Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: WWII and Who Won It


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: WWII and Who Won It Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 4:25:58 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Thompson,

I wasn't aware the Germans flew many fw190s on the Eastern Front?  They were primarily used against us is my understanding and Caitlyn has said the same thing and I have yet to catch her with bad facts even if I don't agree with her analysis.

So, any documentation?

SimplyMichael:
From my personal collection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhvHozerVcU

thompson


 

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 4:29:20 PM   
ludwig9


Posts: 19
Joined: 5/14/2005
Status: offline
Easy.  Stalin won WWII by a landslide.  Where do I collect my £5?

(in reply to came4U)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 4:37:00 PM   
came4U


Posts: 3572
Joined: 1/23/2007
From: London, Ontario
Status: offline
Stalin? for Gods sakes.

smacks you with an encyclopedia

(in reply to ludwig9)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 4:37:19 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64

i love this site




soviet aces
http://www.acesofww2.com/soviet/Soviet.htm

If you follow the links on this one it will take you to the Lady Aces of Russia.

to me its all about the numbers to see who was the greater i heard someone be critical of patton the do not know great generals.  Patton wanted to go right in russia and kick booty he knew what kinda of person stalin was
Just another case of Patton's alligator mouth trying to overload his canary ass. 


(in reply to LATEXBABY64)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 4:39:20 PM   
came4U


Posts: 3572
Joined: 1/23/2007
From: London, Ontario
Status: offline
quote:

Those who fail to learn from history............ 


"are condemmed to repeat last nights dinner coming out the wrong way?" lollllll


(in reply to came4U)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 4:45:09 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
Ha.

_____________________________



(in reply to ludwig9)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 5:04:56 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I simply do not believe that a conspiracy existed such that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbour was about to be attacked and did nothing about it.

The "problem" would be too easy to deal with in other ways than by leaving your own forces sitting as targets for the approaching onslaught.

<Reply to > in a post is not meaningless it simply points to the previous poster. It really ought to be changed , but there you are.


seeksfemslave:
For what it is worth you may want to peruse this site.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

thompson
 

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 5:22:23 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
 
Thank you for the fascinating link, thompsonx.  I had read some of it but not to that level of detail.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 5:22:41 PM   
LATEXBABY64


Posts: 2107
Joined: 4/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64

i love this site






soviet aces
http://www.acesofww2.com/soviet/Soviet.htm

If you follow the links on this one it will take you to the Lady Aces of Russia.

to me its all about the numbers to see who was the greater i heard someone be critical of Patton the do not know great generals.  Patton wanted to go right in Russia and kick booty he knew what kinda of person stalin was
Just another case of Patton's alligator mouth trying to overload his canary ass. 




Patton was one of the greatest Military Commanders in the European theater who knew how to win battles. who knew how to inspire as a leader
very few had his tenacity or his passion for war...

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 5:30:35 PM   
came4U


Posts: 3572
Joined: 1/23/2007
From: London, Ontario
Status: offline
1. The ships documented at Pearl Harbour on day of invasion is and probably never will be accurately counted.  Gunner-disguised warfare was NOT being used in this area. The aftermath although of actual scrapmetal percipitation count destruction is documented.  The majority of the warfare-able ships in dock was 16, the disabled or dry-dock count (yet still not yet disembarged from it's carrier) 7. 

2. That (any) conspiracy crap is done, old, revised occasionaly to appease to nuts. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to post such nonsense (especially to those who are unobservant to historic facts). Even the dates and exact times depicted on that site are inacurate.

3. Pearl Harbour is NOT the/was not means to execute destruction via the strongest link (in my judgement call) that the Japanese could have used.  It was the weakest. A fluke, a decoy unknown.  An 'omg, that was close' to the US security forces that could have been a hell of a lot worse if the smaller, more sufficient fleets in the Mid Atlantic would have been discovered.

yes, WHEW.

but, the parts that the cat dragged home and the general 'quick assembly' of parts that were not at (factory) immediate disposal to create new vessels sure were found/made pretty quickly???

Consider that as your foundation for conspiracy.

 

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 5:32:04 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64

i love this site






soviet aces
http://www.acesofww2.com/soviet/Soviet.htm

If you follow the links on this one it will take you to the Lady Aces of Russia.

to me its all about the numbers to see who was the greater i heard someone be critical of Patton the do not know great generals.  Patton wanted to go right in Russia and kick booty he knew what kinda of person stalin was
Just another case of Patton's alligator mouth trying to overload his canary ass. 




Patton was one of the greatest Military Commanders in the European theater who knew how to win battles. who knew how to inspire as a leader
very few had his tenacity or his passion for war...


