EVE Search - The Maginot Line: History's Greatest Success?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

The Maginot Line: History's Greatest Success?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
F'nog Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2008.05.21 02:34:00 - [1] Let's look at the facts: the Maginot Line was designed to prevent the Germans from invading France along their frontier. I propose that it was a monumental success. The Germans could not invade France along the Maginot Line. The only problem was that the designers failed to take into account that the invaders could go AROUND it. But the Line still served its purpose. The Germans couldn't attack it head on. If they had, they would have failed. Discuss. Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari F'nog for Amarr Emperor. Nuff said
Atama Cardel Even-Flow	Posted - 2008.05.21 02:58:00 - [2] I submit to you that the purpose of the Maginot Line was to stop a German invasion into France. Because the German invasion was not stopped, the Maginot Line was indeed one of histories greatest failures. tl;dr: lol france didn't think its plan through very well
F'nog Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2008.05.21 04:02:00 - [3] Originally by: Atama Cardel I submit to you that the purpose of the Maginot Line was to stop a German invasion into France. Because the German invasion was not stopped, the Maginot Line was indeed one of histories greatest failures. tl;dr: lol france didn't think its plan through very well You fail, because the Line's intent was to stop the invasion over the Franco-German frontier. It was up to the others to defend themselves. The fact that they couldn't wasn't important to the French at the time. After the time you may make all the jokes you wish. Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari F'nog for Amarr Emperor. Nuff said
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.05.21 04:10:00 - [4] it's like a good game of ... I don't want to say risk but I can't think of the other better ones... RISK! if your allied withone and they fail and the other army ram through your back lines ruining all of your bonuses, your front hasn't failed, but your ally sure did.
Zalathar Minmatar Stellar Research Incorporated DEFI4NT	Posted - 2008.05.21 04:34:00 - [5] what you fail to take into account was that the maginot line was not finished as it was supposed to defend the belgian front too. Thus it failed as it was not complete. anyway, the best layed plans fall apart in contact with the enemy. ~~~~~~ mods, if you think i'm ugly please say "eeek!" ~~~~~~ eeeeeekk - Deckard eeeeee...K -Darth Patches gawwwd damn!!1 -zhuge you soo pretty I think you're stunningly handsome and let me just say that you're wearing that dead parrot on your shoulder in a particularly dashing way today. -Hango Your using up all the space hango! - Timmeh
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings	Posted - 2008.05.21 04:40:00 - [6] Edited by: DubanFP on 21/05/2008 04:43:57 Ok. Lets say i have the most powerful body armor in the history of man. It can stop any weapon from penetrating my body and weighs no more then my normal t-shirt. Great idea right? Then someone comes and shoots me between the eyes where my suit doesn't protect. Hey, it did a great job at protecting my body! Doesn't really change the fact that I'm still dead though. Think death star. Sure it's invulnerable, except for this one small little hole that blows the whole damn thing up. Sorry but a defense is only flawless if it's actually flawless. _______________ ReiAyanami> We bring you tidings of AARRRRRRRRR
Nerogk Shorn Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.05.21 06:28:00 - [7] They ran out of funds to finish it. As far as i'm aware, they hastily made basic tank traps and such along the belgian border, and i don't think the land there was good enough (too soggy) to burrow into and make big bunkers. Lastly, because they spent all their iskies on the Maginot line, they didn't have much left over for mobile forces, such as tank squadrons and such. Putting all your eggs in one basket is NEVER a good idea no matter how uber your basket is. That's just what i remember, not entirely sure how accurate it is. The Bulbasaur Wizard D-F-A-A-B-A-A-S
Atama Cardel Even-Flow	Posted - 2008.05.21 06:49:00 - [8] Edited by: Atama Cardel on 21/05/2008 06:52:35 Originally by: F'nog Originally by: Atama Cardel I submit to you that the purpose of the Maginot Line was to stop a German invasion into France. Because the German invasion was not stopped, the Maginot Line was indeed one of histories greatest failures. tl;dr: lol france didn't think its plan through very well You fail, because the Line's intent was to stop the invasion over the Franco-German frontier. It was up to the others to defend themselves. The fact that they couldn't wasn't important to the French at the time. After the time you may make all the jokes you wish. But don't you think France should have learned their lesson from the first world war when German forces marched straight through Belgium? They should have expected that German forces could do it again. Edit: just looked at a map of German advances in world war II and it looks like they moved right over the section of land that the Maginot Line was located anyway
