Question For Members

1.Commonwealth Air training plan

2.Italian naval warfare in ww2. Besides those 2 torpedoes that were guided by a divers to Alexandria.

3.The free french. Except for their role in Paris , the free french didnt really get a lot of attention.

 

I know it's dead boring to most people , but I just love

- All the issues of design , production , delivery and use of weapons !
- The competing transport priority of foodstuff ,industrial stuff, war stuff
- The constraints of qualified manpower , industrial assets , raw material
and petrol supplies .
- The consequences of the above points on each other and on the fighting

Examples :
the D-day landing could only take place when a certain
quantity ( millions of tons ) of gear had been shifted ,
monty was a slow bugger but his supplies lines were coming from
around africa , a failure would cost him six month resuppy time
the italians did bust a gut keeping rommel supplied , for wich he was
most unapreciative
the rytm of the russians offensives was totally dictated by their rail
transport capability
kurtsk was delayed against everybody wishes by delay in delivery of the
new weapons .
etc . etc .
.
.
.
.

 

Oh, yuou mean you're interested in the things that really win wars!

 

"Amateurs study Tactics,
Professionals study Strategy,
Experts study Logistics"

 

I beg to differ! You can have the best supplied and organized army in all the world but if your soldiers have no training, if the weather is against you, if the enemy is more numerous etcetera etcetera you can still lose. Logistics is very important, of course, but no more so than all the other factors that determine the expected outcome of wars.

And before you say that no army can fight without food or bullets, I'd like to point out the many many occasions throughout history in which exhausted, famished troops without any form of supply still put up a remarkable fight, holding off numerous and superior enemies. Prime example would be the British at Arnhem - many of whom did not sleep for nine days, and spent the last few days of the battle saving their last bullet.

 

most unrepresented thing of WW2

I think the Axis powers other than Japn, Italy and Germany... Like Romania and a few other countries involved in the Axis aren't talked about much.

Private Mic von Krate

 

There is a good reason for this really, they accomplished so little and in most cases in such a half assed way.

 

Not so for Romania... Hitler was in fact very pleased with the Romanian performance in Russia and the Ukraine. Unlike Italy, Romania was capable of fighting the Soviets and winning battles, and produced her own fighter, the IAR.80 which proved itself effective in combat against US and British bombing raids... Romania was unique among Hitler's allies in that she actually bolstered the German ranks, as opposed to being a liability

 

In my opinion the most underrepresented are(no particular order);

- The Arctic Front (Murmansk,N.Norway,Karelia etc)
- China
- Operations in N. Italy(summer '44-end of war)
- Yugoslavia-Greece campaign
- Iraq
- Non German volunteers that fought in the German Armed Forces
- Western colonies in the Pacific

 

tiso ,what are those objects at the bottom of the boat s equipment page below the gun turret drawings ..rocket launchers ,radio ,radar masts?

 

The brazilian participation at Monte Castello in the Italian campaign.