This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp


Postby dirty sanchez » Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:57 am

RodgePodge wrote:
dsr wrote:
RodgePodge wrote:Actually many, including Pat Buchanan, have argued that the UK would have been much better off accepting Germany's peace offerings in 1940, and I happen to agree. They would have not wrecked their colonial empire and economy, and Germany would have been free to deal with the Soviets, who were a much larger existential threat to the West.

This may have been true in a purely economic sense, I don't know. But in a real-life sense, it's as wrong as it comes. Is a man better if he stands back and watches his wife being raped and suffers no permanent physical injury, or is he better if he fights back and saves her at cost of permanent injury?

Bear in mind also that Germany's peace offerings were worthless. Any hypothesis that has Hitler telling the truth at the expense of self-interest is invalid. IMO.

Why should Britain care what happened to the rest of Europe?

And by all accounts Hitler was completely serious about peace with the British.

dirty sanchez wrote:The concept of Blitzkreig, now known as Close Air Support was a new tactic as well which helped the Wehrmacht roll to easy victories in the early part of the war. This early success undoubtedly made Hitler a little too overconfident.

Close air support was used but was not the key factor of the blitzkrieg. In fact, CAS in WWII, even in 1945, was very limited in its effectiveness.
Hans Ulrich Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat. That's one man. I'd say it was very effective. And I'll also agree that Hitler very much wanted peace with the British from an idealogical standpoint as he considered them to be Aryan unlike the Slavic countries to the East who he considered to be sub-human. He never really wanted war with them and miscalculated that Britain would declare war if he invaded Poland.
User avatar
dirty sanchez
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:14 pm


Postby Beagle » Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:15 pm

Lord Ben wrote:Listen to the rest of it as well. It's all pretty good. He's from England I believe... I'm not sure the different accents but I'm assuming it's one of those.

I did watch it, almost all of it. I was just commenting on the fact that I think he misled his audience quite a bit on Arracourt omitting facts such as heavy fog and the disjointed German attack into American lines. Most of the Germans had no idea where the Americans were and bumbled their armor broadside into American fire. The attack itself was foolish but it was done in bad weather due to complete American air superiority at the time.

He also states the American tankers were superior to those of the Germans. It's possible, but it also needs justification. The German tankers were from the 5th Panzer Army that was strewn together and exhausted, pressing into the attack with little rest or organization. The German shortage of artillery played a major role as well as they were very selective on how and where they applied the application of support. Often times, they only used it in dire situations as opposed to the Americans firing at will on anything that moved. The German forces were extremely handicapped in how they fought. It played a major role and the Americans were able to decimate their forces. The Americans were cohesive, high morale and motivation and ammunition was not in short supply. They could bring firepower to bear and they did relentlessly.

But war is not a fair fight and I was glad he pointed that out, I just wish he had taken it a step further instead of stating that the Americans lost "20 Shermans to the Germans 80 Panthers", which is incorrect and misleading.

Here is a link to additional reading about the battle and the official American study of the battle:

http://www.privateletters.net/DOCUMENTS ... _sep44.pdf

It is a really interesting read and it will give the background of the current situation as well as the factors that led to the battle taking place.
“….I firmly believe that any man’s finest hours – his greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear – is that moment when he has worked his heart out in good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
User avatar
Posts: 2002
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:18 am


Postby Lord Ben » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:11 am

It's one of the few large tank v tank battles on the Western Front so I think each tanks ability to handle the conditions is a pretty big factor to consider.

I'm not accusing you of this but I'm a HUGE fan of video games with some sort of foot in the historical arena and love the debate/argument/discussion of the topic. I tend to see the Pro-German Armor side people as always relying on ballistics tests and hypothetical engagements between the groups starting out on an open field 2000m apart where the German front armor and great range gun and excellent zoom optics have a HUGE advantage as the "true" test of a superior tank based on the merits of the vehicle itself because it eliminates the other variables like weather and infantry coordination and maneuverability, etc.

The encounter type where two tanks blunder into each other 600m away in a small field and the American gunner quickly aims better because of the gyrostabalizers and two sets of optics for close and long range view finding whereas the German tanker has a much worse turret traverse because of the long and heavy gun, the gunners optics which are excellent at long range has to be guided close to the target by the commander before the gunner can even see down his little tunnel vision scope, the long gun might hit a tree, etc. Those things are discounted because of terrain, etc.

Or if a Sherman can do a long range "march" at the end of the war of ~500 miles in a week and still fight a battle at the end where the Panther would have had to load up onto trucks for every small hop because it was unreliable over distance, etc. Perhaps in Arracourt a more reliable Panther would have showed up a day or two ahead of time and had a better element of surprise because it was able to drive over a long distance instead of waiting for the huge Panther baggage train to keep up with it... etc.
“Quite frankly, very few people know what they’re talking about." -- Ted Thompson
User avatar
Lord Ben
Posts: 4287
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Deep in the bowels of the Vandelay Industries server room.


Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest