British Troops Inferior?

Discussion in 'NW Europe' started by adamcotton, Nov 7, 2005.

  1. No.9

    No.9 Senior Member

    Politicians who deal with National conflicts and those who write about them with authority, cannot fail to be aware or to be made aware of the capabilities, potential and shortcomings of armed forces. It is not a requirement to have personally served, though Taylor was with the Political Warfare Executive (and the Home Guard), and Foot was SOE. Churchill, Hitler and Mussolini all saw combat service, while Roosevelt and Stalin did not.

    We've all learnt, ad nauseam, you don't like Taylor and possibly Foot, which actually does nothing to diminish their status, reputation or authority in military history. All this contributes nothing to the question posed in this thread which concerns the worth and accuracy of Simpson's sentiment, and my pertinent observation.

    Thank you for an illuminating reply angie, and if you would care to "get this", fair to say I've no great interest in your opinions, however limited or absurd.

    We're approaching the Panto season so I suggest any 'oh yes he is - oh no he isn't' is left to the theatre audiences who enjoy taking part in the like.

    No.9
     
  2. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (adamcotton @ Nov 10 2005, 03:46 AM) [post=41411]Jimbo - this may come as a surprise to you but, as a mature, intelligent adult, I do too have some innate understanding of human nature and its traits and weaknesses and really don't need those pointing out to me! I do not display undue reverence for "publication" and think, in over 80 posts, I have mentioned my own twice, possibly three times. I was simply making the point that the telling of history is a two-fold process of reporting established facts and interpreting them - the latter is a subjective process and therefore is always open to debate: the very same thing, in fact, you just said! Why must you always try to be clever?
    [/b]
    I think the very difficulty of finding the truth lies in the level of esteem we give "authorities", in this case historians. Thanks to the clueless input of these fantastic historians (choose your own) we have NO CLUE whatsoever how the war was won on the Western Front. NONE! They are using Eastern front philosophies to evaluate the war on the Western front. This is not only a travesty but it is a tremendous disservice to posterity. Therefore any undue praise for someone that propagates conventional wisdom or urban legend of the battle field may be interesting debate but it in no way brings you closer to the truth.

    Historians are clueless? Are you kidding me? Who are you to say that, Jim!?
    Sometimes the emperor may have new clothes, but most of the time he is simply naked. I purchased a book by the USAAF Ninth Air Force that evaluates tactical operations. It is not a “history” book but a retrospective of success and failures of tactical air and what solutions were found in the development and employment of this new phase of warfare. It was absolutely a “changing of the guards”. Historians tell me that Monty and Bradley's great feats on the beach is what caused the success of the invasion. They are not lying but they are misleading. This is not to say either of these generals or their men did anything but an exemplary job. It is saying that the premise of the effect is absurd. I personally get a lot less satisfaction out of saying I have read so and so than to debate a point on logical issues that are relevant to the thinking of men in war. I so often hear either directly or implicitly how unqualified I am compared to these people with their vast knowledge of war details to refute them.

    Who are the better historians?
    This debate seems to go on anytime there is a stark contrast in the opinions of historians quoted. This seems to happen a lot more than most realize. The problem, as I see it, is where do the perceived facts come from? People have biases and egos. This is more than a statement of the obvious to insult your intellegence as you thought I was doing, but rather is a strong point. If you interview people that witnessed a car wreck, often they will have similar accounts of what happened and who is at fault. More importantly, the two drivers will often have to diametrically opposed accounts. Their testimony is of only limited value. Just to glean the base facts. Angie sort of pointed this out in saying she does not usually respect the opinion of generals. Although some of what she is saying is correct, I objected to the arbitrary distinctions of rank. It wasn’t a nit-pick but rather an example of placing esteem on one person versus another (NCO friend of hers in an example). To me the best historians were not those that got their info off of self-evaluations of interviewing people whose reputations are derived from what they testify but rather those without a dog in the fight, to determine an objective outcome of the probe for facts. This is not where most historians get their info.

    Consider the sources.
    There are two sources of info to evaluate the war on the Western front. The German soldiers, and the militaries self-review of operations. Objectivity and candor will come out of these sources much easier than those that stand to gain from any fame of the issue.

