their god emperor is beyond me. They should have forced a total unconditional surrender like the allies did by carpet bombing german cities. The japs killed thousands at pearl harbour a total unprovoked attack on the USA itself justification enough for total surrender upon american victory let alone the millions of chinese killed and raped.
  9. 3 points
    Why did the Axis lose the war ? Because they got themselves into the ridiculous situation where they were at war with the USSR, the USA, and the British Commonwealth simultaneously.
  10. 2 points
    I appreciate your articles on British aircraft but you need to correct your terminology. There is no such thing as, The British Air Force, or, The British Royal Air Force, it is and always will be, the Royal Air Force. We were the first independent Air Force and do not carry any country in our title; thus we are the only one who doesn't need an identifier. That said, I appreciate that the quality and variety of you aviation related articles and photographs, so will continue to read with enjoyment. former Warrant Officer, Royal Air Force, (37 years service).
  11. 2 points
    What we now call PTSD has probably been around since the beginning of organized warfare. In American terms, during the Civil War it was called Soldier's Heart or Nostalgia. World War one it became Shell Shock, World War Two called it Combat Fatigue. For my generation at first it was called Post Vietnam Syndrome and then PTSD. As it was explained to me during my treatment, PTSD is a normal reaction to abnormal circumstances. Once I quit drinking, and I never took the drugs the VA offered, my head gradually cleared with the passage of time. Today I prefer to only associate with fellow veterans, as a member of AmVets, VFW, American Legion, and Vietnam Veterans of America. I do not have any "civilian" friends. By the way, the new "politically correct" designation is PTS. They no longer want to say we are disordered. As if we are flippin' snowflakes that might suffer damage at a word.
  12. 2 points
    Well, it's a little more complicated than that. But the count down for the war obviously begins in Moscow at the end of August 1939, where Ribbentrop and Molotov sign the Pact dividing Poland. Wehrmacht invades in a week, RKKA follows in over three weeks after the declaration of war against Hitler by UK and France. Poland is gobbled up; RKKA attacks Finland at the end of November. It does not go smoothly, but by March the Finns begin to wear down and in all probability Stalin stops short to avoid direct confrontation with western powers, while still being a de facto and de jure Hitler's ally - yet publicly complaining about the lack of fighting in "the phoney war". By mid-summer 1940, Wehrmacht defeats the French and the British on the continent, and Stalin invades Bessarabia and Bukovina (thus violating the Moscow Pact and advancing its tanks within a striking distance from Ploesti oil fields critical for Wehrmacht). Hitler abandons his plans to invade the British islands; RKKA General Staff begins drafting its "Considerations for Strategic Deployment Plan" against Wehrmacht (the first known version of this plan is dated September 1940). In November, Molotov flies to Berlin and annoys Hitler with territorial demands. Shortly after he leaves, Hitler issues Directive 21 (aka Plan Barbarossa) outlining the invasion of the USSR. For several days in December, RKKA General Staff conducts "war games" clearly aimed at Wehrmacht. Deployment race is on, with RKKA overwhelmingly superior in the number of assets, by the way. By all indications, Wehrmacht's invasion in June takes RKKA General Staff by surprise - not because of Stalin being delusional, as many in the western academia like to pontificate - but simply as a result of believing that Wehrmacht is behind in the deployment count. And why would they believe otherwise, when the "feared" panzer force contained less than 4 thousand tanks against over 10 thousand RKKA tanks in the theater? Now, whether or not the effect of the first strike was crucial, in just weeks, RKKA suffered from catastrophic loss of command and control.
  13. 2 points
    Gentlemen.... I think we may all have been guilty of "FEEDING THE TROLL".
  14. 2 points
  15. 2 points
    Good one. I honestly could not connect the dots at all.
  16. 2 points
    This question is not possible to answer because flight development was so rapid. You have to, as a minimum break it down into the war years, i.e. 1939 to 1945. Then you need to break it down between the war in Europe and North Africa and the Pacific. In each theather of war there were different "best" fighters. For every fight their was a plane. 1940 over the skies of Britain it was predominantly the Hawker Hurricane and the very few Spitfires, but the Messerscmidt 109 was a formidable plane too. This war produced some amazing fighters, and possibly the very best multirole fighter bombers of the time, the De Haviland Mosquito. Something not achieved again, unless somebody thinks the F35 is one...
  17. 2 points
    The Brits were there too: they turned the story ("Yangtse Incident") of HMS Amethyst's adventures into quite a good movie. Chinese Communist forces attempted to trap the ship in the river... she managed to escape, but it took quite a while. The Chinese were reluctantly to actually attack the ship, but tried, repeatedly, to block its passage downstream to the sea, or to go ashore to replenish supplies. Take a look at IMDB or Google "HMS Amethyst"
  18. 2 points
    It's a show about a detective during WW2 who solves crimes that people commit on the homefront. Very realistic, no CGI or anything like that. It pays attention to history. You have to watch it closely though to pay attention to detail, so you can get the mystery. My family and I are going to visit England this August, and I plan to visit Hastings and Dover there, maybe take the chunnel over to Dunkirk. Lots of history.
  19. 2 points
    The Suez action had many ramifications. Chiefly perhaps, was the lasting rift caused by the USA administration's quite hostile reaction to the Anglo-French action. The support that one might have expected from an ally was certainly not forthcoming. It certainly reverberated internationally and was just one reason why Britain was not sucked into the Vietnam conflict some five years later despite US requests. Now there was a conflict that was "ünprovoked and unnecessary".
  20. 2 points
    I fully agree with you Joris . The first drop was made by the pathfinders arround midnight . Followed by the chaotic droppings of the 82nd and 101st Airborne . Then the Airforce started the bombing at the beaches , badly much to far inland to create safety for the landing troops . In the few hours before the landings many thngs have to be done ! It was a chaos for the paratroopers but also for the German defenders
  21. 2 points
    I read a interview with Bill and he was asked how he felt about pipeing them in on D Day and he replied 'I would have rathered had a f**g rifle' (warning maybe anecdotal)
  22. 2 points
    Not a huge fan of either three really. If pushed to choose probably the P-47. Favourite of all US planes in the war would probably be the Dakota and the Corsair. P-40 is a nice looking plane too.
  23. 2 points
    My latest video is about the Battle for Arnhem, specifically the reconnaissance squadrons mission to capture the bridge at Arnhem "by Thunderclap surprise" with their jeeps. Contrary to popular myths, their jeeps did arrive and they started on their mission confident that they would be at the bridge within an hour. Unfortunately, they started late which gave the Germans time to establish a roadblock which ended the mission less than 2 miles from where they started. In this video, we follow the men from the landing zone to the railway underpass near Wolfheze, the location of the ambush. Then we will look at the Germans; why were the Germans able to put up a roadblock so close to the landing zones so quickly? Why were they there? It is my longest video to date and one I put in a lot of time and effort to research, write, film and edit, I hope you will enjoy it! If you like my videos, please subscribe today! https://www.youtube.com/c/TheBattlefieldExplorer?sub_confirmation=1
  24. 2 points
    Please note that this map was made to illustrate the escort fighters for the 8th Air Force bombers thus the Mosquito (for instance) isn't on it.
  25. 2 points
    Really great story.
  26. 2 points
    The Dornier Do335 is my nominee. The fastest prop-driven aircraft of WW2 (sorry about that, de Haviland Mosquito!) The "Pfeil" ("arrow") as the plane was known had a propeller at each end, an ejector seat (first production aircraft to have one?) an an array of THREE different calibres of canon, ranging from an engine mounted 30mm firing through the engine, to a pair of fuselage mounted 20mm cannon, and two more wing-mounted 15mm ones. The plane suffered fro the Usual German indecision: with insufficient manufacturing capacity to produce everything that was wanted, the order would go out from on high to "STOP what you're doing, because for the moment we're ONLY making bombers." And then - too late, as manufacturing capacity was being bombed out of existence - "Stop what you're doing, because NOW we're only building Fighters!" The Luftwaffe was handed only a few dozens of these planes, at a time when the Western Allies had 100% air superiority, It doesn't matter HOW good you are in the air, if when you come back to base, you're in danger of being shot to pieces on the ground.
