Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,139
- Location
- Burscough
Once the Ruskies got going, their production rates were absolutely immense! Albeit a lot of this was down to forced labour in deplorable conditions.
Lack of awareness on WW1/2
- Thread starter Pawnless Endgame
- Start date
Once the Ruskies got going, their production rates were absolutely immense! Albeit a lot of this was down to forced labour in deplorable conditions.
France had the biggest army in the world and had the most tanks, it was inconcievable that germany could beat them.
It was weeks btw, not months. My opinion is France just wasn't up for another slaughter-fest. They say WW1 wiped out thw flower of britains youth but it was worse for France, I don't blame the generals who went through the great war not having the heart to plunge their country into it again.
The Soviets army was poorly equiped, trained and prepared for any mass warfare, especially against such a technically advanced nation. (Although it was the Soviets simplicity which proved to be more effective!)
Like Britain, the USSR uses it's geography to it's advantage, two notably the gigantic land mass and the harsh winter.
If Germany didn't attack the Soviets, we would have been boned even with our little pond anyway.
*edit*
France was pretty divided anyway before WWII, the reason why they were all too keen to jump to Vichy was because (from what I gather) many viewed it as a chance to make a stronger united France.
Like Britain, the USSR uses it's geography to it's advantage, two notably the gigantic land mass and the harsh winter.
If Germany didn't attack the Soviets, we would have been boned even with our little pond anyway.
*edit*
France was pretty divided anyway before WWII, the reason why they were all too keen to jump to Vichy was because (from what I gather) many viewed it as a chance to make a stronger united France.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,139
- Location
- Burscough
The tanks the French had were old and of very poor quality and did not stand a chance against the newer German tanks. The French tanks were really not worth speaking of, compounded by the fact that they would not have stood a chance against the Luftwaffe anyway.
Last edited:
And the fact they packed up all their factories and moved them to the other side of the world, taking their production capabilities way beyond any bombing or destruction.
Some were quite stonkingly good, far more powerful than the german panzers of the time - but not used effectively, not as mobile and as you said - woefully vulnerable to german air superiority.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,139
- Location
- Burscough
The Japanese probably took the prize for the worst tanks, and indeed equipment, most used very old and outclassed rifles.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,307
And yet they proved that a well Motivated army is capable of doing anything, and that using your environment can make up the differences in man-power and weapon quality.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,307
I'm not sure where you got your information from, they had some of the best tanks in the world, and many were better than their German counter-parts. However they also three major downfalls compared to the German tanks.
1). They had no radios, which meant that communication was very difficult.
2). The French commanders thought of them as Infantry support, and so instead of being concentrated in Tank divisions like the German tanks, they were spread out way too thinly in Infantry divisions and so could do very little.
3). The Germans owned the air, even with help from the RAF, the French Air force was poorly led and was just generally useless, when they lost the fight in the air, the tanks were left with no air cover and so were sitting ducks to the Stukas and other German aircraft.
Once Maginot line was made useless by the Germans going around it the French did not have enough to fight with ... nor did we for that matter
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,139
- Location
- Burscough
Ok, I'll be a man and do an OCUK first and admit that I was wrong!
I read widely about WW2, but clearly not widely enough! 1942 onwards is where my knowledge starts, all the good campaigns happened from then onwards!
Last edited:
Actually not true, the Char 1 Bis, Souma S35, Renault R35 tanks were as good if not actually better than any tanks in the German panzerwaffe, and they had more of them, lack of radios and one man turrets apart....
The difference was how they were organised into concentrated formations used at the critical point of action (google schwerpunkt), how they trained and operated with other combat arms and how they were lead at the tactical and higher levels. Not to mention the training and overall high combat efficiency of the German troops. They really were rather good.
If you are interested, Heinz Guderian wrote the book on Blitzkreig in 1937. You can get it cheap on Ebay, its called "Achtung Panzer !" Shame nobody on our side read it before he lead his troops through the Ardenne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achtung_%E2%80%93_Panzer!
edit ***
Oh i see someone has already said what i have
anyway, i hope you read Guderian's book, and his later auto biography....i found it interesting to read about someone on the other side.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,860
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Who needs GCSE History lessons, i learn crap loads reading this page in the last 15 minutes than the entire 2 hours of Saving Private Ryan!
It doesnt really matter what the dates of the world wars were does it. Thats half the problem with the current method by which we learn in schools. Learn these facts, learn these dates and don't worry about the analysis of cause and effect. I studied A-level history and couldnt tell you the exact dates of either war but I have a good understanding of the politics and rationale behind countries actions.
Look at how 90% of people in this country formulate opinions and you will see the massive lack of analytical skills. Dates make little difference to the understanding of the world wars. As long as you have the correct year, the actual month and day doesnt matter much.
Look at how 90% of people in this country formulate opinions and you will see the massive lack of analytical skills. Dates make little difference to the understanding of the world wars. As long as you have the correct year, the actual month and day doesnt matter much.
True. But a decent knowledge of the last 30 years would help you understand even more about the present, surely. If they're not interested in WWI/WWII, it's not that big a deal, imo.
i was just thinking something similar
it is sad that some people today, do not know of the sacrifices made by so many people, so they can have the freedom today that they take for granted
Indeed, The two world wars is something that has always fascinated me, possibly because my pop (Grand dad) fought in the African campaign and told no one else but me about his time there. Learning how he was in the battle for Monte Casino was certainly an eye opener (The book "Anzio" by Lloyd Clark details this quite well).
One area that specifically interests me is the Battle of Stalingrad. Reading up on that certainly brings a lump to my throat. One line I will always take away is the average life span of a new recruit was under 24 hours.....
Wiki Article said:
Wiki Article said:
In total it is estimated that there were around 1.5 to 2million Axis and Soviet casualties although the actual number is unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_stalingrad
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 3,310
- Location
- In west London
This is still being taught in GCSE curriculum but not in A-level. Personally I think its the lack of interest of the new generation imo.