Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Masu'di
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.05.21 23:55:00 -
[31]
what they should have done is had some kind of large moat....
|
ceyriot
Induseng Enterprises R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 00:38:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Kyrall Quick summary for those that don't want to read it (or don't want to get sucked into the Wikipedia vortex for the next few hours):
Wellington was on the defensive in Portugal, being pushed back by the French. He operated a "scorched earth" policy as they went, and pulled back to some defensive lines of forts he had secretly made - which went from coast to coast! He then left the French to starve over the winter before pushing them out of Portugal in the Spring.
Not only were they from coast to coast, the advancing Frenchies didn't know about them. Which is something to be noted, as the lines are really, REALLY big. They were constructed out of the local hills, so the line was as big as the hills, and there were 3 of them. One behind the other.
They took 3 years to build, and were only "used" once - the French army sat in front of them and starved for a winter while British reinforcements were brought up from England.
Faction Store - Killboard |
F'nog
Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 05:04:00 -
[33]
I've started something wonderful. F'nog is happy.
Currently, Surfin is in the lead for winning this thread. I just thought I'd put that out there. |
Malcolm Gerhardt
Arctic Fox Industries and Materials
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 07:23:00 -
[34]
Even if the Maginot Line was Completed and the Germans attacked it. it would of failed.
I take my evidence from a Defensive line simliar to Maginot that was attacked and defeated.. the Atlantic Wall.
World War 2 ushered in the era of 3-dimentinal combat and the death of large-scale static defenses (though it would see a brief resurgence in Vietnam due to the NVA lack of air power)
The Germans would of attacked the in a similiar fashion that the Allies attacked the Atlantic Wall. Artillary strikes, dive-bombings and a paratroopers operation behind the line, though the amphibious landing , i think there would of been an armor intensive assualt begining at the south of the line and moving north to the sea (to take advantage of the onfelating(sp) fire).
German casualties... high hundreds to low thousands.. but the line would of fallen
Keep your Head low, Your Mind high and Your Mouth Shut |
F'lan Ker
DAB
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 08:17:00 -
[35]
Maginot, very good against "traditional tactics" armed forces. Germany used Blitzkrieg which negated this line quite much and proved to be a match to any opposition it met. At that time the H-man did not interfere too much with the decisions his generals and field commanders did thus giving an edge to the German fighting machine. This changed to Wehrmacht's demise later though.
Russia was a failure and partially due to H-mans interference and arguing with his own commanders on operations. H changed plans and caused stretching lines, thinning troops and severe logistical problems. One thing not many mention is the loss of so many Ju52's and other transport planes in Mediterranean (Crete etc) of which Luftwaffe never really recovered. This hampered logistics and supply a lot for example in Stalingrad 1942. Also Mussolinis idiotical and disastrous Balkan and Africa campaign that took off a lot of troops assigned to East had it's effect. Domino effect so to say..
Atlantic wall was not completed by the time of invasion 1944 and was not manned by Germany's best soldiers but other nationalities/allies. Many parts of the wall fell because the troops manning them simply fled. Also H's indecisiveness and failure to believe Normandy was NOT a distraction contributed to the fall of the Wall as he waited 5 days before giving orders to reinforce the lines. That was more than enough for Allies to break thru and make a solid beachhead that could not be pushed back. Small details and decisions can affect the big picture a lot...
Interesting thread with some twist to sails and stuff
|
The Tzar
Malicious Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 12:38:00 -
[36]
Frances military history is one of the most embarrassing stories to ever be told. France has and always will suffer from this problem of extreme arrogance with absolutely nothing to back it up.
General George S. Patton of the allied forces in WWII said that he would rather have a german division in front of him than a french one behind.
Garlic chomping, white flag waving, treaty signing cowards. The next time there is a war in Europe, the loser's have to keep France. __________________________________________
'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________ |
Haraldhardrade
Pax Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 13:35:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Haraldhardrade on 22/05/2008 13:35:02
Originally by: The Tzar Frances military history is one of the most embarrassing stories to ever be told. France has and always will suffer from this problem of extreme arrogance with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Eh you obviously never heard of Napoleon, nor can you have read much history.
Quote: General George S. Patton of the allied forces in WWII said that he would rather have a german division in front of him than a french one behind.
