The Jugs didn't always get the best of the Germans...

Discussion in 'General' started by jimbotosome, Mar 16, 2006.

  1. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    :huh: My goodness! So you really do believe that? I had assumed there was a hint of Irony in these outlandish claims.. You're not just winding people up?. So when you referred to the Eastern Front as "a relatively meaningless tie up of German troops." (Sweden thread) then that's truly what you think?

    Lol, thanks for reminding us that other gem Poop. Remember we're dealing with a bloke who doesnt even know what happened during 1861-1865 in his own country :D (Political Correctness thread).
     
  2. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Neither does my own mother, so you're not alone here.
    And i was being prejudiced about the barn comment, we all know the Yanks couldn't even find the barn...
    ;)
    We can't?
     
  3. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    :huh: My goodness! So you really do believe that? I had assumed there was a hint of Irony in these outlandish claims.. You're not just winding people up?. So when you referred to the Eastern Front as "a relatively meaningless tie up of German troops." (Sweden thread) then that's truly what you think?
    Absolutely. Its a fact. At what point did you ever think a Sherman could dominate a Tiger? That's the genius it takes to believe otherwise. You hear tankers and they say the Sherman was a death machine that couldn't harm a fly. But you hear ground-fans like yourself they say the opposite that Shermans terrified the Tigers and Panthers and chased them in a effeminate fleeing retreat with their awesome capabilities. I have a US Tank analysis book. Their conclusion was that the Sherman sucked really bad against armor but was really good at killing men when the German armor was knocked out. The only two major sources of Germany heavy armor destruction was artillery and air power. The US Air Force credits the Jug alone for destroying over 160,000 combat vehicles of all types. That’s even that significant if you consider that the P-38 and P-51s were used as fighter bombers and strafed on return trips escorting bombers, and the fact that most a significant portion of destruction would come from heavies, mediums, light bombers and night fighters from all three US air forces. Then there was RAF 2nD TAC. They were anything but insignificant in the tactical role. Imagine how many vehicles, the Typhoons, Tempests, Mosquitoes and Spitfires they destroyed along with patrols of the Bomber Command missions and fighter escorts search out targets of opportunity. This is just the problem. It’s not a difficult conclusion. The really strange thing is why would anyone have gotten the idea that the Air Forces didn’t carry the day. If the blind lead the blind…


    The Falaise gap where the German army was wiped out, the USAAF tactical air estimates are that 60-80% of all equipment was taken out by tactical air. The destruction in the troops in and exiting the bulge was very similar. But then again, you have eyes and a brain. Look at the pictures. The tanks are friggen twisted in two! Have you never stopped and wondered “man, it is just not possible for a tank round to do that to a tank”. So, no it’s not winding people up, it might have that result as many people do get offended at someone thinking out of the box. I just don’t mind pointing out that the Emperor’s not only naked, but he keeps stepping on his pecker. It doesn’t hurt for people to think for themselves. They don’t permission from some WWII historians guild.

    Don't get me wrong, Russia was useful at tying up the German tanks by running scads and scads of men and armor at them hoping to exhaust their ammo supply. The Americans chose to destroy their supply from the air. This saved a lot of Russian soldiers. Russia was good at getting massive amounts of men killed in holding the Germans in the middle of their country for a year. They were almost as good at getting their soldiers killed by incompetence as they were killing their own citizens themselves. They didn't even need enemy help for that. They got at least 9 million soldiers killed through their tremendous military incompetence. I have read it was more than that and that the got even more captured.

    There are five major facts that kept the grossly incompetent Russians from “Deutche spreche”, none of which had a single thing to do with their competence:

    1) General Winter - Stopped the Germans cold (pun intended). The -44C temperatures caused most of their tank and artillery barrels to crack and their engines and guns grease solidify, and their bodies to die for simply laying on the ground. Ill-suited clothing for the German soldier.

    2) Lend Lease. If it were not for the US Lend Lease which the Russians never did nor intended to pay back, they would not even have the incompetent air force they had and would have starved to death. The Germans quickly moved all the slow and weak aircraft to the Russian front where they were not obsolete. Fighters were moved west to desperately try to stop the country from being flattened. The Germans learned from the BofB not to put Stukas, bombers, or outdated planes against Allied air forces. On the eastern front, the Germans had pilots with 2 and 3 hundred kills. The Russian air force was a joke.

    3) The Allies destroyed the Luftwaffe so the Luftwaffe didn’t do to the Russians what the Allies' air forces did to the German army western front.

    4) Long supply lines of the Germans and the fact that Allies erased their supply by bombing their industries back into the Stone Age.

    5) Low density German resistance on the Eastern front. If you consider that the Western Front was 600 miles long and the Eastern Front was 2500 miles long, that’s a little over a 4:1 difference in the front. In addition, there were only about twice the divisions in the Eastern front (though it is hard to determine exactly since they kept sending divisions to the West to replace them). So the Western front was approximately twice in density than the Eastern Front. So, in approximately one year, the German army had flown across Russia like they were not even there.

    So the Russians were anything but a tactical army. The biggest problem the Germans had was killing so many Russian that are running at their guns. Killing at a rate of 11:1 was very unnerving to them. The Russian knew nothing about warfare and survived on attrition and weather and begging other nations for food and equipment that would have been better used on the Western front. You cannot compare untrained conscripts to trained soldiers who are led by generals that were not executed by their leader. The Russians were pathetic.
     
  4. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    You won't win a war by airpower alone. Never.
    Airpower is a big factor, there is no doubt about that.
    But you need men on the ground.
    Look at the war in Iraq now.
     
  5. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Don't get me wrong, Russia was useful at tying up the German tanks by running scads and scads of men and armor at them hoping to exhaust their ammo supply. The Americans chose to destroy their supply from the air. This saved a lot of Russian soldiers. Russia was good at getting massive amounts of men killed in holding the Germans in the middle of their country for a year. They were almost as good at getting their soldiers killed by incompetence as they were killing their own citizens themselves. They didn't even need enemy help for that. They got at least 9 million soldiers killed through their tremendous military incompetence. I have read it was more than that and that the got even more captured.

    There are five major facts that kept the grossly incompetent Russians from “Deutche spreche”, none of which had a single thing to do with their competence:

    1) General Winter - Stopped the Germans cold (pun intended). The -44C temperatures caused most of their tank and artillery barrels to crack and their engines and guns grease solidify, and their bodies to die for simply laying on the ground. Ill-suited clothing for the German soldier.

    2) Lend Lease. If it were not for the US Lend Lease which the Russians never did nor intended to pay back, they would not even have the incompetent air force they had and would have starved to death. The Germans quickly moved all the slow and weak aircraft to the Russian front where they were not obsolete. Fighters were moved west to desperately try to stop the country from being flattened. The Germans learned from the BofB not to put Stukas, bombers, or outdated planes against Allied air forces. On the eastern front, the Germans had pilots with 2 and 3 hundred kills. The Russian air force was a joke.

    3) The Allies destroyed the Luftwaffe so the Luftwaffe didn’t do to the Russians what the Allies' air forces did to the German army western front.

    4) Long supply lines of the Germans and the fact that Allies erased their supply by bombing their industries back into the Stone Age.

    5) Low density German resistance on the Eastern front. If you consider that the Western Front was 600 miles long and the Eastern Front was 2500 miles long, that’s a little over a 4:1 difference in the front. In addition, there were only about twice the divisions in the Eastern front (though it is hard to determine exactly since they kept sending divisions to the West to replace them). So the Western front was approximately twice in density than the Eastern Front. So, in approximately one year, the German army had flown across Russia like they were not even there.

    So the Russians were anything but a tactical army. The biggest problem the Germans had was killing so many Russian that are running at their guns. Killing at a rate of 11:1 was very unnerving to them. The Russian knew nothing about warfare and survived on attrition and weather and begging other nations for food and equipment that would have been better used on the Western front. You cannot compare untrained conscripts to trained soldiers who are led by generals that were not executed by their leader. The Russians were pathetic.

    Not as pathetic though as our local village idiot who kept spewing his ignorancy about the Eastern front. Guess what kind of uneducated troll still ignore the fact that prior to November 1941, the OstHeer had suffered 700,000 losses.
     