    What about the D-Day beaches, Jim, did you have a point?
    The facts of the D-Day beaches to me seems to be a microcosm of what happened on the Western front. You won’t find much of it in the history books. What you do know is that if the German armor had been at the beaches at D-Day sapper wouldn’t be here to share his stories. Not probably, but just not here. No matter how brave the soldier, he cannot overcome a shell exploding on top of him. That’s not a knock, it’s a simple statement of fact.

    The German armor was not on the beach because they reacted too slow, read the historians Jim!.
    “Pants”! (I like that expression, I wish one of you Brits would tell me what it means). The armor from the 21st Panzer and the “crack” Panzer Lehr were sent when notification was received of a major invasion. As I have stated before the History Channel conducted interviews and quotes and letters captured from German soldiers in 21st who said they were stopped by the rubble in Caen and going around they got decimated by Tactical Air. In this book of the retrospective of the Ninth Air Force, they evaluated the captured documents of Gen.Lt. Fritz Bayerlein who was over Panzer Lehr Division. According to him, his division was twelve hours away and could have easily gotten to the beaches and finished off the invasion. Historians would tell you “Monty got them” or “Bradley got them” or that the “Fuhrer held them up” or some other lame reasoning that has nothing whatsoever to do with fact. According to Bayerlein, the reason his 12 hour trip to "easily slaughter" all the D-Day troops on the beaches hit a snag,...US Ninth Tactical Air.

    Yes Jim, your beloved Jabos were annoying but nothing the Germans couldn’t handle…
    This is what a historian would probably respond with to my indictment. But the facts are otherwise and why historians are often a bigger source of confusion than clarity. According to “Fritz” his division was so incredibly plagued by these fighter/bombers that it took them 80 hours to get to the area and contact the enemy and when they finally did, they had only 50% strength left. 50%? 80 hours? Why have the historians not pointed this out? Half of a major crack panzer group was decimated in 3 1/3 days? From air planes alone? This is a trivial detail as to how it pertains to D-Day that doesn't bear mentioning by any of them I have read? And I am supposed to revere these people because they published and I havent? Of all the books by historians you have read, how many said that the Allied armies were saved from decimation by tactical air and that without it there would be no army in Normandy on June 7, just five empty beaches with slaughtered bodies and destroyed armor. Can you imagine what a Panzer division would do to a beach crawling with soldiers and Shermans so congested they couldn't even get off? NO historians offer this reasoning that is as fundamental as the law of gravity! Why? Because they love their tank fantasies, they love their legendary ground commanders, they love the idea of a massive Sherman slugging it out with Tigers and Panthers and annihilating them more than they love finding the real facts. Folks this is not minutia.

    Enter Falaise
    Many debates about the greatness of the Falaise pincer movement causing the surrender of an entire army are detailed by historian after historian. How the armies crushed them. Patton and Monty scrap for credit for decimating this large army of much more capable armor. But again, fact deviates from the battlefield by urban legend, once again. According to Rommel, Von Kludge could have easily coordinated a break out and did attempt to, even after encirclement. There was only one snag. (wanna guess?) That’s right, Jabos! The fighter bombers decimated his every movement. It was a slaughter ground. They could not move. Their lack of movement then made them vulnerable to artillery. This necessitated a surrender. No, it was not Patton’s great genius that stopped those heavy tigers from killing all the tanks thinly surrounding this pocket and breaking out. It was the inability to move them without instantly losing them. Do historians tell you this? By no means. It is was the fear of the great Monty or the great Patton that caused these Tigers and Panthers to fall so easily to the 75mm guns of the Shermans that bounce off of them like a rubber ball on a concrete wall. Please….

    Patton, man was he fast!
    Now that we have established the prowess of a Sherman over a Tiger and a Panther, even in the presence of German artillery, was can now try to figure out how Patton was able to not only maintain this “superiority” over his weakly armed foe, but was also able to do it running the Shermans wide open which could outrun the heavier German tanks. How? More great strategy oh wise historian? No…you guess it. It was the men that worked the tactical air strips behind these troops that allowed them to move at flank speed. The book talks about the success of moving the landing mat airfields such that one of Quesada’s HQs was moved 5 times in one month. All of this why protecting the advancing armor.

    Less is more
    In another part of the book, I read how the captured reports of the German commanders were complaining about the inability to use their heavy artillery with the Americans well within range of it. A historian my claim there was no ammo or that the arty was not there. Dead wrong (according to the German commanders). You want to guess again? Boy, you are getting good! That’s right, they were afraid of giving away their positions to the Jabos. American and probably British experiences scads less artillery than they could have. You need only look at the shells of men that sapper describes surrendering after arty barrages to determine if this is a trivial aspect of the Western front. So is missing this major of a point a minor thing for the vaunted historians? Well they did get the fact the battles were in Europe so give them some credit.

    Where are the Stukas?
    I don’t think anyone would prefer a JU-87 over a Jug or a Typhoon, but if you are being dived on by them you probably wouldn’t care about the differences. Imagine if you will hundreds of Stukas patrolling overhead with air supremacy. They only thing they need is your position. If they had your position, you had their bombs. Soldiers would have been strafe with the same merciless destruction that the Germans were. Now imagine the Germans having the numbers in of these tactical planes and being able to quickly refuel and rearm them. What affect would that have had. Would we have won? Are you kidding me? What kind of war would it have been? Would we have sapper here to talk to? If you are thinking Allied losses along the lines of a Stalingrad or Leningrad kind of war, you might be right. Do the historians play it that way? No, they say the Germans on the Eastern front were more skilled and so where the Russians and there was a second class war going on in the West. “Pants!” (there I go again). They want me to believe that the Germans were a superior force that simply got overworked. You see it all the time by these “experts”. Do they know anything at all? A Tiger can duke it out with a T-34 but not with a Sherman? “Pants again!” They didn’t have air superiority in Russia like the Allies did. Tactical became strategy in that rather than seeking a hand-to-hand slug it out war. How did the Allies drive the mighty German army back into Germany in less than a year? Great generals? “Pant’s a third time!”. It was that we discovered tactical air and the game was over even before it started.

    What makes you so sure, Jim, much more expert people than you have analysed it?
    That's not saying a lot. You don't need to be an expert. You just need to be willing to look outside the box and realize there is always some stone not left untunrned. Today we have the exact same situation that began in WWII with the allies. Tactical air. Nothing has changed. It was the arrival of modern war. Sure planes are now A10s (Thunderbolt IIs) and Apaches but the affect is equally as devastating to field armor, to supply, to communications. An exploding tank kills it crew members just as affectively today as it did in the 40s. The modern gulf wars are nothing more than a continuation of US Ninth Air TAC and RAF 2nd TAC. Only the names and the equipment have changed. Armor still has no way to deal with air power it still can't run from it. It is still mercilessly decimated by tactical air assaults to the point soldiers surrender to the little remote UAVs. What part of this didn’t the historians get?

    What does this say about the soldier?
    Nothing at all. He was as good as he needed to be. He was as brave as he needed to be. He cannot hold his molecules together when bombs are dropped on top him. You need boots on the ground. You need armor on the ground. You need artillery on the ground. You need it all. Tactical air cannot do it alone. But, what they can do is win it for you so that the success of the ground mission is ensured.

    Where does this say about the historian, is he useless?
    Not completely. They do relay some facts. But it is intermixed in a lot of crap that is traditional and a result of personal conclusions. The fact that they are clueless to why the Allies beat the much more powerful German armies like a “red-headed retarded stepchild” on the Western front with Shermans and cultures of men that were not professional soldiers but simple citizens forced into uniforms by neccessity, escapes them. Why would we then put a reverence beyond what they really deserve? Why would we think for an instant that they are bias-free? Knowing a lot of bogus information does not qualify one better as an expert than those that only know a few facts. The class system needs to go. If you are an intellectual, there is no place for pride and vanity. If you have a brain and you can read, you have the ability to see something others have not, no matter how lofty they deem themselves.

    Folks, there is something rotten in Denmark. (and Belgium, and France, and Germany, and Holland, etc).

    Adam, if you like to write about airplanes and like to report on WWII, why aren't you getting this message out? Do you need approval from the history cognoscenti before you will publish your opinion or are you willing to go against the tide of popular belief and urban legend? All anyone has ever heard about WWII aircraft to any degree of effectiveness is Mustang, Mustang, Mustang, or Spitfire, Spitfire, Spitfire. This is why most people don’t know that the fastest and one of if not the most dominant, prop fighter in WWII was a Jug. “A Jug, are you kidding me? No historian has ever remarked about a Jug. The are just heavy lumbering bombers that were good for surviving a crash, but they really didn’t do much!”. That’s about the extent of their perceptions. I have found this spirit in some every since I first started posting here. I thought it was a bias at first because it was an American airplane, then a bias because it was not pretty. But it is something quite different indeed. The tactical pilots so critical to the Allied victory WWII deserve their legacy as well and it, in my opinion has been robbed from them, by a conspiracy of ignorance by these "brilliant" historians.