LATEXBABY:
I do not disagree with your assessment of Patton's abilities....What I disagree with is any possibility that he would have been successful in such an endeavour.
thompson

(in reply to LATEXBABY64)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 5:39:56 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: came4U

1. The ships documented at Pearl Harbour on day of invasion is and probably never will be accurately counted.  Gunner-disguised warfare was NOT being used in this area. The aftermath although of actual scrapmetal percipitation count destruction is documented.  The majority of the warfare-able ships in dock was 16, the disabled or dry-dock count (yet still not yet disembarged from it's carrier) 7. 

2. That (any) conspiracy crap is done, old, revised occasionaly to appease to nuts. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to post such nonsense (especially to those who are unobservant to historic facts). Even the dates and exact times depicted on that site are inacurate.

3. Pearl Harbour is NOT the/was not means to execute destruction via the strongest link (in my judgement call) that the Japanese could have used.  It was the weakest. A fluke, a decoy unknown.  An 'omg, that was close' to the US security forces that could have been a hell of a lot worse if the smaller, more sufficient fleets in the Mid Atlantic would have been discovered.

yes, WHEW.

but, the parts that the cat dragged home and the general 'quick assembly' of parts that were not at (factory) immediate disposal to create new vessels sure were found/made pretty quickly???

Consider that as your foundation for conspiracy.



came4u:
Your post is a bit disjointed. 
Would you please clarify its meaning for me?
If not may I have some of what you are smokin'
thompson

(in reply to came4U)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 5:43:11 PM   
came4U


Posts: 3572
Joined: 1/23/2007
From: London, Ontario
Status: offline
disjointed = plain English?

you figure it out. read sloowwwwly.

(sorry I didn't quote fancy-shmacy links to get my point across and I had to resort to using my own words lol) 

< Message edited by came4U -- 8/9/2007 5:44:14 PM >

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 6:18:54 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: came4U

disjointed = plain English?

you figure it out. read sloowwwwly.

(sorry I didn't quote fancy-shmacy links to get my point across and I had to resort to using my own words lol) 

came4u:
If I cudda' I wudda' but I cudn't so I din't.
Now as to my second question...will thee or will thee not?
thompson

(in reply to came4U)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 6:52:20 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
Well, Thompson dealt with the FW issue on the Russian front quite effectively.  Off the top, I know that Hans-Ulrich Rudel (the top Stuka ace in Russia) traded in his Stuka for an FW by '44 or so.  The Me 109 with its tricky undercarriage was really a terrible airplane in Russia (well, something like a third of them were wiped out in takeoff/landing accidents)- I suspect that most of the latter production of Me's was used on the Western front because the US bombers often flew at over 25,000 feet and the Me did better than the FW at altitude (with the exception of the Ta-152 which was built in very limited numbers.)  Most air battles in Russia were fought below 12,000 or so feet- hence high altitude performance wasn't really that important.  And AFAIK, they didn't operate some of the really exotic machinery such as the Do 335 or the Me 262, or 163 on the Eastern front.

"The Japanese knew going in that naval air power would either make or break their empire.  In the West, there was a deeply held believe that the most powerful naval weapon was the biggest, most heavily armed and armored, floating juggernaut one could build.

These are known to naval aviators as "targets""

Umm, not quite.  Carrier aviation was an untried concept at the outbreak of WWII, even the Stringbag's success in stopping the Bismark (with a very, very, lucky torpedo hit) didn't change this impression prior to Pearl Harbor.  Plus the Stringbags got wiped out by land based aircraft quite easily. 

Consequently, all navies put their faith and most of their money in large gun toting vessels- including Japan, which built the two largest battlewagons ever- the Yamato and Musashi, some 70,000 ton ships with 18" guns.  In one of the most one sided battles of all time, Sprague's Taffy 34? (I don't remember the number) held off the assault of the Yamato on the Leyte beachhead- which showed by that point of the war- the Japanese had no morale left.  They were content to commit suicide- but they sure didn't think they had a chance to win.  By the way- Yamamoto predicted that the Yamato and Musashi would be sunk by carrier based aircraft- and needless to say- he was right.  I'm not sure that the Musashi ever fired her main batteries at another ship.

And I think submariners have it right- there are two types of ships in the ocean- submarines and targets.  And in another what if- if Doenitz had 100 U-boats at the start of the war instead of the 40? or so that he started with, the Battle of the Atlantic would probably have been lost.  I don't know who came up with the idea that the U-boats weren't effective- they certainly were.  Both the US and Germans figured out that the U-boats best targets were soft skinned merchant vessels, but all sub drivers were obsessed with hitting major warships- and occasionally succeeded.  Japan, on the other hand, did an abysmal job of using their subs effectively- they went chasing capital ships instead of doing something useful like sinking tankers and transports- targets not as glamorous but often just as vital.  Something like 2/3rds of Japanese shipping was sunk by US submarines.

The conspiracy theories do a terrible disservice to Yamamoto who was perhaps the most brilliant admiral of the war.  The Pearl Harbor strike was beautifully planned and executed.  And Hawaii had plenty of warning to go on a wartime footing- but the way they dispersed their aircraft showed that they didn't take the threat seriously.  Yes, even by that point, most generals had figured out that dispersing your aircraft made it harder to destroy them all quickly- they'd learned that one in France and were doing it by the Battle of Britain.   And a CAP also helped prevent getting wiped out- but since Short had done none of these precautions (and most of the fighters weren't armed.) he was basically a peacetime Col. Blimp and a terrific asset for the Japanese.  Often the guys that are spit and polish don't do so hot when it comes time to actually fight.  The track record of West Pointers when flying with the 8th wasn't very good compared to the college boys- but some of the crews did pretty well.


Sam

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 9:53:55 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
Just to be clear, I didn't say that the most advanced German aircraft were never used in the Eastern front, just that they were used in far greater numbers on the Western front, and/or destroyed in factories by strategic bombing. This is especially true of ME-109G's which were specifically made to shoot down B-17's and Lancasters.
 
Can we talk about the heavy numbers of 88mm anti-aircraft guns deployed in the West, and how many Soviet tanks would have been lost if these had made it to the Russian Front? Oh wait, that wasn't important.

_____________________________

I wish I could buy back ...
the woman you stole.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/9/2007 9:59:01 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

The conspiracy theories do a terrible disservice to Yamamoto who was perhaps the most brilliant admiral of the war.  The Pearl Harbor strike was beautifully planned and executed.  And Hawaii had plenty of warning to go on a wartime footing- but the way they dispersed their aircraft showed that they didn't take the threat seriously.  Yes, even by that point, most generals had figured out that dispersing your aircraft made it harder to destroy them all quickly- they'd learned that one in France and were doing it by the Battle of Britain.   And a CAP also helped prevent getting wiped out- but since Short had done none of these precautions (and most of the fighters weren't armed.) he was basically a peacetime Col. Blimp and a terrific asset for the Japanese.  Often the guys that are spit and polish don't do so hot when it comes time to actually fight.  The track record of West Pointers when flying with the 8th wasn't very good compared to the college boys- but some of the crews did pretty well.


Sam



Sam:
I am unclear why you feel "conspiracy theories" are any discredit to the talent of Yamamoto.
thompson

 

 

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/10/2007 1:32:17 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
I simply do not believe that a conspiracy existed such that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbour was about to be attacked and did nothing about it.


seeksfemslave:
For what it is worth you may want to peruse this site.
thompson


Well Thompson that link you provided certainly gives some imposing facts but it is so big that it is difficult to get the feel of it. I suspect  that it might be hardening what was general comment  into specific fact to make a political point.

eg: FDR quote: the Japanese were going to launch an attack on PH.
FDR may have said. The likely consequence of the embargo imposed by the US on Japan is that a strike will be launched on US military bases in the Pacific.

The give away to me that the link should be treated with suspicion is the statement to the effect that FDR was a communist and traitor. Do you believe that?

If the intelligence was so complete as to reveal an attack on PH even down to "when" then surely the obvious response is to secretly if you wanted the attack or overtly if you didnt put the military bases on War alert. NO?

Having said that the link contains some impressive detail.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/10/2007 3:06:06 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Given that its a Microsoft program and purely a model - though meant to be accurate, the Western Front combat flight sim tells me some interesting stuff;

The Me109 is a reasonable plane - miles better than the Hurricane and on a par with earlier Spitfires - though later Spitfires outdid them every time.

The Fw190 is better than the Me109 for shooting down bombers - ridiculous firepower.

But the best is the Mustang, simply for its speed.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: WWII and Who Won It - 8/10/2007 3:21:23 AM   
dolceservo


Posts: 18
Joined: 10/26/2005
Status: offline
Who gave a major contributions to the final allied victory?    The italians of course!

Ok this was a funny provocation but there is a couple of historical events that deserve a bit of attention.

Italy attacks greece the 28th october 1940, things don't go as expected and the campaign is long and unsuccessful, english aid starts to flow into greece and hitler decides to intervene on the 6th april 1941 to secure the southern part of the balkans before the start of the operation barbarossa.

the barbarossa operation initially had to start much earlier as it actually did the 22th june 1941 and it was postponed to help the italians in the unsuccessful campaign.
we all know how crucial quickness and how important was for the germans to achieve victories before the inevitable intervention of General Winter later in the winter. At the beginning of the winter 1941-42 german troops reached the outskirts of moscow and lost the only chance they could have had to secure a quick victory.
The italians with their aggression to greece postponed the operation barbarossa, helping russia and indirectly the US and the UK win the war.

Have a good day you all



(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: WWII and Who Won It Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094