Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The myths of WWII (Eastern Europe)

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe' started by LJAd, Mar 14, 2011.

  1. Jager

    Jager Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    3
    actually modern guided rockets can be equipped with nukes. My whole statement said that if the germans had achieved atomic capabilities then it should not be too hard to equip one to a v-2. In other words once the germans had atomic capabilities then they could have combined it with guided rocketry to make a nuclear weapon. In modern terms these are called ICBM's or intercontinental ballistic missiles. To say this is impossible is far from not true. And believe it or not the scientists who invented these weapons were germans forced to come to the US after world war II to do research. some general info from wiki

    "The development of the world's first practical design for an ICBM, A9/10, intended for use in bombing New York and other American cities, was undertaken in Nazi Germany by the team of Wernher von Braun under Projekt Amerika. The ICBM A9/A10 rocket initially was intended to be guided by radio, but was changed to be a piloted craft after the failure of Operation Elster. The second stage of the A9/A10 rocket was tested a few times in January and February 1945. The progenitor of the A9/A10 was the German V-2 rocket, also designed by von Braun and widely used at the end of World War II to bomb British and Belgian cities. All of these rockets used liquid propellants. Following the war, von Braun and other leading German scientists were secretly forced to the United States to work directly for the U.S. Army through Operation Paperclip, developing the IRBMs, ICBMs, and launchers."
     
  2. Jager

    Jager Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    3
    And to my belief stalins subordinates pleaded for him to evacuate but stalin stayed to maintain morale and order. Maybe he was confident that moscow wouldnt fall. but what if it had? At the time of Minsk and even from from july through august during smolensk moscow was not yet prepared for a defensive and i do believe that was bock and guderians reason for moving onto moscow because every second that passed meant a closing window for the capture and the window did end up closing.
     
  3. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    On the Axis History Factbook(losses in the great patriotic war),it is stated (with Russian sources)that the total losses were almost 30 million,of which ,what the Soviets are calling 11.3 million irrevocable losses .on 1 january 1945,the Soviet strength was some 11.8 million .
    On the 'Krivosheev publications" about the Soviet losses ,it is stipulated that on 22 june 1941,the Soviet strength was 4,826,907 and that during the war,29,574,900 men (and women ) were mobilized .The difference between 34 million and 23,1 million is,that in 1944 and 1945 a lot of men were demobilized .
     
  4. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    We are not talking about modern guided rockets with nucleair weapons having a very small weight.
    We are talking about primitive , unreliable missiles,who should be equipped with nucleair weapons with a weight of 33 % of the missile:12 ton for the V2,4 ton for Little Boy .
    The Germans had a lot of problems (fuel,...) to launch a missile of 12 ton,how could they launch a missile of 16 ton,and avoid that it would be driven out of course ????
     
  5. Jager

    Jager Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    3
    Slonisk my earlier post said that its boring to talk about what actually did happen. i find it more interesting to debate what if scenarios. But IMO things the russians did have that helped them win.
    1) Zhukov, Chuikov, and Rostkovvsky. These men all contributed to russian victory in several different ways from strategic and tactical perspectives. Zhukov made the right move by moving his lines back, and while it cost many lives it did allow time for Zhukov to organize russian forces to stop the german. Chuikov came up with hugging the enemy tactics to use against the germans. this took away the advantage that german weapons had and put russian soldiers at an advantage.
    2) PU scopes were superior to german scopes and gave russian snipers an advantage. The PU allowed a mosin nagant to be zeroed in about 3 shots while the german k98 usually took about 5 (I have seen this demonstrated in person) Also russian scopes used simple adjusting knobs while the german scoped required tools to adjust.
    3) Russian snipers were quite good most of them being hunters or that participated in sharpshooting competitions in siberia.
    4) The ppsh gave the russians superior firepower at close range. The German mp-40 has nowhere the fire rate that the ppsh had.
    5) The pushka 152mm heavy howitzer. These things delivered a ton of firepower and were in large numbers for guns of this size
    6) The T-34. This forced the germans to change engagement tactics as now the russians had a tank that could function under conditions they did not believe to functional. Despite their low numbers in 1941 they played a vital role as they were the only reliable tank on the battlefield at the time (of course the KV-1 was also but this wasnt german)
    there are others but that should be a good start. what are your opinions on those things? slonisk
     
  6. Jager

    Jager Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    3
    Wrong in a few different ways.
    1)because the americans built a 4400 KG nuclear bomb does not mean the same bomb goes onto a missile.
    2) Modern ICBM's can be equipped with one large nuke (greater than 4400 KG's or several small and lighter nuclear weapons that you are describing.
    3) The german scientists who invented the modern ICBM's in america are the same ones working on the V-2's in world war 2
    4) The V-2 or A-4 was an SLBM. I simply was saying that the germans should not have had much trouble making a version that could encorporate nuclear weapons. The A-12 model could carry 10 tons at an even greater distance than the V-2, which would be more than enough.
     
  7. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    Numbers does matter most when there isn't much disparity in technology and military preparedness and in case of soviet german war this was the case and yes USA can't beat china in a conventional warfare and beside seriously read at least this thread and stop this kursk nonsense. Kursk was not important. Even if germans won at kursk, then what after all it would had been nothing but a Pyrrhic victory and they still would have taken huge losses all over the front.

    Also you have been shown repeatedly that German situation was unwinable after failure of barbarossa in august because of many factors including the numbers no matter what your pov is.
     
  8. Jager

    Jager Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is a load of crap. superior numbers are nothing more than an advantage, a factor. there are many factors that determine who wins battles and wars.
    And if you really think china could defeat the US because they have so many people then your senile. Your dumb comments of the day "it was impossible for germany to beat russia" "its impossible for germany to beat the UK" "wars are decided by who can field more men" "the US could not beat china in a war" Im done talking to you.
     
  9. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    1)The 4.4 ton bomb was the only one which existed :there was no smaller version

    2)Irrelevant :we are talking about the V2,NOT about modern ICBM's
    3)questionable and irrelevant :that in 1957 the RUSSIANS (not von Braun) lanced the first ICBM's has nothing to do with the question if the Germans could equip the V2 with a nucleair weapon and launch it
    4)The A 12 was not the A4,and ,was the A12 operational ?
     
  10. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    About Barbarossa :Jager still refuses to understand :if Germany could not eliminate the SU in a short campaign,the war would evolve to a war of attrition,which Germany NEVER could win .And,10 Mansteins with a backhand would not change anything .
     
  11. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    This is a good one:Jager,collectioning crap(I suspect he has 2 cellars full of crap) attacking a poster for crap.
    Some exemples of Jagercrap
    1)The Germans could equip the V2 with a nucleair weapon
    2)The Germans could have nucleair weapons
    3)This would be a war winner
    4)Without von Braun:no ICBM's
    5)(a good one):US can defeat China in a conventional war,BECAUSE a Texan army of 1100 men defeated a Mexican of 16000 men (ignoring of course the Alamo,where a big Mexican army defeated a small Texan army)
    6)The T 34 was vital in 1941
    7)The backhand of Manstein was more important than numerical strength,production numbers,logistics
    I have seen this before and will continue to see it:some people (how would it be with Guaporense?)are living in a self constructed dreamworld and are ignoring everything that could affect their wet dreams.Why ? Is it fanboyism? Is it never being grown-up ?
     
  12. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    lol. can you even understand English or not. Can UK really or did they field more men than Germans?? Then are americans superhumans, who can't be defeated. Of course invading USA is an impossibility but in a conventional warfare for historical example in korea USA couldn't defeat China with huge technological and firepower disparity and they weren't even enjoying 5 to 1 superiority.

    But of course nationalistic pride is all you need and this isn't the first time I have seen such bullshit because of nationalism.

    If my comments were so dumb why are you unable to refute them, where are your arguments??:rolleyes: other than what you believe and this childish raging post.

    What factors were with Germany actually that would have helped her to win the war that other side didn't had??:eek:

    I know you don't want to talk because basically you have nothing to say rather than parroting the usual stuff of if onlys which already have been trashed.

    And lastly don't try to create a strawman if you are so short of arguments, no one has said only numbers matter,the post of mine that you quoted quite clearly says when numbers become most important.
     
  13. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    If Jager has some place in his crap cellars for even more crap,maybe he could use the following (first check on your crap list,if they are not already stored)
    1)the winter of 1941 appeared suddenly and late
    2)Because of Hitler's orders not to sent winterclothing ten of thousands of Germans died of cold
    3)With Manstein as chief of staff (using his forehand)the Germans would be at Moscow on 1 september 1941
    4)Barbarossa was delayed because of the Italians :it was all the fault of Mussolini
    5)The Germans were winning at Kursk (of course,with the fore hand of Manstein),but the landing of the British+Americans in Sicily forced Hitler to stop the offensive
    6)Maybe you haven't this one (although it should have a place of honour in your crap cellar):if (haha)the Germans had mote Tigers,they would have won the war .
    No thanks needed,if I have more,I will post it .
     
  14. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    The suggestion of Jager (on post 280) that the continental army was numerically inferior to the British,is also questionable :maybe it is some old crap,from an old cellar,or the influence ofv the US history lessons (if these exist ?)
     
  15. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    While chuckling some upon reading these latest posts; I would like to recomend all to take a deap breath and not get too excited. I would hate to lose this thread.


    And what nuclear weapons on what ICMBs?? How did this find its way onto this thread? :eek:
     
  16. ANZAC

    ANZAC Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    20
    Could be there was no attack on Moscow on 1 September because Guderian at that time was traveling at full speed hundreds of kilometers in the opposite direction towards Kiev to help bring off the biggest 'Cannae' in military history. [Soviets 700,000 casualties]

    Guderian was ready to move on Moscow on August 15.

    When Hitler visited the front at Novi Borisov on the 3rd of August he interviewed the Commanders one at a time asking them when they would be ready to continue the advance.

    Bock said he was ready to move immediately, Guderian said he could go on 15th August and Hoth said 20th.

    But Hitler decided to divide Army Group Center's Panzer and other mobile forces in half, transferring half to Army Group North for its thrust against Leningrad, and half to Army Group South to help von Rundstedt's drive to capture Kiev.

    Halder and Brauchitsch at OKH, & Bock & Guderian objected strenuously but to no avail, the Corporal thought he knew better & on the 23rd he sent Guderian on his ride to Kiev [further then Moscow] ending any chance the Werhmacht ever had of taking the capital.

    Allan Clark "Barbarossa"
     
  17. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    I have the greatest objections to the claim of Alan Clark.
    It would mean that between 15 august and 4 september,the Pzstrength of AGC,mysteriously was falling to some 25 %,while,if I am not wrong,the southern diversion started only in september .
    There also is the fact that every one was contradicting the other:
    Bock(commanding the whole AG) saying :I am ready on 3 august
    Guderian :eek:n 15 august (implying:Bock is totally wrong)
    Hoth:eek:n 20 august (implying:Bock is totally wrong)
    Thus,we can assume that the earliest day would be :20 august,but,as 14 days later the Pz strength of Hoth only was 40 %,of Guderian only was 25 %,why would it be much higher on 20 august ?
    Between 10 and 20 august,the net Pz losses (for the whole front)were 57,and for 21-31 august 118,I don't think that the difference of 61 tanks was deciding .
    I am also curious on the sources of Clark about the Novi Borisov conference:if the commanders were summoned one by one,how can we know what they were saying to Hitler ?Of course,after the war,every one said that he said to Hitler that he was ready,but that the corporal refused to listen?
     
  18. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    The claims of A.Clark also are contradicted (and,IMHO,debunked) by the following source:
    Standing fast:German defensive doctrine on the Russian front in wwII.Chapter II:Barbarossa:the German Initiative
    Some excerpts:
    The Battle of Yelnya:eek:n 3 august (the day he was saying that he would be ready on 10 august),Guderian committed his last reserve (the guard company of the HQ of PzG II) to the fighting.
    Only on 8 august (2 days before he would be ready),were the mobile units of Guderian withdrawn for refitting.
    The same day,in a telephonic report to Halder,Bock said that he could not guarantee against a catastrophe at Yelnia.(while Clark claims that the same Bock said on 3 august that he was readyto go to Moscow .)
     