  27. 2 points
    I just signed in. US Army retired, 32 years. Interested in Military History, but especially the from the leadership and individual standpoint. My Name is Owen and I am glad to meet this Band of Brothers
  28. 2 points
    I agree with Peter Smith and Philip Whitehouse on the limited Nazi objectives. The Archangel-Astrakhan line might have been adjusted eastward to the best defensible ground, but not all the way to the Urals. If peace had somehow been achieved in the East and the West, I suspect it would have taken the Nazis at least two or three generations to consolidate and Germanize their gains. There was nothing for the Germans east of the Urals. Moving into the "Stan" countries would have been to no advantage. Re original's on-going Hitler's influence in screwing up his generals' efforts I agree with him in broad principle. Hitler was not a well trained student of military arts. If he ever read Clausewitz's "On War" he either did not understand it or ignored its teachings. The center of gravity for the Soviet Union of 1941 was Stalin and his Politburo cronies. This ruling elite was supported by the NKVD and the Red armed forces. Hitler believed the whole Soviet system was rotten to the core and the Germans just needed to kick in the door and the Soviet system would crumble. If Hitler and the German forces had been more benevolent in their treatment of the citizenry, they might have succeeded. They also should have concentrated their effort on reaching Moscow while destroying or capturing all Soviet opposition and taking out Stalin et al before October 1941. All other efforts--Leningrad, the Ukraine, etc.--should have been economy of force operations to minimize effects of Soviet counterattacks. Hitler was so bound up with the gaining of "living space" for the German people that he forgot the purpose of the war was to defeat the Soviet forces and government. After that had been accomplished, the land was German by default. The diversion of Guderian's forces south to the Ukraine and then moving them back north cost the Germans the initiative and gave the Soviets the time (about six weeks) to strengthen the Moscow defenses, bring in the Siberian troops, and prepare for a counterattack. German infantry was foot-bound instead of riding to the battle area in trucks, of which the Germans should have had at least 300,000, and the supply system used horses as prime movers. The Germans might have won if they had done the following: Avoid involvement in the Balkans, Greece, and North Africa so they could attack as planned in early April 1941 after the spring rains had passed. Use propaganda and their own positive actions to convince the Russians, Ukrainians, etc that the war was against the Soviet Communist system and NOT against the people (including the Jews, Gypsies, and other minorities).. Decisively defeat the Soviets at Moscow. And lastly, do not even think about declaring war on the United States.
  29. 2 points
    During the phony war period England & France had declared war on Germany. England did send a force to France which later would be evacuated from Dunkirk. Unfortunately England & France did not use this force against Germany in any meaningful way. France had at one point ventured into Germany but then retreated to the mistaken safety of the Maginot Line. It needs pointing out that at this point in WW2, France had more and even better tanks than Germany. Unfortunately France has suffered in both World Wars with bad Generals who waste troops and accomplish very little. Imagine if while Germany was busy in Poland, France had taken control of the Rhine River. I still believe that England should have gone after Hamburg where ships were being built especially U-Boats.
  30. 2 points
    In the Dutch coastal town of IJmuiden, the Germans built two gargantuan bunkers for their Schnellboots. Only one of them survived the war. That bunker is 247 meters long, 74 meters wide, 18 meters tall, they do not get much bigger than this! If you enjoy my videos, please subscribe today! https://www.youtube.com/c/TheBattlefieldExplorer?sub_confirmation=1
  31. 2 points
    I was lucky enough to spend a couple of days (back in 2015) in Ulaan Baator - capital city of Genghis Khan's Mongolia. Far from "learning from history", In post Soviet Mongolia, Genghis is being rehabilitated. In the centre of town is a massive, gold painted statue of the former Khan, 60 km out of town on the steppes stands a museum to Genghis Khan, topped by a massive stainless steel statue of the Khan, sat on a pony. Gengis Khan - without question - killed a larger fraction of the world's population that either Hitler OR Stalin. Mongolian Authorities point to the era of peace over which he presided, carefully papering over the reality that the "peace" would better be described as "terrified". I am convinced that the several generations of being a vassal state to the Mongol Empire left permanent psychological scars on the Russian psyche.The Empire lasted 162 years, during which time many generations were born, and died.A life perpetually lived in poverty and terror simply became "normality". And when the empire collapsed (1368AD) the Russians were free to compose their own rules to order their society, the laws that they passed seemed to be based on the idea that the Mongols were still in control, and a cause of abject terror. One hears tales of circus animals, who after a life confined in a small cage, on being released still pace no more than a metre or two, back and forth, as if still constrained by invisible bars. I think the same thing happened to the Russians.
  32. 2 points
    I am well aware of what I'm talking about thank you. The discussion was based on would the RAF have lost should the Luftwaffe have carried on targeting our airfields and would it be a forgone conclusion that a subsequent invasion would have succeeded. I suggested probably yes on both points. My point about the Royal Navy facing difficulties from the air - and my reference to The Prince of Wales and Repulse - is because quite simply aircraft sink heavy naval units. Hence the end of the battleship era. You don't need aircraft carriers due to the close proximity of England and France but what you do need is the Stuka. Without the RAF there to shoot them down I would expect them to sink our surface ships just like they did during the Battle of Crete. At Crete, Stuka's sunk the cruiser HMS Gloucester, the destroyers HMS Juno, Greyhound, Kashmir, Kelly and Hereward along with crippling the cruiser HMS Fiji and damaging HMS Warspite. The second world war is littered with vessels Stuka's have sunk with conventional bombs. Another example is Hans Rudel in his Stuka where he sunk the Russian battleship Marat, along with a cruiser and a destroyer - with his unit also crippling the battleship October Revolution, and sinking 2 further destroyers and a submarine. These are all with bombs - nothing to do with torpedo bombers. Their crews were very experienced and top notch at that stage of the war - and those produced later, like Rudel, were also extremely successful. Germany very much did have the capabilities to sink our naval units by air and we very much would not in my opinion have been able to stop them because the RAF would not have been available to shoot them down had the Luftwaffe continued to target our airfields. I hope this explains things for you.
  33. 2 points
    I live near (i.e. within sight of) what was a Fleet Air Arm training school, (now known as "Ronaldsway Airport") Trainee pilots from Ronaldway practiced dive-bombing over the sea a few hundred yards offshore (There's still a big concrete "->" set into the slope to point the way towards the target. The planes they were practising on had a worrying tendency to spray hydraulic fluid directly into the pilot's face as he pulled up from the dive. Quite a number never DID pull up as a result, and just crashed (fatally) straight into the sea. The plane is remembered for attacks on the Tirpitz (without success)... and for crashing worryingly often. So I nominate... The Fairey Barracuda. (The second Fairey plane to achieve a nomination!)
  34. 2 points
    I chose to vote “Yes,” even though the success of an amphibious invasion would be highly suspect. Britain might have been nearly demoralized by that point, but it’s a far cry from a readiness to capitulate. Defeating an army in the field is simply not the same as conquering a nation on its own soil (see also: Japan 1945, and Russia - twice). Still, Britain might have been forced to negotiate, at a minimum, had Hitler been more patient. The Wolf Packs were highly successful to that point in the war, and were slowly starving the country of precious war materiel. Make no mistake, by the end of 1940, the UK was on the ropes. Hitler being Hitler, however, was really the fatal flaw for the Germans. That’s not to say that the defeat of the Nazis was predestined; and, certainly, no one would have known just how utterly bankrupt were his skills as a Commander in Chief. Moreover, a bit more luck on his part, and a few more critical errors among the Allies, and History’s turn might have been far different.
  35. 2 points
    Although the US did warn the Japanese people it wasn't in particular very clear about the type of bomb it would drop. Also correct me if I am mistaken, but the Japanese actually had feelers present in Russia to look for the possibility of negotiating peace. I think if you have to remain neutral then dropping of the atomic bombs can be termed as necessary evil because from the Allied point of view it saved about a million soldiers' lives but from the Japanese point of view it killed about a million civilians and caused many more problems directly related those bombs.
  36. 2 points
    Invading Poland is seen as the actual beginning of WW2 so it is a big mistake for the world. Invading Poland (by it's self) had very little adverse effect on Germany or it's plans to occupy Europe. Without a doubt Hitler's biggest mistake was invading Russia before he had totally dominated Western Europe especially England.