Nerogk Shorn Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.05.21 07:01:00 - [9] Originally by: Atama Cardel Edited by: Atama Cardel on 21/05/2008 06:52:35 Originally by: F'nog Originally by: Atama Cardel I submit to you that the purpose of the Maginot Line was to stop a German invasion into France. Because the German invasion was not stopped, the Maginot Line was indeed one of histories greatest failures. tl;dr: lol france didn't think its plan through very well You fail, because the Line's intent was to stop the invasion over the Franco-German frontier. It was up to the others to defend themselves. The fact that they couldn't wasn't important to the French at the time. After the time you may make all the jokes you wish. But don't you think France should have learned their lesson from the first world war when German forces marched straight through Belgium? They should have expected that German forces could do it again. Edit: just looked at a map of German advances in world war II and it looks like they moved right over the section of land that the Maginot Line was located anyway No they didn't, they went through Belgium, then attacked the Maginot line from the side/rear. The Bulbasaur Wizard D-F-A-A-B-A-A-S
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.05.21 07:01:00 - [10] Originally by: F'nog The only problem was that the designers failed to take into account that the invaders could go AROUND it. But the Line still served its purpose. The Germans couldn't attack it head on. If they had, they would have failed. Rather big defensive flaw if you ask me And seeing as how the Germans went around it, it fails. Brilliant tactic by the Germans though... German 1: "Hey, they got a defensive line!" German 2: "Well, how big is it?" German 1: "It stops over there" German 2: "Well, shall we walk around?" German 1: "Right-o" () () (â;..;)â (")(")
F'lan Ker Caldari DAB	Posted - 2008.05.21 08:13:00 - [11] Maginot line was limited to one direction only, so all Germans had to do was to walk past it and knock on rear door of it and order frenchies out The line was a classic example of post-WW1 thinking where armies were not thought to be as mobile as Germany's Wehrmacht was at outbreak of WW2, but limited to trench wars like in Verdun etc. So it was a total failure as no military leader is that dumb to attack such defensive installation head-on It was time for mobile war machine. Battle of Kursk in 1943 during Operation Zitadelle was largest tank battle in WW2 and a classic example of deep defences hindering advance of a mobile army effectively thus negating achieving their goal. Instead of solid lines Russians had built kind of layers of defences with mine fields, antitank guns, pillboxes etc. taking advantage of the terrain to force enemy to move from certain direction = causes more losses and slows advance down. I would call that a Great Success! So conclusion, Maginot Line was an expensive show case of building a line of bunkers to stop nothing ----------------------------------------------------- ~Let Chaos Entwine On Defenceless Soil~
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.05.21 09:25:00 - [12] Poor frenchies I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them.
Adonis 4174	Posted - 2008.05.21 10:24:00 - [13] The point of the line was that there was one very vulnerable point on the French border where an army could take a refreshing stroll into france and be bright, cheery and chirpy when it came time for battle. The line served the purpose of making the enemies actually have to strain themselves. It's kinda like locking your door when anyone with a medium sized hammer could break it down in seconds. ---- Infiniband can do more than just prevent lag
Haakon Jarl Caldari direkte	Posted - 2008.05.21 10:37:00 - [14] The Maginot Line was a massive failure as it was already obsolete when the Germans invaded. Had it been WW1 then it would have worked. Basically it was just a waste of money. In it for the state
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.05.21 11:09:00 - [15] Edited by: Shadowsword on 21/05/2008 11:09:18 Even if the germans had attacked head on the maginot line, it probably wouldn't have stopped them. Inflicted heavy losses, yes. But in a time were paratroopers could get behind it, and against the big armored divisions of germany, it would have been breached. Probably in less than a week. Not doing the france-belgium part of the line was stupid, too, but maybe it was just late, or maybe abandonned because the french planners realised that a lot of their defensive tactics have already been made obsolete by airborne troopers and the like. At the time, Germany was Europe's biggest war machine. In fact, prior to pearl harbor, that turned the US into "at-war" mode, it was probably the world's premier military power. It was europe's most populated country, with quite a bit of natural ressources, and a huge heavy industry. No continental power managed to stop them. Had the UK not been partially protected behind the Manche, it would probably have been overrun, too. ------------------------------------------
Dray Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2008.05.21 14:32:00 - [16] I had my own maginot line, and it was an epic failure, i sneezed and blew it off the table b4 i could snort it....
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.05.21 14:34:00 - [17] Jessica Alba: History's Greatest Success? ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Kyrall Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:21:00 - [18] Everyone learns about WWII at school, same old boring stuff. Napoleonic wars however, now that is interesting! I've been reading about them just out of personal interest, and it's all great stuff. Specifically in this case, the lines of Torres Vedras. That's how it's meant to be done! 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. - Originally by: Kyrall Pfft antivirus? Real men use a hard drive tank.