  6. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    you hear ground-fans like yourself they say the opposite that Shermans terrified the Tigers and Panthers and chased them in a effeminate fleeing retreat with their awesome capabilities.

    Always start your argument with a bizzare statement eh?
    o_O I've never ever heard anyone say that?? Yes i'm a Tank fan but purely as machines, I (and i don't think anyone else. at all. ever) would say "The War could have been won purely with tanks... "Planes, Navies Infantry, Allies, smallarms, flamethrowers, Absolutely everything else was unnecesary except a couple of hundred good old tanks" But that really is your view when it comes to Aeroplanes??
    you are winding us up aren't you?

    As for the 'grossly incompetent' Russians, yep, they screwed it up for the first year but they adapted to the german attack more quickly and more effectively than any other opposition Hitler had to face, The food support sent to Russia was as valuable to the Western allies as anything spent on local men or materiel, and as for the equipment sent, on the whole the Soviets regarded it as inferior to their own kit and disgarded it as soon as locally produced gear was available. It seems to be accepted that about 70% of German Casualties occured In the East, the Bundesarchiv-militararchiv lists c.1.8 Million German Army dead for all theatres up untill Jan 45, Work it out. You've got a bit of a perception of the Soviets as 'untermensch' going on there mate, don't forget The man himself burned at the feet of 'Untermensch' soldiers who had utterly devastated his Armies and territories. (and at the same time as recovering from utter defeat they came up with the T34,Js2 etc. now Those are tanks!).
    Why did the average German squaddie fear the Eastern front so much then? Was it fear of boredom in being involved in such a "relatively meaningless tie-up"?? I guess it was the long tedious hours of playing Skat that worried him more than the constant harrasment by a numerically superior enemy who had survived absolutely everything that had been thrown at them, been bought to their very knees but still survived militarily, recovered, and fought back with rapidly improving tactical and strategic sense?

    o_O Surely it's puzzling to you that no-one can ever agree with your assertions on anything other than the mechanical properties of Aeroplanes?
    Can you really not concede that the Second war (and any other war) requires a full 'combined' arms approach???, Everyone does their bit and everything links at a variety of different levels in order to obtain a succesful outcome, I have trouble understanding how Naval power works but i fully appreciate that it's a significant factor, I don't just dismiss it because i don't understand it.
    Come on, admit it. You are winding us up aren't you?
    I really really hope you are winding us up?
    Aren't you?
    :huh:
     
  7. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    Dudes, go away for a couple of days to calm down, and then come back and argue this out.
    As to the Yanks finding the barn, foget it dude.
    A little story from the Afghanistan war. An entire regiment of American marines (with armour) were pinned down in a valley by the Taleban, and they couldn't get out. So they sent out a Mayday message on their radio, which was picked up by the nearest help, a 4-man SAS patrol. The SAS wandered up a mountain and down again in a couple of hours, took up their postions amongst the rocks, and proceeded to shoot the living crap out of the Taleban, therefore saving a whole armoured patrol. The 4-man patrol then wandered back up the mountain and disappeared again on their way. a regiment saved by 4-men. Shows quality over quantity every time, yes?
    I got his first hand from one of the RAF air crew who got the story from the SAS men involved.
    Kitty
    :D
     
  8. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Dudes, go away for a couple of days to calm down, and then come back and argue this out.
    No mate. Calm and collected and waiting for a punchline.
    He's got to be winding us up....
     
  9. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    Dudes, go away for a couple of days to calm down, and then come back and argue this out.
    As to the Yanks finding the barn, foget it dude.
    A little story from the Afghanistan war. An entire regiment of American marines (with armour) were pinned down in a valley by the Taleban, and they couldn't get out. So they sent out a Mayday message on their radio, which was picked up by the nearest help, a 4-man SAS patrol. The SAS wandered up a mountain and down again in a couple of hours, took up their postions amongst the rocks, and proceeded to shoot the living crap out of the Taleban, therefore saving a whole armoured patrol. The 4-man patrol then wandered back up the mountain and disappeared again on their way. a regiment saved by 4-men. Shows quality over quantity every time, yes?
    I got his first hand from one of the RAF air crew who got the story from the SAS men involved.
    Kitty
    :D

    Impressive. Quality. British Special Forces, the best in the world.:cool:
     
  10. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Dudes, go away for a couple of days to calm down, and then come back and argue this out.
    Kitty


    I think other posters have been trying for years now to debate with the village idiot. So far, he s still spamming the same crapola stuff. Guess why he's been chased away from the AHF.
     
  11. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Dudes, go away for a couple of days to calm down, and then come back and argue this out.

    I'm perfectly calm. So going away for any amount of time isn't going to effect my views in the least.

    Jimbo may be an enthusiast, you can't take that away from him. But he has made some claims that are innaccurate. And that's putting it very politely.

    He has stated the case for the effectivness of tactical air strikes and stated that they destroyed vast ammounts of the enemy. In fact he has stated that they destroyed whole units making then ineffective and all that without the requirement of ground force intervention. To contradict this view, he started this thread as a 'funny story', which I think it would have been if it didn't show the flaws in tactical air power.

    Let us look at our hero on the motorcycle, said to be riding at speed along a road in France. The speed he would be travelling would not be classed as high speed by the standards of today. Both the performance of the period motorcycles and the standards of the wartime roads would have prevented this. He would also have been restricted to remaining on the road as riding cross country would have severly slowed down his speed. The disadvantage to this was that his direction was predictable.

    This meant that he was missed by the Jugs 48 times. By miss, I don't mean that he wasn't actually 'hit', but that he was missed by enough for him to be outside the blast zone. I don't know if you've ever seen 500lbs of explosive go up? But on Dems ranges the safety area is out to 1000m and I'm sure that the blast itself (ignoring shrapnel) would knock a man off his bike at 50m or more. So even being generous they had to miss by over 50m 48 times.

    As for the guns? the speed of the bike shouldn't have been a problem as vehicles on a road are straffed in or against the line of travel. Not to hit a target on a road with all that ammunition after missing it with all those bombs is shameful. After all, it's ground attack, it's their bread and butter, it's what they do.

    Now calmly tell me again why, if that is their standard of skill, they would have a better effect against dug in, camouflaged possibly armoured targets without guidance from Forward Air Controllers?
     
  12. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Now calmly tell me again why, if that is their standard of skill, they would have a better effect against dug in, camouflaged possibly armoured targets without guidance from Forward Air Controllers?

    Typical Jimbo's answer will be to ignore your analysis Pilot and spam again another "Air destroyed everything" blabla of his own. In fact Im suspecting all he wants is to post his crap so he can at least read someone writing the kind of uneducated nonsense he believes in.
     
  13. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    :rolleyes:
    Do you think so?
    Surely not????
    So we're all perfectly calm.. right?
    I'm really looking forward to the next punchline.
    :cool:
     
  14. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    INCOMING!!!! Take cover!!!!:eek:
     
  15. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    I'm perfectly calm. So going away for any amount of time isn't going to effect my views in the least.

    Jimbo may be an enthusiast, you can't take that away from him. But he has made some claims that are innaccurate. And that's putting it very politely.

    He has stated the case for the effectivness of tactical air strikes and stated that they destroyed vast ammounts of the enemy. In fact he has stated that they destroyed whole units making then ineffective and all that without the requirement of ground force intervention. To contradict this view, he started this thread as a 'funny story', which I think it would have been if it didn't show the flaws in tactical air power.

    Let us look at our hero on the motorcycle, said to be riding at speed along a road in France. The speed he would be travelling would not be classed as high speed by the standards of today. Both the performance of the period motorcycles and the standards of the wartime roads would have prevented this. He would also have been restricted to remaining on the road as riding cross country would have severly slowed down his speed. The disadvantage to this was that his direction was predictable.

    This meant that he was missed by the Jugs 48 times. By miss, I don't mean that he wasn't actually 'hit', but that he was missed by enough for him to be outside the blast zone. I don't know if you've ever seen 500lbs of explosive go up? But on Dems ranges the safety area is out to 1000m and I'm sure that the blast itself (ignoring shrapnel) would knock a man off his bike at 50m or more. So even being generous they had to miss by over 50m 48 times.