During WW2, I would rather put my trust in the British over the Americans. Just look at D-day and compare american casualties over British ones. The Brits were clever, Yanks were not.
Quote:
General Garlic chomping, white flag waving, treaty signing cowards. The next time there is a war in Europe, the loser's have to keep France.
If I were French, I would have cursed my ancestors who helped America get independance from the English when reading your ignorant post. Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
|
Dr Khymes
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:22:00 -
[38]
Some factions in France did want to continue the Maginot Line along the Belgian border. However other factions, as well as French Allies were against this. One reason for opposition was they feared continuing the Maginot Line along the France/Belgium boarder would understandably give the impression that the Allies were abandoning the Belgians and the Dutch to Germany. The Allies also did not want to risk having the Belgians and the Dutch surrender to or negotiate an alliance with Germany, as this would give her large ports too close to Britain.
Eventually the Allies settled on having French and British forces advance into Belgium to reinforce the smaller nations against a German advance. Some realized the weakness in this plan, but those voices were largely ignored (a common error on all sides of the war). As a compromise the Belgians would build defensive lines within their boarders for the Allies, however their efforts were laughable at best (poor even by WWI standards). The capture of German documents in January 1940 indicating a planned advance through Belgium further solidified Allied plans.
The Germans made last minute changes to their plans that caught the Allies completely off guard. The speed of the German advance shocked many allies, and the uncoordinated Allied command structure caused more problems and allowed the German advance to proceed.
Though the Maginot Line made Germany turn its attention elsewhere, it was also a tremendous drain of manpower and resources, both to build and keep operational (resources that might have been better used elsewhere). IĘd say it was a partial success, because though it did divert the German attack, a strong defense along only a part of your border (which your enemy knows about) is useless. |
Frezik
Basically Outdated Stereo Equiptment
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:43:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Haraldhardrade During WW2, I would rather put my trust in the British over the Americans. Just look at D-day and compare american casualties over British ones. The Brits were clever, Yanks were not.
American D-Day casulaties were high because of Omaha Beach, which was a major FUBAR largely because of bad intel on the strength of the defenses. Good intel was the responsibility of all allied powers during the planning stages.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Haraldhardrade
During WW2, I would rather put my trust in the British over the Americans. Just look at D-day and compare american casualties over British ones. The Brits were clever, Yanks were not.
I'm curious about your bachelor in WW2 history now. Having a degree in it you should know that UTAH and OMAHA landing zones were the 2 most fortified and heavily armed positions and that it was agreed by the nations that fresh American troops would take these positions.
To further the difficulties 2 things went wrong. Before the landing itself each landing section was bombed by american and English bombers. The flying fortresses sent to take care of UTAH missed their mark by several miles as the bombadiers didn't want to drop bombs into the oceans.
The second difficulty was high winds causing paratroopers to scatter to the four winds. The initial plan was for the paratroopers to take out rear artillery and secure multiple bridges (the latter happened due to some excellent teamwork of scattered sticks).
Due to these effects UTAH and OMAHA were still pretty stable when the American forces landed and while casualties were high they still managed to take the beachhead.
|
|
Haraldhardrade
Pax Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 05:27:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich I'm curious about your bachelor in WW2 history now. Having a degree in it you should know that UTAH and OMAHA landing zones were the 2 most fortified and heavily armed positions and that it was agreed by the nations that fresh American troops would take these positions.
It is of little relevance as the reasons there were high casualties, is because of bad planning and, in all fairness a bit of bad luck, though bad luck is always a part of any tacticians equation. For example, the Americans could have used flail or dd tanks, but didn't do so.
It is most plausible and generally agreed on by most that had the Americans used flail and dd tanks they would have had significantly fewer losses at Omaha. Armour is a priceless addition on the battlefield, especially when doing a head on attack on fortifications.
Still, they were very brave men. Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
|
Sierra Lima
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 05:47:00 -
[42]
Quote: The idea of the plan envisioned a rapid German mobilization, disregard of the neutrality of Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands, and an overwhelming sweep of the powerful German right wing southwest through Belgium and Northern France, "letting the last man on the right, brush the Channel with his sleeve" Colonel Alfred von Schlieffen
1914
Quote: since the Ardennes were heavily wooded and because of their poor road network, they were implausible as a route for an invasion. An element of surprise would therefore be present.
1940
Quote: a classic Blitzkrieg attack through the weakly-defended Ardennes Forest, mirroring the successful German offensive there during the Battle of France in 1940
1944
Looks like good ideas (invade France via Belgium) never go out of fashion
|
Atama Cardel
Even-Flow
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 06:04:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Haraldhardrade
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich I'm curious about your bachelor in WW2 history now. Having a degree in it you should know that UTAH and OMAHA landing zones were the 2 most fortified and heavily armed positions and that it was agreed by the nations that fresh American troops would take these positions.
It is of little relevance as the reasons there were high casualties, is because of bad planning and, in all fairness a bit of bad luck, though bad luck is always a part of any tacticians equation. For example, the Americans could have used flail or dd tanks, but didn't do so.
It is most plausible and generally agreed on by most that had the Americans used flail and dd tanks they would have had significantly fewer losses at Omaha. Armour is a priceless addition on the battlefield, especially when doing a head on attack on fortifications.
Still, they were very brave men.
There's still that tiny problem of getting that armor onto the beach while under fire
|
Haraldhardrade
Pax Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 06:37:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Atama Cardel
There's still that tiny problem of getting that armor onto the beach while under fire
It's a tiny problem geting anything onto a beach while under fire. Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
|
Bad Harlequin
Chiroptera Factor
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 06:50:00 -
[45]
Originally by: F'nog the invaders could go AROUND it.
omg h4x!1! you **** cheater that's dishonorblea ima petishun u u **** y u attak thse carebears comon try a fair fight u ****
Zleip > very, and this is more or less a post of humor that seriousness =)
|
WhiteSavage
Altruism. Malice.
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 07:08:00 -
[46]
Edited by: WhiteSavage on 23/05/2008 07:10:08 So where was armor supposed to go with all the tank traps and pre-positioned artillary?
If you guys want to talk about defensive ironies then what about all the men that died taking Omaha and Utah landings? The allied advance would not have been affected had they not thrown themselves into those defenses.
^^^^^^^^^^NOTE for idiots: There were many untouched german instalations along the normandy coast that were not chosen as landing zones. These positions simply ran/surrenders/put up some/no effecting fight. It is argueable that Utah/Omaha would have been the same.
AT the time of the allied landings in normandy, it is argueable that Germany was already falling:
January 26, 1943 - Anti-aircraft batteries were officially manned solely by ****** Youth boys. January 31, 1943 - The German Sixth Army surrendered at Stalingrad. May 1943 - The last German strongholds in North Africa fell to Allied (mostly British) forces. June 6, 1944 - D-Day: Allies landed at Normandy in northern France.
So did Omaha and Utah make much... if any difference at all? So tanks or not, intel or not, who phailed?
A good portion of the German line was defended by the H-youth Specifically The 12th SS-Panzer Division H1tlerjugend containing 10,000 Boys all 17 or younger (Not including Adult officers)who were sent to reinforce the Normandy beach heads. ___________________________________________
..My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes |
Haraldhardrade
Pax Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 07:27:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Haraldhardrade on 23/05/2008 07:29:49
Originally by: WhiteSavage Edited by: WhiteSavage on 23/05/2008 07:10:08 So where was armor supposed to go with all the tank traps and pre-positioned artillary?
I'm having a hard time understanding what you are getting at? Armour is used to spearhead infantry, and take out defensive positions. There is a reason why its called armour, and there is a reason to why its coated with thick metal plates.
Quote:
If you guys want to talk about defensive ironies then what about all the men that died taking Omaha and Utah landings? The allied advance would not have been affected had they not thrown themselves into those defenses.
What about those men? The whole point here is that it could have been done in a much more efficient way.
Quote:
A good portion of the German line was defended by the H-youth Specifically The 12th SS-Panzer Division H1tlerjugend containing 10,000 Boys all 17 or younger (Not including Adult officers)who were sent to reinforce the Normandy beach heads.
Actually it was mostly in Berlin the h-youth were deployed. In Normandie, there were some h-jugend who were deployed but there were men no younger than many of those that fought in Vietnam. They had very good results durting their short deployment. Further more, the Germans had stationed elite veteran troops in the area that had previously fought in the Balkans.
edited for your edit : What I'm trying to say is that te h-y deployed were not untrained and incapable. Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
|
WhiteSavage
Altruism. Malice.
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 09:03:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Haraldhardrade
I'm having a hard time understanding what you are getting at? Armour is used to spearhead infantry, and take out defensive positions. There is a reason why its called armour, and there is a reason to why its coated with thick metal plates.
Correct me if I'm wrong but tank traps are/were designed to "trap" tanks, thick metal plates or not. Similarly at the time the allies had little in the way of armoured amphibious/stormthebeach tanks. If it was such a shockingly simple and easy option, you dont think they would have thrown in armour along with the men?
Quote:
What about those men? The whole point here is that it could have been done in a much more efficient way.
My point is that it could have not been done at all :P
Quote:
Actually it was mostly in Berlin the h-youth were deployed. In Normandie, there were some h-jugend who were deployed but there were men no younger than many of those that fought in Vietnam. They had very good results durting their short deployment. Further more, the Germans had stationed elite veteran troops in the area that had previously fought in the Balkans.
My point was that Germany was on the brink of destruction anyway, example: the timeline. I dont remember 15 year olds fighting against the vietenamese. Yes the H-jugend was comprised of 17 year olds and down, but records show this 10,000 boy strong unit meeting over 60% casualties. They fought hard yes, but they were a brainwashed generation. Sufice to say they did not fight "well." Read reports of the The 12th SS-Panzer H-jugend being deployed and then crossreference their return. They failed to surrender even when they were past beaten, some refer to this as an example of their strength. I prefer to turn to their past "conditioning."
Quote:
edited for your edit : What I'm trying to say is that te h-y deployed were not untrained and incapable.
The H-Y were deployed because they had nobody else. The "elite troops" you speak of were remnants of a defeated army. 12 year olds maning Searchlights... Children being forced into military training camps at the age of 10.
"The National Youth Directorate required target practice and terrain maneuvers for boys 10 and older."
No the germans had already peaked and were losing. Utah and Omaha's Sole purpose was to make "Saving Pricate Ryan."
___________________________________________
..My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes |
Haraldhardrade
Pax Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 09:26:00 -
[49]
Originally by: WhiteSavage
Correct me if I'm wrong but tank traps are/were designed to "trap" tanks, thick metal plates or not. Similarly at the time the allies had little in the way of armoured amphibious/stormthebeach tanks. If it was such a shockingly simple and easy option, you dont think they would have thrown in armour along with the men?
Correct. Tank traps are designed that way, but they are removable and avoidable. That is the task of demolition and engineers. Anyhow, the British used tanks at their landing, and it paid off
Quote:
My point is that it could have not been done at all :P
I completely agree with you there.
Quote: My point was that Germany was on the brink of destruction anyway, example: the timeline. I dont remember 15 year olds fighting against the vietenamese. Yes the H-jugend was comprised of 17 year olds and down, but records show this 10,000 boy strong unit meeting over 60% casualties. They fought hard yes, but they were a brainwashed generation. Sufice to say they did not fight "well." Read reports of the The 12th SS-Panzer H-jugend being deployed and then crossreference their return. They failed to surrender even when they were past beaten, some refer to this as an example of their strength. I prefer to turn to their past "conditioning."
I agree with your analysis that Germany had no chances of winning the war, but they still had solid punching power. When I read your previous referance to the h-j I got the impression you were presenting them as 'tothless' so I simply wanted to state that they performed rather well considering their uhh....handicap. (dont know what English word to use there)
Quote:
The H-Y were deployed because they had nobody else. The "elite troops" you speak of were remnants of a defeated army. 12 year olds maning Searchlights... Children being forced into military training camps at the age of 10.
"The National Youth Directorate required target practice and terrain maneuvers for boys 10 and older."
No the germans had already peaked and were losing. Utah and Omaha's Sole purpose was to make "Saving Pricate Ryan."
Well SS division Das Reich had some losses during the time in Russia, and were pulled out but they acheived many objectives and was a highly decorated army. When deployed in France there had refit and gotten fresh troops and were at full capability. The fought hard and quickly gained the respect of their allied counterparts.
In the end they ofcorse surrendered
Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
|
Devoras2
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 10:46:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Kyrall
Originally by: Frezik
If Nelson had lost, he would have been called foolhardy. Since he won, we call him daring instead.