Weeman Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2008.05.21 16:31:00 - [19] Moderate success as it forced German planners to come up with a better invasion strategy than the useless one 20 years before. Any failure of this plan was overshadowed by the complete and utter French & British failure of concentrating on what was happening just to the east of Holland and missing an entire army group loitering the other side of the Ardennes waiting to steamroller through.
Haraldhardrade Pax Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.21 16:31:00 - [20] Originally by: Shadowsword At the time, Germany was Europe's biggest war machine. In fact, prior to pearl harbor, that turned the US into "at-war" mode, it was probably the world's premier military power. It was europe's most populated country, with quite a bit of natural ressources, and a huge heavy industry. No continental power managed to stop them. Had the UK not been partially protected behind the Manche, it would probably have been overrun, too. Aye. Germany would win over anyone 1vs1 hands down, kinda like the US today. The UK were a close second I would suspect. Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
Micheal Dietrich Terradyne Networks	Posted - 2008.05.21 16:48:00 - [21] 2 notes I would like to add in. The first one nobody knows how true this is but it was acquired from ****s diary. Supposedly he was a soldier on the front lines in WW1. In one instance he recalls a british soldier being a one man firing squad killing up to 12 germans. As ** was making his way out of some brush when he came face to face with the british soldiers barrel. Ready to resign to his fate the british allowed him to leave. Now if that story is true imagine how different the world would have been had that soldier pulled the trigger. Now in point 2 I believe that it wasn't the germans that started WW2 but rather the allies. After WW1 we sanctioned them to death. We placed such harsh restrictions on Germany that it put them into a major depression severly hurting the economy trying to pay off depts. True that **** had other aspirations but I think a major factor was that they were tired of being oppressed.
Haraldhardrade Pax Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.21 17:05:00 - [22] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Now in point 2 I believe that it wasn't the germans that started WW2 but rather the allies. After WW1 we sanctioned them to death. We placed such harsh restrictions on Germany that it put them into a major depression severly hurting the economy trying to pay off depts. True that **** had other aspirations but I think a major factor was that they were tired of being oppressed. Originally by:** Micheal Dietrich Now in point 2 I believe that it wasn't the germans that started WW2 but rather the allies. After WW1 we sanctioned them to death. We placed such harsh restrictions on Germany that it put them into a major depression severly hurting the economy trying to pay off depts. True that **** had other aspirations but I think a major factor was that they were tired of being oppressed. The sanctions on Germany were responsible indeed for WW2(well, ** too ofcorse), it allowed ** to gain power. You needed a wheelbarrow full of Deutche mark in order to buy bread, ofcorse people were **ed. WW1 had no good guys or bad guys like WW2, WW1 was just European superpowers going to war over stupid things. Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
Shalia Ripper Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.05.21 18:01:00 - [23] Originally by: Haraldhardrade Originally by: Shadowsword At the time, Germany was Europe's biggest war machine. In fact, prior to pearl harbor, that turned the US into "at-war" mode, it was probably the world's premier military power. It was europe's most populated country, with quite a bit of natural ressources, and a huge heavy industry. No continental power managed to stop them. Had the UK not been partially protected behind the Manche, it would probably have been overrun, too. Aye. Germany would win over anyone 1vs1 hands down, kinda like the US today. The UK were a close second I would suspect. Man for man, German soldiers were better than anyone. They failed due to the H-man's poor strategy. Despite all of the Allied bombing, industry was still going full tilt. They had the best weapons (for the most part) and the best men. Better logistical support from America even prior to Pearl Harbor and the Eastern Front were the two weakest links in the German chain.
Haraldhardrade Pax Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.21 18:36:00 - [24] Originally by: Shalia Ripper the Eastern Front were the two weakest links in the German chain. I would say two fronts were the weakest links, if I read your post correctly. without the allies bombing Germany, Germany would no doubt win against the soviet union. Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
Elysarian dudetruck corp	Posted - 2008.05.21 18:38:00 - [25] Edited by: Elysarian on 21/05/2008 18:42:32 Originally by: F'nog Let's look at the facts: the Maginot Line was designed to prevent the Germans from invading France along their frontier. I propose that it was a monumental success. The Germans could not invade France along the Maginot Line. The only problem was that the designers failed to take into account that the invaders could go AROUND it. But the Line still served its purpose. The Germans couldn't attack it head on. If they had, they would have failed. Discuss. as other posters have commented the French ran out of money to complete the line... Apart from that, it took so long to complete that by the time the part that was finished was in use, it was obsolete (I personally think the estimate of a week to overrun it is conservative - the Germans were well practiced at Blitzkrieg tactics by the time they got around to invading France that they could likely have made a mess of the line within days). The question of how effective it would have been is moot as it wasn't, allowing the Germans to go around it and avoid any possible losses that may have occurred in a direct assault. As for the latter stages of the war, the Eastern front was a complete disaster for a number of reasons: German supply lines were spread too thin, the Soviets were deploying a "Scorched Earth" policy (as they did against Napoleonic forces previously), German losses meant that there were less troops and equipment in the west to defend against the D-Day landings when they came, German tanks were a lot more complex and prone to breakdowns than the Soviet T-43's.... etc. Aside from the above it is widely reported that ****** was in the advanced stages of some form of mental breakdown (dementia?) toward the end and was ordering non-existant units to attack/defend and his Generals and others were too afraid of his temper to disobey him.
Frezik Basically Outdated Stereo Equiptment	Posted - 2008.05.21 19:55:00 - [26] Originally by: Kyrall 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. I'm personally fond of Lord Nelson from around the same time period as the above. The dude ordered his lone ship to take on six Spanish ships, any one of which would have out-gunned him. Although his ship was utterly shredded by cannon fire, he managed to board one of the enemy ships, take it, found out that the n00b sailors had gotten their rigging tangled with another Spanish ship, and took that one, too. If Nelson had lost, he would have been called foolhardy. Since he won, we call him daring instead. As for the Maginot Line, if it's history's greatest success because its goal was to prevent a German invasion across the French boarder, then it suffered from having too narrow of a goal. But mostly, it suffers from being a large, static defense. That means the enemy can choose when, where, and how to attack it. H-man was successful when he could do the opposite--use highly mobile forces to quickly overrun an enemy. He fell apart when those forces met two unmovable rocks known as the "English Channel" on one side and "Russian Willpower" on the other.
Haraldhardrade Pax Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.21 20:24:00 - [27] Originally by: Frezik "Russian Willpower" on the other. Having a bachelor in WW2 history, I would use slightly different terms than willpower, though willpower certainly was a major part of the equation....eventually. The Russians often gave their soldiers two choices, die by the gun of a political commissar or die by the gun of a German soldier. The latter often being the nicest choice. What really halted the German invasion was the Russian winter. Little or no supplies combined with a freezing cold that killed soldiers and disabled tanks stopped the German offensive. Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
Kyrall Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.21 20:41:00 - [28] Originally by: Frezik I'm personally fond of Lord Nelson from around the same time period as the above. The dude ordered his lone ship to take on six Spanish ships, any one of which would have out-gunned him. Although his ship was utterly shredded by cannon fire, he managed to board one of the enemy ships, take it, found out that the n00b sailors had gotten their rigging tangled with another Spanish ship, and took that one, too. 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? - Originally by: Kyrall Pfft antivirus? Real men use a hard drive tank.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.05.21 21:04:00 - [29] Originally by: Kyrall Originally by: Frezik I'm personally fond of Lord Nelson from around the same time period as the above. The dude ordered his lone ship to take on six Spanish ships, any one of which would have out-gunned him. Although his ship was utterly shredded by cannon fire, he managed to board one of the enemy ships, take it, found out that the n00b sailors had gotten their rigging tangled with another Spanish ship, and took that one, too. 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? You'd be amazed at how often those 2 traits coincide () () (â;..;)â (")(")
Atama Cardel Even-Flow	Posted - 2008.05.21 23:30:00 - [30] Originally by: Nerogk Shorn Originally by: Atama Cardel Edited by: Atama Cardel on 21/05/2008 06:52:35 Originally by: F'nog Originally by: Atama Cardel I submit to you that the purpose of the Maginot Line was to stop a German invasion into France. Because the German invasion was not stopped, the Maginot Line was indeed one of histories greatest failures. tl;dr: lol france didn't think its plan through very well You fail, because the Line's intent was to stop the invasion over the Franco-German frontier. It was up to the others to defend themselves. The fact that they couldn't wasn't important to the French at the time. After the time you may make all the jokes you wish. But don't you think France should have learned their lesson from the first world war when German forces marched straight through Belgium? They should have expected that German forces could do it again. Edit: just looked at a map of German advances in world war II and it looks like they moved right over the section of land that the Maginot Line was located anyway No they didn't, they went through Belgium, then attacked the Maginot line from the side/rear. The map I'm looking at shows both an advance through Belgium and one through where the Maginot Line was, of course it does not specify if this was an air or land advancement and more than likely it was by air. (the map is in a book so no I can't link it for you to look at)
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). IÆd 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]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.