    I shall now turn my soap box over to anyone else who wishes to step up and comment...
     
  3. No.9

    No.9 Senior Member

    To Paul Reed, a Moderator

    I am not one for making "threats", but if I did I think they would be clear and called for.

    Someone elects to tell me to "Get rid of the bloody* ultra proud nationalism!" and soldiers are "products of their country .. politically, economically and spiritually" and then to "Wise up", I have the right of reply.

    As I said, this country was shaped by the sacrifices of its generations for which legacy they and their descendants can be justly proud. If anyone enjoying the fruits of those sacrifices thinks anyone could have achieved them and no due observance should be paid to those who did achieve them, then one of those benefits won is that they are free to leave this country and go somewhere where they can indulge their beliefs in company.

    *And I'd appreciate if people didn't swear on this site!

    No.9
     
  4. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Nov 10 2005, 09:42 PM) [post=41443][“Pants”! (I like that expression, I wish one of you Brits would tell me what it means).
    [/b]


    images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif Don't worry it isn't too bad. I don't want to bore the Brits or lead the discussion down a new side turning, so I will PM you and try to explain.
     
  5. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    Jimbo - were only we all so gifted with your insight! How utterly useless we all are not to see things as clearly as you. Truly, we all are incapable of "thinking outside the box" and seeing history with the clarity and perception of your good self.

    Might I make a suggestion, Jimbo old boy? As this is obviously something close to your heart, why don't you write a book (most of your posts are approaching the length of a book anyway!) setting the record of the whole of the Second world War straight. Forget AJP Taylor and all the legions of historians from generations gone by - they simply didn't have your gift for sifting fact from fiction and appreciating the true causes and significance of facts. You could entitle it: "The Second World War According to Jimbo: all you ever wanted to know but couldn't find anyone to ask!". Let us know when it's out so we can all go out and buy it and clear all that meaningless dross from our bookshelves that we've hitherto deluded ourselves consitutes serious history.

    You are such a blast to argue with!!! images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif
     
  6. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (adamcotton @ Nov 11 2005, 10:51 AM) [post=41466]Jimbo - were only we all so gifted with your insight! How utterly useless we all are not to see things as clearly as you. Truly, we all are incapable of "thinking outside the box" and seeing history with the clarity and perception of your good self.

    Might I make a suggestion, Jimbo old boy? As this is obviously something close to your heart, why don't you write a book (most of your posts are approaching the length of a book anyway!) setting the record of the whole of the Second world War straight. Forget AJP Taylor and all the legions of historians from generations gone by - they simply didn't have your gift for sifting fact from fiction and appreciating the true causes and significance of facts. You could entitle it: "The Second World War According to Jimbo: all you ever wanted to know but couldn't find anyone to ask!". Let us know when it's out so we can all go out and buy it and clear all that meaningless dross from our bookshelves that we've hitherto deluded ourselves consitutes serious history.

    You are such a blast to argue with!!! images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif
    [/b]
    Well, how patronizing. Many thanks!

    If you "historians" (I did remove my hat and put it over my heart when I said that) are capable of thinking outside the box and seeing with the clarity and perception of a mere mortal like me, then why not do it once or twice just to break the monotony? An original thought would not “completely” ruin a WWII history book, though it would certainly discredit it.

    I am too sloppy to write a book. If I did, and there were an “I not dotted” or a “T not crossed”, I would have "real" historians coming at me like the Pharisees before Pilot. I am acutely aware of historians' ability to strain at gnats and swallow camels, but why should I cast my pearls before swine?

    I understand you are mocking the very idea of someone like me seeing something that a historian (self proclaimed or not) never has, but I have to say Adam, conspicuous by its absence is your "factual" refutation of my "unsanctioned" epiphany. :huh:
     
  7. wasman

    wasman Member

    Any chance of getting back on subject !!!
     
  8. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (wasman @ Nov 11 2005, 03:15 PM) [post=41476]Any chance of getting back on subject !!!
    [/b]
    Sorry, I got carried away. My bad, wasman.
     
  9. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    <span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:100%"><span style="color:#006600">As one of the moderating team, I am making a request for moderation here and for everyone to observe the customary standards of politeness to each other.

    Now, does anyone have more to say on the topic ?</span></span>
     
  10. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    I have recently been accused, by certain of the moderators, of several "immoderate" postings, which - given the immoderation of their own recent postings - I find a tad ironic! The privillege of rank, I suppose....

    Well, I have no desire to rude or offensive to anyone, but feel that if someone persistently posts loded with sarcasm and thinly veiled insult, I have the right to reply in kind. Having said that, once i have made my point, I promise I will shut up about it and stick strictly to the topic in future (and hope others will do likewise).

    First off, Jimbo, let's start with a definition of the word "Historian". Go to www.dictionary.com and you will find it defined thus:
    3 entries found for historian.
    his·to·ri·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-stôr-n, -str-, -str-)
    n.
    A writer, student, or scholar of history.
    One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler

    Well, as far as I can tell, when I wrote my 10,000 word, two-part article for Aeroplane Magazine, on W/Cdr Jack Charles, entitled "The King's Messenger", I was "writing" or "compiling" a "chronological record of events", and since the pre-requisite to that process was the five years of research I undertook, I think I can also reasonably state that I am a "student" of history......

    I can also state, I think, that my article was original, in the sense it told a hitherto largely unknown story. It was not, however, controversial, not because i shy away from controversial subject matter, but simply because there was no controversy to be had from the story. It srikes me that when you go on about "an original thought" occassionally finding its way into history books, etc, what you really want is controversy, and moreover controversy for its own sake. But neither controversy nor originality for its own sake necessarily does anything to propogate the truth; I believe Adolf Hiter was both original and controversial in his book Mein Kampf - original in his version of history, and controversial among those who refuted or debated it! But did that make it "true"? Only the deluded would think so.....

    I do like to write about aeroplanes, Jimbo, and as I am also a pilot believe I can do so with some authority - like your good self. The reason I haven't "got the message out" in my writings is because I don't agree with you on the message to be got out!!! I prefer to formulate my own opinions and, if at day's end, those opinions concur with those of the vast majority knowledgable on ithe field, then that in no way invalidates it nor makes me incapable of an original thought! It might, in fact, rather suggest that i arrived at the same conclusions for the same very real and verifiable reasons. Or in other words, if historians and writers, etc, say the same things, it may be because what they have said over the years has borne up to analysis and proven itself to be truth.....
     
  11. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Sounds good, Adam.
     
  12. Stephen

    Stephen Member

    In May 1940 the British army faced the main mass of the German army but it would not encounter large German army formations again till June 1944, it never faced more than a small part of the German army in the intervening years. About a third of the German army was involved in Normandy and the British shared the fighting against them with the Americans. The British army faced large German formations in May 1940 and with the Americans for the 11 month campaign in North West Europe a total of 1 year. The N/W Europe campaign was waged with allied superiority in all areas.

    If my information is correct from June 1940 till early summer 1942 only 4 British divisions fought the Germans the rest were Empire/Commonwealth troops. In North Africa when the British were able to get the Germans into a WW1 type battle they won because they had a large superiority in men and material. Superiority in men and material was assured from this time on and Enigma decodes were available but one is ofton struck by the slowness with which the British army sometimes acted a good example of this is what happened after the landings in Southern Italy.

    The poor quality and design of some British army equipment especialy tanks is amazing. Officer training which had held back men from the wrong social background was changed in 1943. Tactics were often very straightforward with British tanks in North Africa reguarly charging straight onto anti tank guns and as late as June 1944 Germans would be astonished to see British infantry advancing line abreast with fixed bayonet.

    Hitler wrote this to Mussolini on the 25th of May 1940. "The British soldier has retained the characteristics which he had in WW1. Very brave and tenacious in defence, unskilful in attack, wretchedly commanded. Weapons and equipment are of the highest order, but the overall organisation is bad".
     
  13. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    Stephen, I see that the above post is your first on the forum.

    First of all, welcome. Second, I think what you wrote is spot on. Excellent post.
     
  14. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    Agreed Angie, well summed up Stephen. Welcome to the forum.
     
  15. Glosters

    Glosters Member

    In 1940 the BEF didn't stand a chance. Not because of the fighting spirit/qualities of the troops, but because the German planning succeeded in outmanoeuvering the BEF and putting them in an impossible position. When the German forces came up against the British rearguard they did not "outfight" them. Man for man the British soldier was as good as a German soldier. But whereas the Germans had been building up a modern well-trained and very large army, the British Army was (as always) comparitively small. We have always relied on a small very professional army to buy time while we raise/conscript a citizens army in time of war. The advantage that Germany had was they had started the process much earlier than we did. By the end of the war the formation and record of many British units proved the fighting qualities of the British citizen-soldiers; just think of the Paras, Commandos, SAS etc. Simpson's theory sounds pretty poorly thought out.

    That is my reading of the situation.
    Steve
     
  16. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (Glosters @ Nov 14 2005, 05:56 PM) [post=41542]the British Army was (as always) comparitively small. [/b]

    The BEF in May and June 1940 was actually bigger by some way than 2nd Army in 1944/45 in terms of numbers, but nowhere near so well equipped.
     
  17. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Welcome to the forum Stephen.
     
  18. Glosters

    Glosters Member

    (angie999 @ Nov 14 2005, 06:40 PM) [post=41543](Glosters @ Nov 14 2005, 05:56 PM) [post=41542]the British Army was (as always) comparitively small. [/b]

    The BEF in May and June 1940 was actually bigger by some way than 2nd Army in 1944/45 in terms of numbers, but nowhere near so well equipped.
    [/b]

    I meant small compared to the German Army. Another factor to consider is that the Germans were equipped and trained for war in Europe and on an industrial scale. The British Army was largely trained and equipped for garrison duty and campaigns around the British Empire. We had a lot of catching-up to do in 1940.

    Steve
     
  19. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    That assertion that the British were not good fighters is extremely annoying. The British Tommy gave us an Empire...He fought in WW1 with tenacity when they were mown down in their thousands. In WW2 they fought all over the world from the Far East to Europe. I listen to the tripe that’s written here with despair. The German equipment was always better than ours. Far and away better. Ask any Veteran about the 88mm high velocity gun. Or the Spandau that would cut a man in half with its rate of fire.

    Where we had the crap Sten, they had the Schmieser (Spelling) there was no comparison. Our tank men knew every tank they had was vastly inferior to the German equivalent. They called the Sherman’s “Ronson Lighters” (Light first time every time) The Germans called our tanks “Tommy cookers” with good reason they would burst into flames if you looked at them! Their mines and anti-personal mines were superb for the job they were made for. Everything he had was better than ours. Sadly!
    All around the world our men fought. Given equality of arms, our men are the best in the world bar none.
    I have seen the British Infantry man taking on the fanatics of the SS and beating the living daylights out of them. And I can tell you they did not like it!

    I have witnessed scenes of great courage in the face of drenching fire. Where our men drove forward with unflinching and implacable determination. I have seen Sappers walk out on to a bridge in enemy hands, drive him off with Sten fire, and remove the explosives before they could blow it.

    I have also seen in Lebisly wood where the German and the British had fought it out hand to hand with their bodies intermingled, Anyone that had taken part in “The Bloodiest Square Mile In Normandy” would never level that accusation against the British.
    Courage? In battle? What the hell does Simpson know about it? You tell that to the East York’s or the South Lancs. Regiments, The Suffolk’s. The RUR, the KOSBs.
    Lacking courage and fight? Utter drivel, hardly worth an answer. They were, and still remain for me the most courageous fighters in the world. bar none. When you see men prepared to give their lives as I have. Then this accusation is a deadly insult to all our great regiments.

    The German army was good, of that there is no doubt, But there was a great deal of propaganda, take for instances the Countries he invaded in eastern Europe, to be quite honest the were not even opposed unless you take the Polish cavalry? Wherever he invaded there was precious little to fight him. Even in Russia they were totally unprepared to fight. Denmark Norway and many other countries they just walked in without opposition. All this built up a reputation on invincibility…He was also very good at killing innocent women and children.
    I have seen our men beat the daylights out of that invincible and unbeatable army.
    Sapper
     
  20. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    Some valid points being made here - and may I also welcome you to the forum Stephen.

    It is worth remembering though that, in 1940, the Wermacht was still largely reliant on horses for transportation of men and field guns - it was not the mechanized killing machine it later became, and did not possess the quanity or quality of tanks it enjoyed later in the war. Those early Panzers it did possess were, for the most part, small, slow, and underarmed....
     

Share This Page