If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   FTW: U.S. Navy marks Battle of Midway's 70th anniversary. Japan's vessels outnumbered U.S. ships 4-to-1, Japan's aviators had more experience, and its Zero fighter planes could easily outmaneuver U.S. aircraft   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 252
    More: Spiffy, F T W, U.S. Navy, Battle of Midway, U.S., vice admirals, Japan, midway, U.S. ships  
•       •       •

9745 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jun 2012 at 12:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-04 08:39:27 PM

intelligent comment below: The Soviets fought the entire German army and faced their strongest Air Force. The Allies landed far too late and fought green German soldiers in sparse numbers.

You may have been joking but it's the truth. The Russians are the only reason Europe isn't speaking German now.


Long ago, I read a WWII history book, from several different viewpoints, for local consumption. 4 sections. French, British, American, Russian.
Basically, they all said "We won, everyone else helped"

But really, none of the 4 could have fully defeated Germany without the other 3.
Russia needed Lend-Lease
The US needed Airstrip One
We all needed the French/Dutch/Belgian underground
Everyone needed US logistics, manufacturing and manpower
 
2012-06-04 08:46:32 PM
The U.S. had better leadership and a little bit of luck.
 
2012-06-04 08:52:45 PM

Bendal: devildog123: capt.hollister: '...and its Zero fighter planes could easily outmaneuver U.S. aircraft'

But they did not outgun them and, more importantly, lacked armor protection and self-sealing tanks making them extremely vulnerable to battle damage.

Actually, the Zero DID outgun the Wildcat. It carried 2 7.7mm machine guns, but it also carried 2 20mm machine cannon. Those cannon were superior to the .50 caliber machine guns in the F4F. What saved the Wildcat was it's heavier armor and self sealing gas tanks. And quite a few of the American fighters at Midway were the POS F2 Brewster Buffalo. Our SIGINT is what saved our asses, and the fact that they had a bunch of fuel and bomb laden aircraft on the decks when the Dauntless dive bombers rolled in... Oh, and that the Devastators got themselves blown to shait by the Japanese fighter cover, leaving a gap for the bombers.

Actually, the Zero's cannon were so unreliable and slow firing that aces such as Saburo Sakai hated them and either turned them off or had them removed from their planes. They had a fairly short range and carried little ammo, and were very heavy as well. The Wildcat's .50 caliber machine guns, OTOH, were perfect weapons against every Japanese plane they fought, having plenty of ammo, more than enough range and firepower to destroy them with just a short burst. When Wildcats had two more 50's added some pilots had them taken back out, since they didn't add much in the way of firepower but slowed the planes down.


Japanese planes needed heavier weapons to take down the well armored American planes that had self-sealing fuel tanks. Zeros were easy to down because they were so lightly constructed and our 50 caliber rounds were sufficient. The 2 7.7 mm machine guns were not well suited to taking out the robust American planes. A 20 mm cannon is a large, powerful round. Citation to the Wildcat pilots having guns removed?
 
2012-06-04 08:59:27 PM

shanteyman: June 4 is also the anniversary of the capture of U-505 by Task Group 22.3 , commanded by then Captain Dan Gallery, in 1944. Boarding and capturing the sub intact led to the capture of code books and the newest version of the Enigma machine. Doing so allowed the Allies to break German codes faster at a time when the Germans were beginning to suspect their codes were comprimised. My dad was a sailor on USS Jenks (DE 665 ), one of the ships of the destroyer screen for the baby flattop USS Guadalcanal.

Gallery went on to attain the rank of Rear Admiral, and led the "Revolt of the Admirals" when the Pentagon considered doing away with carrier group air power after the war.


The U-505 is on display at Chicago's Museum of Science & Industry. On June 4, 1944, a German submarine known as U-505 was prowling off the coast of West Africa on a hunt for American and Allied ships, when depth charges from the USS Chatelain blasted the dreaded U-boat out of hiding.

It was the end of a violent run for U-505, which had terrorized the Atlantic Ocean as part of a massive U-boat campaign that almost altered the outcome of World War II.

The Museum of Science and Industry invites you to step inside the real U-505-the only German submarine in the United States, and, now, a national memorial to the 55,000 American sailors who gave their lives on the high seas in WWI and WWII.
 
2012-06-04 09:13:08 PM
Thanks for replentishing my reading list, Farkers!
 
2012-06-04 09:21:26 PM

Alonjar: Ricardo Klement:

Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because railyards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.

These points simply arent true. While its true Rommels fuel tanks never actually ran empty, he had to start making his battle plans with fuel usage in mind rather than what might be the best strategically. Also, allied bombers are the real reason Rommel lost as well... we bombed the ever living shiat out of his tanks and artillery guns.


That bombing is tactical or operational, not strategic, which is what i was referring to. And part of the reason Rommel was low on fuel is because of Italian logistical incompetence. When the Germans took over the Libyan logistics operation, they uncovered thousands of gallons of fuel sitting in a warehouse that the Italians had lost track of.
 
2012-06-04 09:48:40 PM

Metaluna Mutant: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

Read this. Best book on Midway since, well, ever. Virtually every iconic "legend" from the Battle of Midway is misleading or outright wrong - Best japanese pilots where all killed there, it was very long odds, the American forces were hopelessly outnumbered, the Aleutian Campaign was supposed to be a distraction from the real goal of Midway, the japanese planes were on deck, littered with fuel and bombs and a few minutes away from launching when the SBDs attacked, some japanese scout planes were launched late and therefore (by dumb luck) saw the american forces, the land based attacks launched from Midway itself did no damage to the Kito Budai etc -- All ether outright wrong or very misleading.

Basically, Japans first major defeat was long overdue thanks to Japans muddled thinking and failed short sighted and over complicated strategy. It's what happns when you have excellent tactics but poor strategy - a good lesson that other superpowers often ignore...

Breaking the Japanese code was of paramount importance, but virtually everything the Japanese did was either wrong headed or overly complicated and rigid. This was a long time coming and very nearly happened at the Coral Sea. Yamamoto promised beforehand he could only dominate the pacific for 6 months after Pearl Harbor and he was right almost to the day.


An excellent book. An absolute MUST read for anyone interested in understanding what actually happened there.

In effect, the Battle of Midway was a decisive American victory because of about 8 or 10 things all going monumentally wrong for the Japanese (timing, tactics, strategy, codebreaking, more timing, poor damage control, bad search plans, bad luck, more timing) and it was STILL an incredibly close thing.
 
2012-06-04 10:17:28 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: intelligent comment below: TheShavingofOccam123: In case people still think I was serious about the Soviets winning WWII and the Commonwealth not contributing anything of significance, may point out what I contributed the day Piper Bill died:

Here's the NY Times article about his day on Normandy

And here's the headline I got greenlighted on Fark.com

Scottish D-Day bagpiper dies. Family devastated. Neighbors relieved

I'm just amazed how, while playing the bagpipes, he waded ashore with those huge, huge, HUGE brass balls dragging him under.


The Allies did little in Europe except strategic bomb German cities that didn't do much economic damage.

The Soviets fought the entire German army and faced their strongest Air Force. The Allies landed far too late and fought green German soldiers in sparse numbers.

You may have been joking but it's the truth. The Russians are the only reason Europe isn't speaking German now.

I gotta throw in Spanish "neutrality" and more importantly French surrender.


Hate to break it to you, but the Soviets did not win WWII. It took the combined effort of the UK, the USA and the Soviet Union to win the war. The Germans transferred the bulk of their fighter force from the east back to Germany to defend against the bombers. The USAAF and the RAF destroyed that force prior to D-Day. According to Albert Speer, the Germans had over 10,000 88mm anti-aircraft artillery in Germany to protect the Reich. Imagine all of those guns as anti-tank weapons on the eastern front.

And top that off with the the lend-lease stuff and you have more help for the Soviets.

It was a team effort and anybody who thinks otherwise is just a fool.
 
2012-06-04 10:22:23 PM

Ricardo Klement: That bombing is tactical or operational, not strategic, which is what i was referring to. And part of the reason Rommel was low on fuel is because of Italian logistical incompetence.


Yeah, about that:
Afrika Corps surrenders: 13 May 1943
Combined allied bombing campaign (ie, US & GB) starts: 4 March 1943
So you have about two months in which the allied strategic bombing campaign could have effected Rommel's fuel situation.

Germany and especially Japan had bitter experiences on how important fuel logistic is in warfare.


I think these guys might have something to say to the armchair generals in here who think D-Day was a walk in the park:
i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-04 10:46:22 PM
Plus, anything of real importance beyond the immediate exigencies of a local battle wasn't handled by codetalkers, who were a tactical system, but by the naval version of the ECM Mark II. Also, remember that in Europe, instead of using codetalkers, we used a relatively simple and reasonably secure machine, the M-209, instead.

POINT OF ORDER

in Europe the Comanche we used as code talkers
 
2012-06-04 10:52:12 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: Plus, anything of real importance beyond the immediate exigencies of a local battle wasn't handled by codetalkers, who were a tactical system, but by the naval version of the ECM Mark II. Also, remember that in Europe, instead of using codetalkers, we used a relatively simple and reasonably secure machine, the M-209, instead.

POINT OF ORDER

in Europe the Comanche we used as code talkers


to be accurate, ONE division used SIXTEEN Indians, that was the entire extent.
 
2012-06-04 11:00:21 PM

chuckufarlie: Duke_leto_Atredes: Plus, anything of real importance beyond the immediate exigencies of a local battle wasn't handled by codetalkers, who were a tactical system, but by the naval version of the ECM Mark II. Also, remember that in Europe, instead of using codetalkers, we used a relatively simple and reasonably secure machine, the M-209, instead.

POINT OF ORDER

in Europe the Comanche we used as code talkers

to be accurate, ONE division used SIXTEEN Indians, that was the entire extent.


Sixteen screaming comanches, is a lot damn trouble i am here to tell you.
 
2012-06-04 11:00:22 PM

Ricardo Klement: ha-ha-guy: Ricardo Klement: That the Russians faced the bulk of the troops is true. But the Germans had someof their best units fight in Normandy and in Bulge, and certainly, the air battle was as lop-sided in the Allies' ledger as the ground was in the Soviets. The West would probably have won without the Russians if only because of nukes. But the Soviets? Without food, rolling stock, and facing an order of magnitude more a/c?

I think the Russians win in the long term solely because their industry is behind the Urals. Without the Allies the Russians lose at places like Stalingrad and Moscow. However the Russians just throw wave after wave into the grinder and wait for Winter to come. Napleon took Moscow after all and that did jack and shiat for him.

Basically the Germans win lots of tactical victories. However sooner or later the fact Russia has no infrastructure presents a problem for the Germans. Tanks stuck in the mud, not many air bases to run the Stukas out of it, long supply lines, etc. The Russians halt the German advance, but it costs them millions more KIA than they had historically. Also the Germans likely get some land concessions in the peace deal.

America and the UK beat Germany with nukes as you pointed out. Also the USN and RN can starve the Germans out in terms of fuel oil and the like. The war takes longer and we have more KIA, but we win.

Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because railyards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.


The allied bombers in the Med destroyed a large percentage of the shipping going to Rommel and many of those ships were carrying fuel. To say that all of the fuel that Rommel requested made it to Tripoli is just plain wrong and extremely ignorant.

As for the bombing campaign in Europe, the German petroleum industry was destroyed. The Germans did not have enough fuel to train pilots or to fly missions. Rail yards were not secondary targets. The very first bombing raid by the 8th USAAF was a rail yard. Rail yards were bombed to disrupt the flow of supplies and troops to Normandy. They were also bombed in Germany to create bottle necks.

What the bombing campaign also accomplished was the destruction of the Luftwaffe that gave the allies air superiority over Normandy.

Do you get all of your info from old comic books?
 
2012-06-04 11:01:34 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: chuckufarlie: Duke_leto_Atredes: Plus, anything of real importance beyond the immediate exigencies of a local battle wasn't handled by codetalkers, who were a tactical system, but by the naval version of the ECM Mark II. Also, remember that in Europe, instead of using codetalkers, we used a relatively simple and reasonably secure machine, the M-209, instead.

POINT OF ORDER

in Europe the Comanche we used as code talkers

to be accurate, ONE division used SIXTEEN Indians, that was the entire extent.

Sixteen screaming comanches, is a lot damn trouble i am here to tell you.


yea, in one tiny little part of Europe.
 
2012-06-04 11:03:14 PM

Gleeman: Ricardo Klement: That bombing is tactical or operational, not strategic, which is what i was referring to. And part of the reason Rommel was low on fuel is because of Italian logistical incompetence.

Yeah, about that:
Afrika Corps surrenders: 13 May 1943
Combined allied bombing campaign (ie, US & GB) starts: 4 March 1943
So you have about two months in which the allied strategic bombing campaign could have effected Rommel's fuel situation.

Germany and especially Japan had bitter experiences on how important fuel logistic is in warfare.


I think these guys might have something to say to the armchair generals in here who think D-Day was a walk in the park:
[i.imgur.com image 640x449]


Rommel's fuel supplies were bombed in the Med, it was not part of the strategic bombing campaign. It was the Desert Air Force sinking ships.
 
2012-06-04 11:07:48 PM

Leopold Stotch: Thanks for replentishing my reading list, Farkers!


I know,, right??
 
2012-06-04 11:15:02 PM

Gleeman: Ricardo Klement: That bombing is tactical or operational, not strategic, which is what i was referring to. And part of the reason Rommel was low on fuel is because of Italian logistical incompetence.

Yeah, about that:
Afrika Corps surrenders: 13 May 1943
Combined allied bombing campaign (ie, US & GB) starts: 4 March 1943
So you have about two months in which the allied strategic bombing campaign could have effected Rommel's fuel situation.

Germany and especially Japan had bitter experiences on how important fuel logistic is in warfare.


I think these guys might have something to say to the armchair generals in here who think D-Day was a walk in the park:
[i.imgur.com image 640x449]


Uh, no. I did not say allied strategic bombing did anything to Rommel's fuel situation. Quite the opposite.
 
2012-06-04 11:20:35 PM

chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: ha-ha-guy: Ricardo Klement: That the Russians faced the bulk of the troops is true. But the Germans had someof their best units fight in Normandy and in Bulge, and certainly, the air battle was as lop-sided in the Allies' ledger as the ground was in the Soviets. The West would probably have won without the Russians if only because of nukes. But the Soviets? Without food, rolling stock, and facing an order of magnitude more a/c?

I think the Russians win in the long term solely because their industry is behind the Urals. Without the Allies the Russians lose at places like Stalingrad and Moscow. However the Russians just throw wave after wave into the grinder and wait for Winter to come. Napleon took Moscow after all and that did jack and shiat for him.

Basically the Germans win lots of tactical victories. However sooner or later the fact Russia has no infrastructure presents a problem for the Germans. Tanks stuck in the mud, not many air bases to run the Stukas out of it, long supply lines, etc. The Russians halt the German advance, but it costs them millions more KIA than they had historically. Also the Germans likely get some land concessions in the peace deal.

America and the UK beat Germany with nukes as you pointed out. Also the USN and RN can starve the Germans out in terms of fuel oil and the like. The war takes longer and we have more KIA, but we win.

Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because railyards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.

The allied bombers in the Med destroyed a large percentage of the shipping going to Rommel and many of those ships were carrying fuel. ...


Your pop-history understanding of the war is pretty pathetic. Try doing some actual scholarly research in original Italian and German documents, infant, and maybe you'll come across depot inventories that confirm that the requests were fulfilled.

Did it occur to your tiny little brain that maybe when a fuel ship was lost they might, I don't know, send another? As a plan, that's clearly far more clever than what you could have conceived of or executed yourself, so it's understandable your limited intellect cannot fathom that people only send exactly what was requested without any margin for error or any expectation of losses. After all, that's why England starved to death and Germany conquered it. Because once one merchant ship was lost with some food, we didn't send another.
 
2012-06-04 11:34:16 PM

Ricardo Klement: chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: ha-ha-guy: Ricardo Klement: That the Russians faced the bulk of the troops is true. But the Germans had someof their best units fight in Normandy and in Bulge, and certainly, the air battle was as lop-sided in the Allies' ledger as the ground was in the Soviets. The West would probably have won without the Russians if only because of nukes. But the Soviets? Without food, rolling stock, and facing an order of magnitude more a/c?

I think the Russians win in the long term solely because their industry is behind the Urals. Without the Allies the Russians lose at places like Stalingrad and Moscow. However the Russians just throw wave after wave into the grinder and wait for Winter to come. Napleon took Moscow after all and that did jack and shiat for him.

Basically the Germans win lots of tactical victories. However sooner or later the fact Russia has no infrastructure presents a problem for the Germans. Tanks stuck in the mud, not many air bases to run the Stukas out of it, long supply lines, etc. The Russians halt the German advance, but it costs them millions more KIA than they had historically. Also the Germans likely get some land concessions in the peace deal.

America and the UK beat Germany with nukes as you pointed out. Also the USN and RN can starve the Germans out in terms of fuel oil and the like. The war takes longer and we have more KIA, but we win.

Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because railyards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.

The allied bombers in the Med destroyed a large percentage of the shipping going to Rommel and many of those ships were ca ...


Your pathetic attempts to insult me prove your ignorance. Are you aware that the Germans/Italians did not even send the full amount of fuel that Rommel requested?

I stand by my original statement - the Allies did disrupt the flow of fuel to Rommel. They bombed ships and they attacked trucks hauling the fuel across the desert.

Seriously, you are just way too stupid for anybody to take seriously, It is a well known fact that the German supply lines were attacked and that Rommel was not receiving all of the fuel that he requested. As for your notion that the Germans just sent more fuel to make up for the amount lost, that is more nonsense. The Germans did not have the fuel reserves to do so. They had lots of other armies crying for fuel.

Take your silly notions and go find a book.
 
2012-06-04 11:39:41 PM

Ricardo Klement: chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: ha-ha-guy: Ricardo Klement: That the Russians faced the bulk of the troops is true. But the Germans had someof their best units fight in Normandy and in Bulge, and certainly, the air battle was as lop-sided in the Allies' ledger as the ground was in the Soviets. The West would probably have won without the Russians if only because of nukes. But the Soviets? Without food, rolling stock, and facing an order of magnitude more a/c?

I think the Russians win in the long term solely because their industry is behind the Urals. Without the Allies the Russians lose at places like Stalingrad and Moscow. However the Russians just throw wave after wave into the grinder and wait for Winter to come. Napleon took Moscow after all and that did jack and shiat for him.

Basically the Germans win lots of tactical victories. However sooner or later the fact Russia has no infrastructure presents a problem for the Germans. Tanks stuck in the mud, not many air bases to run the Stukas out of it, long supply lines, etc. The Russians halt the German advance, but it costs them millions more KIA than they had historically. Also the Germans likely get some land concessions in the peace deal.

America and the UK beat Germany with nukes as you pointed out. Also the USN and RN can starve the Germans out in terms of fuel oil and the like. The war takes longer and we have more KIA, but we win.

Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because railyards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.

The allied bombers in the Med destroyed a large percentage of the shipping going to Rommel and many of those ships were ca ...


You said " After all, that's why England starved to death and Germany conquered it. Because once one merchant ship was lost with some food, we didn't send another."

This is a prime example of your ignorance. To believe that the Germans reacted exactly as the Allies did in any situation is pure ignorance. You cannot use the fact that the Allies sent replacement shipments to England to prove that the Germans did the same thing. That is childish nonsense.

Grow up, child.
 
2012-06-04 11:43:01 PM

Ricardo Klement: chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: ha-ha-guy: Ricardo Klement: That the Russians faced the bulk of the troops is true. But the Germans had someof their best units fight in Normandy and in Bulge, and certainly, the air battle was as lop-sided in the Allies' ledger as the ground was in the Soviets. The West would probably have won without the Russians if only because of nukes. But the Soviets? Without food, rolling stock, and facing an order of magnitude more a/c?

I think the Russians win in the long term solely because their industry is behind the Urals. Without the Allies the Russians lose at places like Stalingrad and Moscow. However the Russians just throw wave after wave into the grinder and wait for Winter to come. Napleon took Moscow after all and that did jack and shiat for him.

Basically the Germans win lots of tactical victories. However sooner or later the fact Russia has no infrastructure presents a problem for the Germans. Tanks stuck in the mud, not many air bases to run the Stukas out of it, long supply lines, etc. The Russians halt the German advance, but it costs them millions more KIA than they had historically. Also the Germans likely get some land concessions in the peace deal.

America and the UK beat Germany with nukes as you pointed out. Also the USN and RN can starve the Germans out in terms of fuel oil and the like. The war takes longer and we have more KIA, but we win.

Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because railyards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.

The allied bombers in the Med destroyed a large percentage of the shipping going to Rommel and many of those ships were ca ...


Why would the Italians have records of fuel shipments? Fuel came from Yugoslavia, fool.
 
2012-06-04 11:55:35 PM
Lol. Chuck doesn't even know that Libya was an Italian colony and therefore Tripoli's port facilities might just have been staffed with Italians.

You don't know something that rudimentary yet we're supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Son, if brains were gasoline you wouldn't have enough to power a pissant's go-cart around the inside of a Cheerio.
 
2012-06-04 11:59:14 PM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Long ago, I read a WWII history book, from several different viewpoints, for local consumption. 4 sections. French, British, American, Russian.
Basically, they all said "We won, everyone else helped"

But really, none of the 4 could have fully defeated Germany without the other 3.
Russia needed Lend-Lease
The US needed Airstrip One
We all needed the French/Dutch/Belgian underground
Everyone needed US logistics, manufacturing and manpower


Basically reading bits here and there over the years, that's what I think.

Also the Chinese people helped by keeping the Japanese tied down on the Chinese Mainland. Members of the Doolittle raid that made it to China, got out because the Chinese people helped them. And the Chinese paid a terrible price for that.
 
2012-06-05 12:00:37 AM

Ricardo Klement: Lol. Chuck doesn't even know that Libya was an Italian colony and therefore Tripoli's port facilities might just have been staffed with Italians.

You don't know something that rudimentary yet we're supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Son, if brains were gasoline you wouldn't have enough to power a pissant's go-cart around the inside of a Cheerio.


Except that the Germans were handing their own supplies in Libya. You say that it might just have been staffed by Italians - I assume that you are guessing at that. It was not a very strong statement and it turned out to be false.

According to you, Rommel got all of the fuel he requested and yet that is completely false. The amount he requested was not shipped to him, a lower amount was sent.

Rommel stated that he lacked sufficient fuel to move his tanks as he wanted to.

Are you so stupid as to believe that Rommel did not request enough fuel?

Don't answer that, I know how stupid you are.
 
2012-06-05 12:02:20 AM

Ricardo Klement: chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: ha-ha-guy: Ricardo Klement: That the Russians faced the bulk of the troops is true. But the Germans had someof their best units fight in Normandy and in Bulge, and certainly, the air battle was as lop-sided in the Allies' ledger as the ground was in the Soviets. The West would probably have won without the Russians if only because of nukes. But the Soviets? Without food, rolling stock, and facing an order of magnitude more a/c?

I think the Russians win in the long term solely because their industry is behind the Urals. Without the Allies the Russians lose at places like Stalingrad and Moscow. However the Russians just throw wave after wave into the grinder and wait for Winter to come. Napleon took Moscow after all and that did jack and shiat for him.

Basically the Germans win lots of tactical victories. However sooner or later the fact Russia has no infrastructure presents a problem for the Germans. Tanks stuck in the mud, not many air bases to run the Stukas out of it, long supply lines, etc. The Russians halt the German advance, but it costs them millions more KIA than they had historically. Also the Germans likely get some land concessions in the peace deal.

America and the UK beat Germany with nukes as you pointed out. Also the USN and RN can starve the Germans out in terms of fuel oil and the like. The war takes longer and we have more KIA, but we win.

Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because railyards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.

The allied bombers in the Med destroyed a large percentage of the shipping going to Rommel and many of those ships were ca ...


Link

"Rommel was constantly held back by the lack of fuel and ammunition"

"Fuel was in short supply"

Dumbass
 
2012-06-05 12:04:18 AM

gibbon1: YouPeopleAreCrazy: Long ago, I read a WWII history book, from several different viewpoints, for local consumption. 4 sections. French, British, American, Russian.
Basically, they all said "We won, everyone else helped"

But really, none of the 4 could have fully defeated Germany without the other 3.
Russia needed Lend-Lease
The US needed Airstrip One
We all needed the French/Dutch/Belgian underground
Everyone needed US logistics, manufacturing and manpower

Basically reading bits here and there over the years, that's what I think.

Also the Chinese people helped by keeping the Japanese tied down on the Chinese Mainland. Members of the Doolittle raid that made it to China, got out because the Chinese people helped them. And the Chinese paid a terrible price for that.


The Chinese did receive lots of supplies from the USA but most of it was stockpiled for use against the Communists after WWII. Their actual fighting ability was weak, at best.
 
2012-06-05 12:17:16 AM

chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: Lol. Chuck doesn't even know that Libya was an Italian colony and therefore Tripoli's port facilities might just have been staffed with Italians.

You don't know something that rudimentary yet we're supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Son, if brains were gasoline you wouldn't have enough to power a pissant's go-cart around the inside of a Cheerio.

Except that the Germans were handing their own supplies in Libya. You say that it might just have been staffed by Italians - I assume that you are guessing at that. It was not a very strong statement and it turned out to be false.

According to you, Rommel got all of the fuel he requested and yet that is completely false. The amount he requested was not shipped to him, a lower amount was sent.

Rommel stated that he lacked sufficient fuel to move his tanks as he wanted to.

Are you so stupid as to believe that Rommel did not request enough fuel?

Don't answer that, I know how stupid you are.


Au contraire (I know-another language you don't speak). Germans didn't take over the port facilities until much later.

And given your reading comprehension, the depth of your disfunction reveals itself. I said what Rommel requested made it into theater, not that it made it to Rommel, hence the anecdote of Germans discovering thousands of gallons of fuel the Italian incompetence lost. Getting it from Tripoli to Benghazi and then onto the troops was the problem. Actually, even getting it out of Tripoli was the problem, because the Italians were as admirable in their logistics as they were in fighting the Greeks.

Maybe you should sound out the words so that you don't skip entire sentences, you scabrous cretin.
 
2012-06-05 12:32:11 AM
Uh, fellows? Midway? Let's steer it back there, shall we?
 
2012-06-05 12:58:23 AM
chuckufarlie:

...It took the combined effort of the UK Commonwealth, the USA and the Soviet Union to win the war.

FTF the hundreds of thousands of Canadians, Australians, New Zelanders, South Africans, Indians, and all the others who were there.

It was a team effort and anybody who thinks otherwise is just a fool.

Exactly.
 
2012-06-05 01:03:47 AM
Let's play what if.

Try this: What if Japan attacked all the British Dutch etc colonies - but left American interests alone. Would the US have declared war? Would the US have joined a war to defend colonial interests in places most Americans never heard of in 1941? Without the US in it, what would have happened to Australia and India?

How about Japan attacking those European colonies and just the Philippines? Would our isolationism and frankly, much lower interest in the Philippines have made us declare war? It certainly would not have been the "we're all in it now to the finish so prepare for sacrifices" attitude that Pearl Harbor gave the US on dec 8.

BTW These scenarios were discussed as a possibility in the early stages by Japanese strategists but was overruled quickly by many, including Yamamato.
 
2012-06-05 02:20:47 AM
Ricardo Klement:

Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because railyards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.

You are right that Germany did run out of experienced fighting men, but it is also true that, starting in the second half of 1944, Germany experienced increasingly severe fuel shortages. Additionally, whether accidental or intended, collapsing the rail net was one of the major contributors to the German front-lines running short of supplies. While it is true that most military production continued unabated almost to the very end, the lack of rail transportation meant that they were largely unable to get that production out where it was needed. One of the most spectacular examples is the magnificent me262: of the approximately 1400 produced, only about 200 made it to combat units because of the combined shortage of pilots, fuel, and rail transportation.
 
2012-06-05 04:04:11 AM
Magorn: Let me say this nicely. Amateur soldiers always talk of strategy and battles, professional soldiers talk of supply lines and logistics. If you look at the war from that perspective you see that US was the only thing keeping Hitler from over-running Britain and Russia before they were able to fight back. The "Arsenal of Democracy" and the Liberty Ships that took it across the water and the brave merchant marines who risked and gave their lives to get it there was the reason Germany didn't win WWII. Period. Also the credible threat of an Anglo American invasion of Both Italy and France forced Hitler to keep a sizeable portion of his army in the west, where it couldn't be used to reinforce the Russian front. Think Stalingrad might have gone a little differently if Rommel had commanded the German armor there?

they had manstein, tho, who was just as good.

While the contribution of „lend lease" and keeping the brits, and by proxy the USSR afloat with supplies via liberty ships and what not, i think youre being a little unfair in how you balance these contributions in your thinking or assessment.

The German army was defeated by the Red Army. This is fact. N. Africa, Sicily, Italy, even up thru Normandy and the Bulge don't add up to the Eastern Front at all, not even close. This is not to down play the efforts put in by those men, or to downplay their suffering and sacrifices etc etc, but simple math concludes the Red Army beat the Wehrmacht. The pure number of divisions the Red Army destroyed vs. the Number the Anglo Americans destroyed just cant compare.

The Brits engaged a few divisions in Africa. The Reds fought Stalingrad. The US engaged a handful of divisions in Italy, while the Red Army fought Kursk. The only time the Anglo Americans fought a battle the size of what the Russians had been doing for 3 years was from the beach landings at Normandy up through Falaise. There the Anglo Americans fought a battle and destroyed an enemy force equivalent to what had been going on the Eastern Front from the get go.

The biggest contribution the Anglo americans made to the war in Europe as keeping the Soviet civilian economy afloat to enable them to make these incredible sacrifices to stop the Wehrmacht, and keep them for disintegrating into 1917 style food riots which took the Russians out of ww1. So the anglo americans enabled them, and "helped", sure, but in the spirit of giving credit where its due, the Red Army gets the credit for the victory over hitler.

Much the way the US deserves the credit for the victory over Imperial Japan.
 
2012-06-05 06:49:03 AM

chuckufarlie: Gleeman: Ricardo Klement: That bombing is tactical or operational, not strategic, which is what i was referring to. And part of the reason Rommel was low on fuel is because of Italian logistical incompetence.

Yeah, about that:
Afrika Corps surrenders: 13 May 1943
Combined allied bombing campaign (ie, US & GB) starts: 4 March 1943
So you have about two months in which the allied strategic bombing campaign could have effected Rommel's fuel situation.

Germany and especially Japan had bitter experiences on how important fuel logistic is in warfare.


I think these guys might have something to say to the armchair generals in here who think D-Day was a walk in the park:
[i.imgur.com image 640x449]

Rommel's fuel supplies were bombed in the Med, it was not part of the strategic bombing campaign. It was the Desert Air Force sinking ships.


I was referring to the thread shiatter's OP:

Ricardo Klement:
Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because rail yards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.


The fuel didn't just magically appear in Africa, it was produced in refineries in Europe, which were the targets of strategic bombing.
 
2012-06-05 06:51:30 AM

Father_Jack: Magorn: Let me say this nicely. Amateur soldiers always talk of strategy and battles, professional soldiers talk of supply lines and logistics. If you look at the war from that perspective you see that US was the only thing keeping Hitler from over-running Britain and Russia before they were able to fight back. The "Arsenal of Democracy" and the Liberty Ships that took it across the water and the brave merchant marines who risked and gave their lives to get it there was the reason Germany didn't win WWII. Period. Also the credible threat of an Anglo American invasion of Both Italy and France forced Hitler to keep a sizeable portion of his army in the west, where it couldn't be used to reinforce the Russian front. Think Stalingrad might have gone a little differently if Rommel had commanded the German armor there?

they had manstein, tho, who was just as good.

While the contribution of „lend lease" and keeping the brits, and by proxy the USSR afloat with supplies via liberty ships and what not, i think youre being a little unfair in how you balance these contributions in your thinking or assessment.

The German army was defeated by the Red Army. This is fact. N. Africa, Sicily, Italy, even up thru Normandy and the Bulge don't add up to the Eastern Front at all, not even close. This is not to down play the efforts put in by those men, or to downplay their suffering and sacrifices etc etc, but simple math concludes the Red Army beat the Wehrmacht. The pure number of divisions the Red Army destroyed vs. the Number the Anglo Americans destroyed just cant compare.

The Brits engaged a few divisions in Africa. The Reds fought Stalingrad. The US engaged a handful of divisions in Italy, while the Red Army fought Kursk. The only time the Anglo Americans fought a battle the size of what the Russians had been doing for 3 years was from the beach landings at Normandy up through Falaise. There the Anglo Americans fought a battle and destroyed an enemy force equivalent to what ha ...



If you've never read it, there is an excellent memoir by Germany's greatest pilot of the war that's titled in English "Stuka pilot". Since he fought on the Eastern Front, the book provides indirectly a fascinating look into the psyche of the German soldier (they really did believe they were on a nigh-holy crusade to keep the "Huns" or "mongols" from invading Europe (aka the Russians) and the toll Russian Industrial production and US assistance took on the German army (his dismay after destroying dozens of tanks and shooting down several Russian planes one day and then seeing hundreds more, is very telling)
 
2012-06-05 07:18:20 AM
Magorn - Adolf Galland was a fighter pilot, not a Stuka pilot. Hans Rudel is not the greatest.
 
2012-06-05 08:03:50 AM

Gleeman: chuckufarlie: Gleeman: Ricardo Klement: That bombing is tactical or operational, not strategic, which is what i was referring to. And part of the reason Rommel was low on fuel is because of Italian logistical incompetence.

Yeah, about that:
Afrika Corps surrenders: 13 May 1943
Combined allied bombing campaign (ie, US & GB) starts: 4 March 1943
So you have about two months in which the allied strategic bombing campaign could have effected Rommel's fuel situation.

Germany and especially Japan had bitter experiences on how important fuel logistic is in warfare.


I think these guys might have something to say to the armchair generals in here who think D-Day was a walk in the park:
[i.imgur.com image 640x449]

Rommel's fuel supplies were bombed in the Med, it was not part of the strategic bombing campaign. It was the Desert Air Force sinking ships.

I was referring to the thread shiatter's OP:

Ricardo Klement:
Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because rail yards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.

The fuel didn't just magically appear in Africa, it was produced in refineries in Europe, which were the targets of strategic bombing.


Yes they were, and the problems had little to do with the refineries but with moving the fuel. Anything that was bombed, including refineries, was typically back up and running in a matter of days.

Feel free to read Speer's book for starters. He goes into detail about the effects of the bombing campaign and what reserves he had of what materiel. The fuel problems Germany experienced had a lot more to do with the inability to move what they had to where they needed it than a loss of refinery capacity.

I don't know why you consider my the thread-shiatter when I did not bring up the subject nor was it my Boobies in this thread. Nor was I the first to engage in the flinging of insults.
 
2012-06-05 09:10:13 AM

Father_Jack: Magorn: Let me say this nicely. Amateur soldiers always talk of strategy and battles, professional soldiers talk of supply lines and logistics. If you look at the war from that perspective you see that US was the only thing keeping Hitler from over-running Britain and Russia before they were able to fight back. The "Arsenal of Democracy" and the Liberty Ships that took it across the water and the brave merchant marines who risked and gave their lives to get it there was the reason Germany didn't win WWII. Period. Also the credible threat of an Anglo American invasion of Both Italy and France forced Hitler to keep a sizeable portion of his army in the west, where it couldn't be used to reinforce the Russian front. Think Stalingrad might have gone a little differently if Rommel had commanded the German armor there?

they had manstein, tho, who was just as good.

While the contribution of „lend lease" and keeping the brits, and by proxy the USSR afloat with supplies via liberty ships and what not, i think youre being a little unfair in how you balance these contributions in your thinking or assessment.

The German army was defeated by the Red Army. This is fact. N. Africa, Sicily, Italy, even up thru Normandy and the Bulge don't add up to the Eastern Front at all, not even close. This is not to down play the efforts put in by those men, or to downplay their suffering and sacrifices etc etc, but simple math concludes the Red Army beat the Wehrmacht. The pure number of divisions the Red Army destroyed vs. the Number the Anglo Americans destroyed just cant compare.

The Brits engaged a few divisions in Africa. The Reds fought Stalingrad. The US engaged a handful of divisions in Italy, while the Red Army fought Kursk. The only time the Anglo Americans fought a battle the size of what the Russians had been doing for 3 years was from the beach landings at Normandy up through Falaise. There the Anglo Americans fought a battle and destroyed an enemy force equivalent to what ha ...


The Soviet Union did not defeat the Germans, it was a team effort. It took the combined effort of the USA, the British Empire and the Soviet Union to defeat Hitler. The Soviets fought larger land battles, but that does not mean that they won the war. The Soviets would not have won the war if they had faced Hitler alone.
 
2012-06-05 09:13:34 AM

Ricardo Klement: chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: Lol. Chuck doesn't even know that Libya was an Italian colony and therefore Tripoli's port facilities might just have been staffed with Italians.

You don't know something that rudimentary yet we're supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Son, if brains were gasoline you wouldn't have enough to power a pissant's go-cart around the inside of a Cheerio.

Except that the Germans were handing their own supplies in Libya. You say that it might just have been staffed by Italians - I assume that you are guessing at that. It was not a very strong statement and it turned out to be false.

According to you, Rommel got all of the fuel he requested and yet that is completely false. The amount he requested was not shipped to him, a lower amount was sent.

Rommel stated that he lacked sufficient fuel to move his tanks as he wanted to.

Are you so stupid as to believe that Rommel did not request enough fuel?

Don't answer that, I know how stupid you are.

Au contraire (I know-another language you don't speak). Germans didn't take over the port facilities until much later.

And given your reading comprehension, the depth of your disfunction reveals itself. I said what Rommel requested made it into theater, not that it made it to Rommel, hence the anecdote of Germans discovering thousands of gallons of fuel the Italian incompetence lost. Getting it from Tripoli to Benghazi and then onto the troops was the problem. Actually, even getting it out of Tripoli was the problem, because the Italians were as admirable in their logistics as they were in fighting the Greeks.

Maybe you should sound out the words so that you don't skip entire sentences, you scabrous cretin.


back pedal much??

You have revealed yourself to be a self absorbed asshole not worth my time.
 
2012-06-05 09:14:37 AM

Ricardo Klement: Gleeman: chuckufarlie: Gleeman: Ricardo Klement: That bombing is tactical or operational, not strategic, which is what i was referring to. And part of the reason Rommel was low on fuel is because of Italian logistical incompetence.

Yeah, about that:
Afrika Corps surrenders: 13 May 1943
Combined allied bombing campaign (ie, US & GB) starts: 4 March 1943
So you have about two months in which the allied strategic bombing campaign could have effected Rommel's fuel situation.

Germany and especially Japan had bitter experiences on how important fuel logistic is in warfare.


I think these guys might have something to say to the armchair generals in here who think D-Day was a walk in the park:
[i.imgur.com image 640x449]

Rommel's fuel supplies were bombed in the Med, it was not part of the strategic bombing campaign. It was the Desert Air Force sinking ships.

I was referring to the thread shiatter's OP:

Ricardo Klement:
Well, the Germans never really ran out of anything other than men. The bombing campaign's only real accomplishment was wiping out the Luftwaffe. It came close to collapsing the German rail net, accidentally, because rail yards were always the secondary targets. Had they been primary, the strategic campaign would have accomplished two things. Ball bearings? Fuel? Never really ran out. Even all the fuel Rommel ever requested made it to Tripoli.

The fuel didn't just magically appear in Africa, it was produced in refineries in Europe, which were the targets of strategic bombing.

Yes they were, and the problems had little to do with the refineries but with moving the fuel. Anything that was bombed, including refineries, was typically back up and running in a matter of days.

Feel free to read Speer's book for starters. He goes into detail about the effects of the bombing campaign and what reserves he had of what materiel. The fuel problems Germany experienced had a lot more to do with the inability to move what they had to where they needed it than a ...


so, was your daddy a Nazi that ran away to Argentina?
 
2012-06-05 09:23:23 AM

Gyrfalcon: Let's swap WWII-veteran grandfather stories!


My paternal grandfather served in the Army, European theater. Specifically, all he'd ever say was that he was at the battle of Anzio and he'd heap praise on the Navy for their bombardment. Otherwise he was always quiet on his service - he said it wasn't the kind of thing you tell a young man about.

He was a very good man, and I miss him greatly.
 
2012-06-05 09:25:59 AM

chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: Lol. Chuck doesn't even know that Libya was an Italian colony and therefore Tripoli's port facilities might just have been staffed with Italians.

You don't know something that rudimentary yet we're supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Son, if brains were gasoline you wouldn't have enough to power a pissant's go-cart around the inside of a Cheerio.

Except that the Germans were handing their own supplies in Libya. You say that it might just have been staffed by Italians - I assume that you are guessing at that. It was not a very strong statement and it turned out to be false.

According to you, Rommel got all of the fuel he requested and yet that is completely false. The amount he requested was not shipped to him, a lower amount was sent.

Rommel stated that he lacked sufficient fuel to move his tanks as he wanted to.

Are you so stupid as to believe that Rommel did not request enough fuel?

Don't answer that, I know how stupid you are.

Au contraire (I know-another language you don't speak). Germans didn't take over the port facilities until much later.

And given your reading comprehension, the depth of your disfunction reveals itself. I said what Rommel requested made it into theater, not that it made it to Rommel, hence the anecdote of Germans discovering thousands of gallons of fuel the Italian incompetence lost. Getting it from Tripoli to Benghazi and then onto the troops was the problem. Actually, even getting it out of Tripoli was the problem, because the Italians were as admirable in their logistics as they were in fighting the Greeks.

Maybe you should sound out the words so that you don't skip entire sentences, you scabrous cretin.

back pedal much??

You have revealed yourself to be a self absorbed asshole not worth my time.


Backpedal? Look above at the threadshiatter accusation. He even quotes my "OP" as having said it made it to Tripoli.

Still having trouble with reading, eh?
 
2012-06-05 09:27:36 AM

Ricardo Klement: Yes they were, and the problems had little to do with the refineries but with moving the fuel. Anything that was bombed, including refineries, was typically back up and running in a matter of days.

Feel free to read Speer's book for starters. He goes into detail about the effects of the bombing campaign and what reserves he had of what materiel. The fuel problems Germany experienced had a lot more to do with the inability to move what they had to where they needed it than a loss of refinery capacity.

I don't know why you consider my the thread-shiatter when I did not bring up the subject nor was it my Boobies in this thread. Nor was I the first to engage in the flinging of insults.


I was referring to you and chuckufarlie, but fair enough.

I haven't read the book you mentioned but have read several books on the strategic bombing campaign and the war in general. (My Grandfather was a mechanic in the USAAC which raised my interest)

Not sure where the author you talk about is getting his numbers from, and in any case transportation networks (ie, rail) was a primary/first alterenate target of the 8th.

Apparently all these German generals who lived through it were wrong, then:

Generaleutnant Adolf Galland, Chief of Fighters, GAF: "In my opinion, it was the Allied bombing of our oil industries that had the greatest effect on the German war potential. Even our supplies for training new airmen were severely curtailed--we had plenty of planes from the autumn of 1944 on, and there were enough pilots up to the end of that year, but lack of petrol didn't permit the expansion of proper training to the air force as a whole.

General Jahn, Commander in Lombardy: "The attacks on the German transport system, coordinated with the serious losses in the fuel industry, had a paralyzing effect not only on the industries attacked but on all other German industries as well."

Generalmajor Albrecht von Massow, A.O.C. Training, GAF: "The attack on German oil production opened in 1944 was the largest factor of all in reducing Germany's war potential."

General Feldmarschall Karl Gerd von Rundstedt, Commander-in-Chief in the West before German surrender: "Three factors defeated us in the West where I was in command. First, the unheard-of superiority of your air force, which made all movement in daytime impossible. Second, the lack of motor fuel oil and gas -- so that the Panzers and even the remaining Luftwaffe were unable to move. Third, the systematic destruction of all railway communications so that it was impossible to bring one single railroad train across the Rhine. This made impossible the reshuffling of troops and robbed us of all mobility. Our production was also greatly interfered with by the loss of Silesia and bombardments of Saxony, as well as by the loss of oil reserves in Romania."

Generalleutnant Karl Jacob Veith, A.O.C. Flak Training: "The Allied breakthrough would have been utterly impossible without strategic as well as tactical bombing. The destruction of the oil industry and the simultaneous dislocation of the German communication system were decisive."

Generaloberst von Vietinghoff, Supreme Commander in Southwest (Italy): "Insofar as it is possible to judge from Italy, it is generally recognized that Allied air attacks [on the aircraft and fuel industries] were extremely successful. This is especially true with reference to attacks on the fuel industry, which by the end of the war proved to be the decisive factor."

Field Marshal Erhard Milch from the summer of 1943: "The hydrogenation plants are our most vulnerable spots; with them stands and falls our entire ability to wage war. Not only will planes no longer fly, but tanks and submarines also will stop running if the hydrogenation plants should actually be attacked."
 
2012-06-05 09:48:53 AM

Ricardo Klement: chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: chuckufarlie: Ricardo Klement: Lol. Chuck doesn't even know that Libya was an Italian colony and therefore Tripoli's port facilities might just have been staffed with Italians.

You don't know something that rudimentary yet we're supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Son, if brains were gasoline you wouldn't have enough to power a pissant's go-cart around the inside of a Cheerio.

Except that the Germans were handing their own supplies in Libya. You say that it might just have been staffed by Italians - I assume that you are guessing at that. It was not a very strong statement and it turned out to be false.

According to you, Rommel got all of the fuel he requested and yet that is completely false. The amount he requested was not shipped to him, a lower amount was sent.

Rommel stated that he lacked sufficient fuel to move his tanks as he wanted to.

Are you so stupid as to believe that Rommel did not request enough fuel?

Don't answer that, I know how stupid you are.

Au contraire (I know-another language you don't speak). Germans didn't take over the port facilities until much later.

And given your reading comprehension, the depth of your disfunction reveals itself. I said what Rommel requested made it into theater, not that it made it to Rommel, hence the anecdote of Germans discovering thousands of gallons of fuel the Italian incompetence lost. Getting it from Tripoli to Benghazi and then onto the troops was the problem. Actually, even getting it out of Tripoli was the problem, because the Italians were as admirable in their logistics as they were in fighting the Greeks.

Maybe you should sound out the words so that you don't skip entire sentences, you scabrous cretin.

back pedal much??

You have revealed yourself to be a self absorbed asshole not worth my time.

Backpedal? Look above at the threadshiatter accusation. He even quotes my "OP" as having said it made it to Tripoli.

Still having trouble with readi ...


I repeat - was your daddy a Nazi that ran away to Argentina?
 
2012-06-05 10:18:20 AM
chuckufarlie:

Man you are an asshole, and you shiat all over this otherwise good thread
 
2012-06-05 10:29:05 AM

Leonard Washington: chuckufarlie:

Man you are an asshole, and you shiat all over this otherwise good thread


So very tired.

Subby
 
2012-06-05 05:48:57 PM

Animatronik: Yes, the Japanese carrier decks were littered with planes and bombs when the dive bombers hit.


No, they were not. Read Shattered Sword.

The Japanese did not arm or fuel on deck. The aircraft were below decks, which is what doomed them. Akagi took ONE 500 pound bomb hit, but it penetrated to the hangar deck and initiated an uncontrollable conflagration.

Had the planes been on the deck, Akagi would have absolutely survived the first American strike.
 
2012-06-05 05:53:28 PM

ha-ha-guy: positronica: One of the "What If" scenarioes I like to think about is how the Battle of Midway might have gone differently had Germany not halted construction of Graf Zeppelin and had instead been able to make her operational some time in 1941 or early 1942. The theory being that if Germany had a carrier like Graf Zeppelin in it's fleet, then the US would have tranferred a fleet carrier from the Pacific to the Atlantic in order to counter the percieved threat. Japan's fortunes in the pacific would have surely been different in such a scenario, at least in the short term.

Why would we transfer one of our fleet carriers to go counter some shiatty 1st Gen German carrier? One where the pilots didn't have a lot of training or any naval combat experience. The Brits had a bunch of carriers running around the Atlantic and Med, they would have been tasked to deal with the Zep.

Plus we had the Ranger running around the Atlantic.


And Wasp. At the time of Midway, she was making ferry runs to Malta. The loss of Lexington and Yorktown, coupled with the damage to Saratoga triggered her transfer to the Pacific - where she was promptly torpedoed and sunk by a Japanese sub.
 
2012-06-05 06:02:36 PM

Gleeman: Forgot to add:

It also helps if you have a working example of the opponent's aircraft available to test early in the war.

(At about 2:30 in the video I liked to in my previous post)


A nice, but meaningless acquisition.

By the time it was found, we had been fighting zeroes for 8 months. We were fully aware of their strengths and weaknesses.

By the time the Alaskan Zero had been repaired, flown, and analyzed the Hellcat was already entering service. All the capture did was verify what we already knew.
 
2012-06-06 12:37:12 AM

JustGetItRight: Animatronik: Yes, the Japanese carrier decks were littered with planes and bombs when the dive bombers hit.

No, they were not. Read Shattered Sword.

The Japanese did not arm or fuel on deck. The aircraft were below decks, which is what doomed them. Akagi took ONE 500 pound bomb hit, but it penetrated to the hangar deck and initiated an uncontrollable conflagration.

Had the planes been on the deck, Akagi would have absolutely survived the first American strike.


Yeah - most of what people know tend to be from popular narrations that were either gross oversimplifications or outright false.

For example: the Brits STILL insist that they sank the Bismark with gunnery when there's ample evidence that the Royal Navy gunnery did not, in fact, sink it. It's not good enough that they cause its sinking, the manner and details must match the narration or people get very uncomfortable.
 
2012-06-06 12:40:57 AM

JustGetItRight: Gleeman: Forgot to add:

It also helps if you have a working example of the opponent's aircraft available to test early in the war.

(At about 2:30 in the video I liked to in my previous post)

A nice, but meaningless acquisition.

By the time it was found, we had been fighting zeroes for 8 months. We were fully aware of their strengths and weaknesses.

By the time the Alaskan Zero had been repaired, flown, and analyzed the Hellcat was already entering service. All the capture did was verify what we already knew.


Have you actually seen the inside of the cockpit of a zero? It's like flying a tractor!
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report