Well he died because he was walking around on the open deck while under heavy enemy fire, so he was definitely daring, but I don't think we can totally rule out foolhardy! I've just finished a biography of Wellington, so now I've got to decide on Napoleon or Nelson next, unless I think of someone else first. Any suggestions?
Good candidates like the Duke of Wellington, Alexander 1 of Russia, and the archduke Charles of Austria-Hungary. Yipeh KIA Mother Fecker!
|
|
Micheal Dietrich
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 15:43:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Micheal Dietrich on 23/05/2008 15:45:47
Originally by: Haraldhardrade
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich I'm curious about your bachelor in WW2 history now. Having a degree in it you should know that UTAH and OMAHA landing zones were the 2 most fortified and heavily armed positions and that it was agreed by the nations that fresh American troops would take these positions.
It is of little relevance as the reasons there were high casualties, is because of bad planning and, in all fairness a bit of bad luck, though bad luck is always a part of any tacticians equation. For example, the Americans could have used flail or dd tanks, but didn't do so.
It is most plausible and generally agreed on by most that had the Americans used flail and dd tanks they would have had significantly fewer losses at Omaha. Armour is a priceless addition on the battlefield, especially when doing a head on attack on fortifications.
Still, they were very brave men.
For starters, our tanks sucked.
But how great would that be, we land a tank; it gets a track broken by one of the HUNDREDS of tanks traps (remember the failed bombardment? Intact defense unlike the other landing zones); and becomes a great target for the rear german artillery.
The engineers were trying to do their job but it's pretty hard to blow up pretty much the soldiers only cover.
Little relevance....
Just because someone else could do it doesn't mean everyone could.
|
Kyrall
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 15:58:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Devoras2
Originally by: Kyrall I've just finished a biography of Wellington, so now I've got to decide on Napoleon or Nelson next, unless I think of someone else first. Any suggestions?
Good candidates like the Duke of Wellington, Alexander 1 of Russia, and the archduke Charles of Austria-Hungary.
Hmmm, so having read all about Wellington, I could read up on ... Wellington? I'll have to look this guy up, the name sounds somewhat familiar, can't think where from though... Thanks for the other suggestions anyway! - Originally by: Kyrall Pfft antivirus? Real men use a hard drive tank.
|
Haraldhardrade
Pax Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 16:25:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
For starters, our tanks sucked.
That all depends on how you look at it. Sure, it would take 5 shermans to take out one tiger, but shermans were cheap and quick to manufacture. So in a way, they were pretty good.
I hate to use analogies, but its a bit like comparing wal-mart clothes with Hugo Boss or Calvin Klein. Wal-Mart will sell more and make more money, but Hugo Boss will offer better quality. In the end Wal-mart would win.
Quote:
Just because someone else could do it doesn't mean everyone could.
When someone else do it, it means its very plausible Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
|
Micheal Dietrich
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 16:30:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Haraldhardrade
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Just because someone else could do it doesn't mean everyone could.
When someone else do it, it means its very plausible
But doesn't mean everyone can do it.
|
Valan
The Fated Odyssey.
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 16:46:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Frezik
Originally by: Haraldhardrade During WW2, I would rather put my trust in the British over the Americans. Just look at D-day and compare american casualties over British ones. The Brits were clever, Yanks were not.
American D-Day casulaties were high because of Omaha Beach, which was a major FUBAR largely because of bad intel on the strength of the defenses. Good intel was the responsibility of all allied powers during the planning stages.
Well we wern't going to invite you to the party and give you the easy bit now where we!
/start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig |
Frezik
Basically Outdated Stereo Equiptment
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 16:52:00 -
[56]
Originally by: WhiteSavage Edited by: WhiteSavage on 23/05/2008 07:10:08If you guys want to talk about defensive ironies then what about all the men that died taking Omaha and Utah landings? The allied advance would not have been affected had they not thrown themselves into those defenses.
Quote: So did Omaha and Utah make much... if any difference at all? So tanks or not, intel or not, who phailed?
And if I could predict tomorrow's stock market, I'd be rich.
You can always cherry pick examples of "they should have done this". Fact is, the intel was bad, they don't know how the Germans of untouched beaches would react, and it was critical to take as much area as possible and dig in before a German response could arrive. Then a whole bunch of uncontrollable factors went wrong.
Despite all that, it worked in the end. Under the same conditions, I doubt anyone here could come up with a better plan.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |