70th Anniversary of D-Day

[vodkafan]

Has anyone seen the movie "Stalingrad". My friends and I when we saw it said it pretty much encapsulated the war. The German super sniper was indisputably better than the Russian super sniper. What made the difference is the Russian super sniper had lots of friends.

Paladin, it sounds like you are getting your movies mixed up. The sniper film is Enemy At The Gates. Stalingrad is another movie, although they were both about the same time and place of course.

[Anomalocaris]

If you think superior German skill and quality was overwhelmed by brute Russian numbers encapsulate the whole war in the east, I think you fall for inaccurate stereotyping.

The Germans definitely started the war with a huge lead in skill at all levels. But Germans also had numerical superiority in the total sizes of forces committed to battle all the way through 1941. When Germans won their initial spectacular victories, the Germans usually had numerical superiority over the Russians in actual size of forces that fought. When Germans attacked Moscow, the Germans still had numerical superiority, although they were wore out by then, and their actual combat powers much diminished.

During much of 1942 the Germans also continue to have numerical superiority at the point of battle. It was only when they blundered into Stalingrad that the table turned and Russians enjoyed great superiority in the size if force engaged.

By 1943, Germany no longer had an advantage in skill on strategic level, maneuvering armies groups. They also lost the ability to focus numerically superior forces at the point if battle. By 1944, Russians were also more skillful on the operational level, maneuvering armies and corps. By late 1944 the Russians were clearly better on divisional level as well.

It was only on the company and battalion tactic level the Germans seem to retain an edge almost to the end.

So when the Germans were winning, they were better than the Russians, but they were mostly also in a position of numerical superiority at the point of the battle. When they decidedly lost the ability to achieve numerical superiority at the point of battle, they were also no longer better than the Russians at high level operations and strategy.

[Minimalist]

The greatest mistake made in WWII was the Japanese leaving 4 aircraft carriers afloat, that had been their primary target.

It wasn't a mistake. There were only 3 carriers in the Pacific. Two ( Lexington and Enterprise) were out on assignment delivering aircraft to outlying bases and Saratoga was in San Diego.

Yorktown was in the Atlantic.

[DeistPaladin]

Paladin, it sounds like you are getting your movies mixed up. The sniper film is Enemy At The Gates. Stalingrad is another movie, although they were both about the same time and place of course.

Oops. Thanks for the correction.

[A Theist]

In that sense, The Battle of Moscow was the decisive battle of WWII as it condemned Germany to a war of attrition it could never have hoped to win.

You would think that Hitler would have learned a lesson from history and better prepared his armies when Napolean broke rule number 1. Big egos and a false sense of invincibilty proved to be their undoing.

---

Germany really fucked up attacking Russia. I think they would have been fine if they had stopped at Europe. They also could have gotten lots of Africa too. But, as morbid as it sounds, their greed did them in and we are all better off because they simply went too far.

I wonder if Hitler thought it would go the same as it did for WWI.

Germany and Russia clashed in WWI as well and the Germans virtually overran Russia (the Brusiliov Offensive being the only time Russia got in a good punch) and Germany did this while fighting France and Italy on other fronts. Maybe Hitler thought, "hey, France is down, Britain is isolated, the Italians are on my side, and Stalin has weakened his own military with his purges. Why wouldn't this work?"

Before anyone says, "yeah, but the Russian Revolution..." that didn't happen until after the Russians had lost their war. While I'm not an expert in the details of the Russian Revolution, from what I've studied of the first world war, it seems like the revolution happened because of the Tzar's defeat, not the other way around.

Just goes to show you that past wars are not necessarily an indication of how future wars are going to go.

They suffered a lot of defeats and there was widespread discontent but they weren't out of the war yet, not until Germany, under Kaiser Wilhelm, brought Vladmir Lennon into Russia from exile and helped finance the revolution there in hopes of taking Russia out of the war. After the Bolsheviks took control they signed a peace treaty with Germany.... Germany also attempted a similar tactic to keep America out of the war. A message was intercepted that Germany had promised money and assisstance to Mexico and help it regain the Northwest territories they lost to America if they would join the war against the United States.

[Brian37]

Germany really fucked up attacking Russia. I think they would have been fine if they had stopped at Europe. They also could have gotten lots of Africa too. But, as morbid as it sounds, their greed did them in and we are all better off because they simply went too far.

I wonder if Hitler thought it would go the same as it did for WWI.

Germany and Russia clashed in WWI as well and the Germans virtually overran Russia (the Brusiliov Offensive being the only time Russia got in a good punch) and Germany did this while fighting France and Italy on other fronts. Maybe Hitler thought, "hey, France is down, Britain is isolated, the Italians are on my side, and Stalin has weakened his own military with his purges. Why wouldn't this work?"

Before anyone says, "yeah, but the Russian Revolution..." that didn't happen until after the Russians had lost their war. While I'm not an expert in the details of the Russian Revolution, from what I've studied of the first world war, it seems like the revolution happened because of the Tzar's defeat, not the other way around.

Just goes to show you that past wars are not necessarily an indication of how future wars are going to go.

No shit. As much as I value what the allies did in WW2, for some stupid fucking reason, especially with republicans, we are still stuck on the high of that win, forgetting that technology has changed and the nature of war itself has changed, and we have gotten stuck in quagmires ever since.

It is not as simple as putting boots on the ground anymore.

[Godscreated]

---

I wonder if Hitler thought it would go the same as it did for WWI.

Germany and Russia clashed in WWI as well and the Germans virtually overran Russia (the Brusiliov Offensive being the only time Russia got in a good punch) and Germany did this while fighting France and Italy on other fronts. Maybe Hitler thought, "hey, France is down, Britain is isolated, the Italians are on my side, and Stalin has weakened his own military with his purges. Why wouldn't this work?"

Before anyone says, "yeah, but the Russian Revolution..." that didn't happen until after the Russians had lost their war. While I'm not an expert in the details of the Russian Revolution, from what I've studied of the first world war, it seems like the revolution happened because of the Tzar's defeat, not the other way around.

Just goes to show you that past wars are not necessarily an indication of how future wars are going to go.

---

No shit. As much as I value what the allies did in WW2, for some stupid fucking reason, especially with republicans, we are still stuck on the high of that win, forgetting that technology has changed and the nature of war itself has changed, and we have gotten stuck in quagmires ever since.

It is not as simple as putting boots on the ground anymore.

The nature that has change is we have to sanitize war now, even though in WWII we tried to spare civilians it wasn't our first responsibility, civilian deaths were accepted as part of the war, the goal was to end the war and the horrors it brings quickly. To sanitize war is a contradiction of actions.

GC

[Brian37]

No shit. As much as I value what the allies did in WW2, for some stupid fucking reason, especially with republicans, we are still stuck on the high of that win, forgetting that technology has changed and the nature of war itself has changed, and we have gotten stuck in quagmires ever since.

It is not as simple as putting boots on the ground anymore.

The nature that has change is we have to sanitize war now, even though in WWII we tried to spare civilians it wasn't our first responsibility, civilian deaths were accepted as part of the war, the goal was to end the war and the horrors it brings quickly. To sanitize war is a contradiction of actions.

GC

Who the fuck is claiming you can sanitize war, not me. I am saying you look at all the wars after WW2 America has gotten involved in, and they have been stalemates at best and failures.

I do think where we have seen success is when we have gained wider support and only acted as support. I am simply not for Dirty Harry policies of shoot first and ask questions later.

Even with Afghanistan, if we had simply done what we finally did in getting Bin Laden with special forces, instead of invading the entire country and getting stuck there, would have save lives and a shitload of money.

IF IF IF IF IF IF we put troops on the ground in the future again, we need to have a plan going in and getting out. Instead of what we have seen since WW2 in simply going in with no plan.

War is hell? NO SHIT, thanks for the update.

[Minimalist]

You would think that Hitler would have learned a lesson from history and better prepared his armies when Napolean broke rule number 1.

They thought it would be over by the time winter came. German success in WWI probably led to the overconfidence.

even though in WWII we tried to spare civilians it wasn't our first responsibility,

No, we didn't.

[Godscreated]

even though in WWII we tried to spare civilians it wasn't our first responsibility,

No, we didn't.

Yes we did, the British were bombing Germany at night and the US was in disagreement with this policy because there were to many civilian deaths due to night time bombing. I understand that civilians were killed because we fought to win even at the cost of their lives, but we did try to limit those deaths.

GC