    As for the guns? the speed of the bike shouldn't have been a problem as vehicles on a road are straffed in or against the line of travel. Not to hit a target on a road with all that ammunition after missing it with all those bombs is shameful. After all, it's ground attack, it's their bread and butter, it's what they do.

    Now calmly tell me again why, if that is their standard of skill, they would have a better effect against dug in, camouflaged possibly armoured targets without guidance from Forward Air Controllers?
    Pilot, Patton, the general who supposedly was the glory hound for the ground offensive said he was amazed at the Allied pilots because they could single out moving vehicles and take them out. He “ironically?” also insisted that his press corps never report on a victory without the mention of XIX TAC because they were such a large part of every victory. That’s not Jimbo saying it, it was Patton saying it. This was the way Third Army rolled. This is why they flew across Germany like a bat out of hell. The Allied pilots were very adept at ground attack. That's why THEY said the story was “funny”. I copied it from a Jug site where it was in a section called (get this) "funny stories". If it were NOT so ironic a result for them then it would not have been funny but just another banal pathetic story of bad shooting and instead of being “humorous”.

    Since you yourself have "obviously" never read tactical air books, then I would expect that "quotes" you even an elementary fact like the Allies had an air force during WWII, would outrageous. So that doesn't shock me. Yours is this narrow-minded point of view that I am always commenting against. You do not hold the knowledge high ground you seem to think you do, in fact you are quite lacking in the most rudimentary knowledge and shouldn’t prate around like a rooster making childish comments about me.

    Come on pilot, take a gamble, live on the edge for once, actually think for yourself. Think of a Sherman, then think of a Tiger or Panther and do the math. It won't hurt you to disagree with starry-eyed Sherman fanatics. If you want to give sapper credit for eye-witness knowledge of Omaha Beach even though he landed on Sword, then give Sherman tankers credit for saying they were terrified in that tank when they saw a Tiger and believe all of their pejorative nicknames for it.

    As far as me being an enthusiast, everybody here is some type of WWII enthusiast or why else would they be here? If you were not, then I would find your only other reason to be here is to make trouble and join up with snipe-troll-patrols with the “little Frenchman”. I was hoping your IQ was higher than that.
     
  16. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Have you ever wondered why, not occasionally, more often than not, you stand alone voicing your 'expert' opinions? Is it because you have read more books than anyone else and as such have more 'second hand' knowledge than anyone else?

    Can you not see that if you say one thing and everyone else says another there may be a fair reason for that? Even you must realize that. Read the comments made. Do the coments made show that you are respected as having views that are taken by others as holding any weight?

    I personally think you have a valid contribution to make but that your views are in some cases flawed. Not being able to see or accept that detracts from the way you are seen and from the way people view your posts. Which is a shame but hardly the fault of others.

    Shermans did go against Tigers at a ratio of 4/1. The first Sherman was a sure loss. The other three split and tried to move faster than the Tiger could traverse and in the hope that one could get behind and get a shot in the weak spot before they were all lost. It did work but at a loss of vehicles and men that was considered sustainable. The tactics may seem wasteful by todays standards but was possible because the allies had a large number of Shermans and the Germans had very few Tigers.

    As for me living on the edge and taking a risk, that is something I have had to do far too often in my life already and at much more potential loss than just an argument. Maybe one day you'll get out of your armchair and put down the book. Until then you may have much from me but you'll not earn my respect.
     
  17. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Have you ever wondered why, not occasionally, more often than not, you stand alone voicing your 'expert' opinions? Is it because you have read more books than anyone else and as such have more 'second hand' knowledge than anyone else?

    Can you not see that if you say one thing and everyone else says another there may be a fair reason for that? Even you must realize that. Read the comments made. Do the coments made show that you are respected as having views that are taken by others as holding any weight?

    I personally think you have a valid contribution to make but that your views are in some cases flawed. Not being able to see or accept that detracts from the way you are seen and from the way people view your posts. Which is a shame but hardly the fault of others.

