US Campaign: ARDENNES ASSAULT

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 00:22 AMChegwin

France reduced military spendings by around 30% before war. They didnt even wanted to attack Germany when their ally was attacked they just waited behind their Maginot line, leaving their ally to it's own fate.

Allies giving in to Hitlers land demands beforehand also shows how other nations didnt want new war.

You think Germans went up against countries that were ready to go ? People still had memories of WWI nobody wanted another bloodshed but Germans.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 08:21 AMJaigen

If you wish to remain ignorant be my guest. But i will tell you one thing. an acquaintance of mine who is a LT within out country's army said to me once that red army tactics and strategy where never given any consideration as they are considered to be the one of the worst military doctrines during the entire 20th century. german tactics and strategies are still being extensively studied.

Germany lost that was inevitable but not because they where bad soldiers.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 08:27 AMJaigen

France forces where still considerable however in fact and still had more mechanised and armor divisions then the germans. however the germans did had the advantage in the air . France also had support from 300k man of the B.E.F. which where considered to be some of the best trained and equipped units at the time. What France lacked was that they didnt keep up with the new military doctrines. before 1940 they considered it impossible to attack france from the ardennes with panzer armies. they where wrong.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 08:31 AMBurts

You know, instead of relying on something that a LT within your country said about the red army, you should probaly instead look at what actual historians say about the tactics of the red army ww2 who did a ton of research instead of believing what one person says.


And who is saying that germans were bad soldiers? Not me.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 10:22 AMChegwin

And why do you think they lacked these new military doctrines? They didnt want to go to war so they didnt put any effort into inventing. Germans on the other hand were preparing for war gathering expirience in Spain, and indoctrinating people in Germany.

Imagine this, if a #1 boxer is not training for 3 years, and a #5 boxer prepares himself during that time, who will win a fight? At the time of fight their rank is unchanged, but reality is different.

Before WWI both sides were preparing for war (arms race), that didnt go so well for Germans.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 10:35 AMJaigen

And you think this guy doesnt study his military history . the difference between historians and him is that he can actually apply military theory into practice. Basically what he says about the soviets can be summed up into a single sentence : do not fight like the soviets. And near all modern military doctrines is based on the german ones not the soviet doctrines.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 10:38 AMJaigen

That doesnt change the fact that the french army was very formidable but they where badly led. Also its not an excuse as the entire german army was nearly disbanded after ww1 and only recently acquired the strength it needed.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 10:52 AMBurts

He is a LT not a general. He is not a historian. Instead of relying on one person, open up your eyes and see what other people say.

For some reason even though all the soviets did was wrong, they managed to defeat "the best army in the world", the wehrmacht was getting trashed from 43 and onwards. And suffered two major defeats before then, Moscow and Stalingrad.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 11:50 AMChegwin

21 years is enough time to prepare for another war, you have a whole new generation. I guess you imagine that all the countries Germans invaded were as war hungry as Germany even if facts say otherwise. You know Germans knew blitzkrieg was the key because once other nations enter war mode their done.

It's the same as what Japanese tried to do with Pearl Harbor, hit them hard with surprise attack and hope that will force the other side into submission. I guess not everything went as planned.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 14:24 PMJaigen

Nobody gives a damn. Modern day armies use german doctrines instead of soviet ones. If the german had equal amount of resources as the soviets it would be a curb stomp battle. they didnt that was because of the stupidity of Hitler but as a fighting force the german army was nearly complete as it could get.

The red army for the most part was very incompetent and could only win situations by vastly outnumbering their opponents numbers and economy wise.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 14:24 PMJaigen

Nobody gives a damn. Modern day armies use german doctrines instead of soviet ones. If the german had equal amount of resources as the soviets it would be a curb stomp battle. they didnt that was because of the stupidity of Hitler but as a fighting force the german army was nearly complete as it could get.

The red army for the most part was very incompetent and could only win situations by vastly outnumbering their opponents numbers and economy wise.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 06:53 AMBurts

So you are saying it is not the red army that defeated the wehrmacht? I don't understand.

Once again, this is making no sense.

If the wehrmacht was constantly being defeated from the battle of Stalingrad and onwards, then how can the wehrmacht be the superior fighting force? It doesn't matter what were the causes of this. They lost. That's what matters. And saying that they were the superior fighting force is wrong. They lost for a reason.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 14:30 PMJaigen

WTF has being war hungry to do with the state of an army or doctrine? the French and British army where of high quality and their is really no excuse how quickly they got defeated. also the germany army had only 6 years to prepare itself because hitler came to power in 1933.

Also you have some peculiar ideas what blitzkrieg was.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 17:41 PMCardboard Tank

Once again: "They lost." isn´t an argument to consider an armies value. Germany was at war with the most industrialized countries of the world at once.

To keep it very simple: Germany + Japan vs. Soviet Union + USA + Commonwealth

Now what do you think was the best army of the war? The Russians? Then let´s change the places: Oh, shit... Soviets would probably have lost versus USA + Commonwealth + Germany combined. What a bad army the Red army must have been...

Shit logic.