  37. 2 points
    Thanks George, so we dont have agreed figures for how many Stalin killed I see. A cruel irony of Stalin and Hitler is that they both killed the same people. The Russians and Slavs had to endure two of the most murderous dictators in history in the twentieth century, with Hitler killing around 20 million in USSR (14 million civilians, 6 million soldiers) by some estimates and Stalin murdering another 25 million of the same nation. We are very lucky to live in the time and place we do.
  38. 2 points
    In a way, Adam, you are asking at least two different questions - both good ones! (1) Who caused the greatest number of deaths; and (2) who would have caused the greatest number of deaths if he had won? So, who WAS the greatest criminal, and who was POTENTIALLY the greatest criminal? In both cases we are up against rather creative, politically motivated statisticians. For example, one professor in the U.S. 'calculated' that Stalin's gulags killed over 80 million people. Let's pause and digest this figure. It sounds impressive; we would like to believe it because it seems to confirm our opinion of Stalin, anyway. BUT: back in the 1920s-1930s, 80 million was about a third of USSR's total population. This cannot be right. So then you begin to worry about statisticians and their craft. And you start wondering where the figure of 30 million died of starvation under Stalin. (You read similar figures for the Chinese famines under Mao). Is this figure 'reasonable'? Do these figures suggest a political bias? When I was a school boy, the alleged losses (military and civilian combined) on the Eastern Front was about 15-18 million; now it somehow risen to 20-28 million. In terms of future brutality, I believe that Hitler would have been the one with the highest real figure of population losses. There were no breaks on Hitler's brutality; I believe there was with Stalin - his brutality was more targeted, and famine is not something one can control in time to save lives; some of its losses must be left to 'accident' or 'chance' or 'carelessness'. But Hitler killed and killed deliberately. Had he won the war, there probably wouldn't be a 'Slav' left in Europe or a 'Turk' left in Central Asia. During the war, Churchill refused to try to alleviate the famine in India by using the navy to ship grain to the stricken areas. He has been criticised for this. It is said he had an unswerving hatred for Indians. Furthermore, it has been said that Indian grain merchants were hoarding huge amounts of grain, waiting for higher prices. If true, all one can say that the profit motive can sometimes be inhuman. Not making a political point here; just saying... Good question, though. It makes one think.
  39. 2 points
    Since I was a kid, I started reading and making drawings about WWII because there were 3 magazines (or comics) about the war areas (U2, SOS and Trinchera, or Trench). I became very fond of them, and collected every one of them through the years. I noticed the gallantry, sacrifice and efforts of the fighting men and the machines they used. I became most interested of WWII planes, being my favorites The Spitfire, the Mosquito, the Tempest, the Lancaster and B-17 bombers from the Allied side, and the ME-109, FW 190, JU 88 and Me-262 from the German side. Also some other fighter bomber planes in particular stories. But later I became also a fan of war films and began to understand the tragedy behind the war. I think that no war was so special than this: there were the biggest battles known everywhere (exceptin Jutland), as the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, Kursk, D-Day, the biggest deploy of submarines, the biggest and more powerful war ships known, the larger bomber attacks, the technical advances and, of course, the atomic bombs. Never so many million dead people and so much destruction were achieved. From then on nothing was the same when talking about wars.
  40. 2 points
    Leo. Yes Gort was going to Command in North Africa but died. To say that Montgomery was the last in a long list of candidates and that he was not popular with Churchill is, I believe, incorrect. Churchill was impressed with Montgomery’s innovative approach to defence post Dunkirk and held him in high regard in accounts that i have read. Monty’s almost miraculous ability to raise the morale of the 8th Army by personally speaking to nearly all of his new command, usually from the ‘stage’ of a tank and ordering them to use precious water to shave and to smarten up generally was very effective.
  41. 2 points
    Not sure that Montgomery was the greatest but as with all WW2 commanders, to rank them you have to put them into their context. As a junior officer, Montgomery had been on the Somme on the first day and the casualties always haunted him. After Dunkirk he was in charge of a length of the south coast and on an inspection he impressed Churchill with his innovative approach using what little he had to hand and his fighting spirit. The North African to and fro caused Churchill to worry that the German soldier had better fighting qualities than the British soldier. Churchill remembered how impressed he had been with Montgomery during the ‘darkest days’ and held talks with him where once again he was impressed by his views. Monty said that any commander would need superior numbers and resources if he was to win with the minimum casualties. He was appointed and as with Churchill’s ‘common touch ‘ speeches he employed the same tactics to build the morale and fighting spirit of the 8th Army. The submarines from Malta were ordered to deplete Rommel’s resources as much as possible while Monty was reinforced by ship around the Cape of Good Hope. Monty also deployed his forces with great skill, and out witted Rommel. In Europe his actions during the Falais Pocket fighting were exemplary. Montgomery was never at ease with the American Commanders (he repeatedly infuriated Eisenhower and of course Patton) but did Command the most US Forces under non US Command ever in history during the fight back at the battle of the bulge. He was let down by his junior staff who refused to believe Dutch intelligence of a German tank force on R and R near Arnhem and Market Garden subsequently failed but had it succeeded it would have been one of the greatest gambles of WW2. He knew that Horrocks would face great difficulties in moving his armour north along a single road but he had to accept the terrain that he was to fight on. He disobeyed Eisenhower’s order to stop advancing in Northern Germany and thereby prevented the Soviets moving ever westwards and probably ‘liberating’ Denmark, which would have complicated the ‘ cold war’ beyond measure. I had the honour of meeting both Monty and a member of his senior staff which probably makes me biased but I would describe him as a successful reliable commander with great rapport with the men in his command but also never at ease with the Americans, especially Patton. For me, taking into account all of the history, politics, pressure and forces/ resources that he had to contend with, I would suggest that Zhukov was the best commander of WW2.
  42. 2 points
    iI am interested in War history because i was part of it.. iam nearly 91 years of age, i wenrt tru tghe London Blitz, was in the Home Guard when i was 16, i volunteered for the Army on my 17th birthday, called up at 17 and a i/2. and served 4 years in Germeny , Italy and Jugolavia, demobben in jan 1948, then recalled again in 1951 for retraining for Korea. i wasa D/o in the Royal Artillery.
  43. 2 points
    My Mother was British and met Dad while he was stationed in England during WW2. Dad was part of the Army-Air Corp and repaired radios on P-47s. Mom followed Dad back to the states where they were married and started a family. I graduated HS in 68 and joined the AF that same year. I served in SE Asia during Nam and got out after my 4yr hitch. I joined the Army Guard in 84, and 2yrs later I landed a full time slot as a combat photographer. I ended up serving 24yrs with the Indiana Army Guard. As a photographer I was sent to most war zones, and training missions. I saw more of the world then most troops ever will, and I am thankful for it.
  44. 2 points
    The Avro Vulcan - a raity, in that you don't find many supersonic strategic bombers with aerobatic capabilities! Dating back to a time when the UK led the world in Jet design.
  45. 2 points
    Interesting theory, but if you examine what happened when a German fleet attempted to dash the full length of the Channel, West to East (not just the 20 odd miles North to South ) February 12th 1943.The Germans called it "Operation Zerberus". The RAF had been bombing Brest (Where the German fleet was anchored) with enough success to bother the German Navy, who decided they needed to move the ships back closer to home. From Brest to Dover is a LONG WAY. And there's no doubt of where you're going. Your theory seems to be that whether or not the trip was feasible was entirely down to airpower. Reality, in the form of Operation Zerberus suggests otherwise. Tarranto was a different situation; The Italian fleet attempted to escape from their base via a dash through a relatively narrow channel.After one ship sank in that channel, the others were either "fish in a barrel", or tore themselves below the waterline trying to get past the sunken ship.
  46. 2 points
    Could it be that Hitler tried to take on the Great Bear at the same time he was fighting a war in the West. His general staff consisted of around 9 people while the Pentagon had hundreds to do the planning. They were over whelmed.
  47. 2 points
    Dear Pieter, As a symbol (And a fine fighter aircraft), the Spitfire was THE airplane of the "Battle of Britain". It was, however, the less glamorous Hawker Hurricane that accounted for 60% of the German aircraft shot down during the engagement.
  48. 2 points
  49. 2 points
    Spitfire, without it the Battle of Britain would have been lost.
  50. 2 points
    2 Things, One was Hitler's decision to split Army Group center on the way to Stalingrad. The other was to declare war on the United States of America,

  • Create New...