  19. ANZAC

    ANZAC Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    20

    Very cunning of Hitler to face his commanders one at a time so they coudn't back each other & present a united front against him.

    Not sure about them being totally wrong, while Bock was able to move his infantry, he was probably gilding the lilly a bit making sure Hitler knew that AGC was up to the job & raring to go, probably also knew the Panzers needed time to repair & overhall, but everyone would be ready to go by August 20.


    But Hitler ordered that Army Group Centre halt it's drive on Moscow & send its mobile forces to Army Group South and North.



    Heck the preference of Guderian, Bock, Hoth, Halder, Brauchitsch ect etc for Moscow was common knowledge & Guderian's men were expecting a speedy continuance of the advance to Moscow. They had already painted signs on their tanks, "To Moscow!" and had made the necessary preparations for the advance with the greatest enthusiasm. Expressing their confidence that they could go the last 220-mile advance to the Russian capital, no doubt Hitler knew it, but as we know, he stopped AGC in their tracks, then turned their Panzers North & South leaving everyone who pushed for Moscow very sour.

    And was Guderian ready for Moscow by his kick off date & did he have enough armour, well Guderian & his Panzergruppe pushed off South just 3 days after AGC hoped to move on to Moscow, speeding hundreds of kilometers to his target Kiev where there was 4 Russian Armies: the 5th, 13th, 21st and the 40th under Budenny, some 850,000 men including rear echelon troops. After taking part in the biggest battle of encirclement in history, almost instantly reversed direction back towards Moscow for operation typhoon & destroyed 2 more Soviet armies at Briansk. [with Vyazma pocketed another 660,000 Russian troops.]

    I guess you could say he was ready.

    His Panzer Group Guderian, composed of two Panzer Corps: a) XXIV Panzer Corps - 3rd and 4th Panzer Divisions, Infantry Regiment Gross-Deutschland, 10th Motorized Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry Division (the only cavalry division in the German Army) b) XLVII Panzer Corps - 17th and 18th Panzer Divisions, Infantry Regiment SS Das-Reich and the 29th Motorized Division. Army Group South (von Rundstedt) formed the Southern Pincer. Its main striking arm was Panzer Group Kleist, under Field Marshall von Kleist, composed of the 16th, 9th and 14th Panzer Division supported by the 125th, 239th, 267th Inf. Div.

    By Aug. 31, Guderian widened the bridgehead on the Desna and the 3rd Panzer Division [Model] and 4th Panzer Divisions rolled forward as the spearhead.They had advanced 150 miles by the tenth day.


    Kiev was a great victory, which opened the door to the Ukraine, but it also saved Moscow since the Germans would be unable to shift the 2nd Panzer Group north in time, not to mention the losses/wear and tear which could not be replaced. Instead of smashing the forces to the immediate front of Army Group Center then digging in for the Winter, the Germans risked it all to take Moscow as the weather turned bad, with an army that had been equipped to win before the snows fell . . .


    Think you mean Roslavl.

    CONCORD - Battles of Smolensk & Roslavl 1941

    Guderian attacked Roslavl on 1st August & captured it by the 3rd, mopping up took until August 8 & Guderian said he'd be ready for Moscow on August 15 not 10th as you say, but on the 23rd Hitler sent him on his way to Kiev.

    On Clarks book Barbarossa, if you happen to see a copy on the bookshelves snap it up I fully recommend it, if you don't like it I'll reimburse you.
     
  20. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,492
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Location:
    London, England.
    I'll just chip in a thought on Clark's Barbarossa ( which I like ) : one has to make allowances for the fact that it was written in 1964 when sources for the Eastern Front were far more difficult to find. It was a pioneering work in English - I'd quote John Keegan's opinion : -

    'Alan Clark's Barbarossa, though dated and in some places slight, retains the qualities and freshness and broad sweep that won it excellent reviews when it appeared'. ( 'The Battle For History', 1995 ).
     

Share This Page