    Shermans did go against Tigers at a ratio of 4/1. The first Sherman was a sure loss. The other three split and tried to move faster than the Tiger could traverse and in the hope that one could get behind and get a shot in the weak spot before they were all lost. It did work but at a loss of vehicles and men that was considered sustainable. The tactics may seem wasteful by todays standards but was possible because the allies had a large number of Shermans and the Germans had very few Tigers.

    As for me living on the edge and taking a risk, that is something I have had to do far too often in my life already and at much more potential loss than just an argument. Maybe one day you'll get out of your armchair and put down the book. Until then you may have much from me but you'll not earn my respect.
    It is not my objective in life to "impress" you or anyone else. Discussion is about ideas. If you are simply going to quote things that are undenaible and universally believed then that is trite. Why do it at all. What you read is a conglomeration of facts, assumptions and different people's conclusions from those same facts and assumptions. Their opinions and conclusions are not more valid than mine. They might have more "facts in evidence" than I do but you can't single out the ones that are or are not, not even by pointing out how they often agree with other pundits. I don't look down on the average enthusiast. He has a perspective as well. There are many ideas that or incorrect in books and on line and I draw my conclusions by the amalgam of what I am exposed to. I am not a man worshiper or a name dropper. I have no delusion that humans including historians are either infallible or unbiased. I am not that stupid. God gave me a brain and I intend to use it on gaining understanding of hobbies as well, even if you think that is unwise.

    I am the kind of person you can't sell to by claiming "everyone thinks that". I am immune to peer-pressure in debates. I don’t give a crap how many disagree with my point of view if they don’t make a case from logic, then they more than likely are wrong. Original ideas are a good thing otherwise once a foolish or biased conclusion is reached by a given author or historian, then that would be propagated ad infinitum. What you need is a history database. You don't need a forum to discuss things. You could just look up an "absolute fact" in the database whenever you are curious and then you would not waste your time digging through the "offensive" disparate opinions of others. If you should know anything about WWII history you should know that precious little is common. Yes, we agree the Germans had MP-40s, the Allies had Thompsons, beyond simple facts like those, nothing is definite and why there is plethora of different opinions on a given issued view by some to be elementary. No opinion is inherently right or inherently wrong. One can only imagine the crap Columbus had to put up with by the flat-earthers. Imagine if he cared who respected his opinion.

    As far as comments made, some are made seriously and have a counterargument. Those do interest me. I only care about people that believe respect is a two way street. But many, some of yours specifically, have infantile rhetoric meant to insult rather than present logical counter arguments. Aren’t you concerned that your comments laden with snipe and innuendo are looked upon as vacuous? If anything detracts from content it is that.
     
  18. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    You answer your own questions. There are many opinions out there, some more valid than others. The valid ones are based on facts and others are based on a fact and conjecture.

    You are the one who states your opinion as fact and when errors are pointed out (politley at first) deny that they are valid or even correct. That is not the way to fomulate a valid argument. The reason people snipe is because of the way you have shown yourself to ignore any facts other than the ones that support YOUR opinion, which you continue to voice as fact to the people who have pointed out the errors in its formulation. People get frustrated, impolite and the forum looses.

    Normally on these forums, when one person discribes another as 'the village idiot' at least one or two people ask for it to be retracted as it's not called for. Nobody did that in your case. Why? Did you not notice that before you posted today, several people had predicted how you would answer..... have you proved them wrong? It's a forum, a place to forward ideas. But they have to be ideas that are based on facts or you don't get taken seriously and people loose interest. Could you please listen to what others have to say, and if you don't agree state why what they are saying is wrong. But take into account what they have told you or we will just be going round in circles.
     
  19. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Okay Chaps, time to step back and take deep breath. Cutout the personal attacks and get on with the discussion at hand.
     
  20. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    So its still going on now? The Eastern Front is irrelevant only for the tying down of the troops!!! ;) This is really getting ridiculous. Logic eh? Right well logic dictates that by the very number of units and men in the East, it was a bigger campaign. Logic dictates that by size alone the East makes the West look like a sideshow and no disrespect to Sapper or Gerry or any other Veteran.

    I am getting fed up listening to a person who is so anti-russian that it clouds his thinking.
    Honestly if anyone logs on here and reads those sort of posts they will be completely missled about the campaign.
     

Share This Page