Jump to content

Military Literature


Recommended Posts

my mistake, shouldn't have included england. canada is a big and rich enough country and if it focuses on military production, i'll bet it will be second only to the US. australia has enough heavy industries to engage in an oceanic war.

 

manuel quezon wanted to create an independent philippines, declare itself neutral and kick out both the USAFE and the invading japanese. didn't happen. and that was with the US. the britons are much more hard-nosed when it comes to deciding what their territories should do.

 

remember that the suez canal and gibraltar straits are crucial to commercial shipping. militarily, both access routes can be flanked, whether overland or through the air.

 

if i was limited to convertional, i will use my long range bombers to destroy axis infrastructure and my navy to bottle up sea and near-sea movement. that way, i'll try as much as possible to keep the axis from rolling into india, pakistan, china, middle east and north africa.

 

but my main objective would be to retake western europe. that's why controlling north africa becomes crucial. that will be my likely jump-off point. aside from strategic bombing, a crucial aspect will be infantry-mountain warfare. moving and fighting over rough ground will nullify the influence of mechanized forces. i'll start creeping in though the balkans, the pyrenees, the alps.

 

Follow up again:

 

1. Australia had a tough little army. Emphasis on "little". It wasn't enough to confront the Japanese.

 

2. How would Quezon kick out the Japanese? Plead with them? Nah.

 

3. Shipping is the only way to mass-move men and materiel. If the Axis controlled those two passages, the Suez Canal and Gibraltar, forget about outflanking. Britain cannot hope to reinforce its forces in Asia around the Cape of Good Hope in time. Air resupply? Germany couldn't even save its 6th Army using this and Operation Vittles (the Berlin Airlift) involved nightmarish logistics over distances of a few hundred miles.

 

Hmmm, would the British, in the event of capitulation, have scuttled what remained of the RN?

 

4. What kind of fighter cover would those long-range bombers have? Once when they're in range of land-based interceptors, it'd be a turkey-shoot.

 

5. With North Africa under Vichy French control, where would the Allies land and from where? Brazil?The Afrika Korps and, we can imagine, the Italians will be waiting for the yet-to-be-sprung "Torch". The Balkans? Again, how to enter the Mediterranean? The Pyrenees? Would neutral Spain even allow it? The Alps? From where? There was no soft underbelly of Europe that was Italy without a successful African campaign. Italy had formidable mountain divisions.

Link to comment
  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

you might want to scrounge around for the old ballantine illustrated war series.

 

for the german luftwaffe, read "first and the last" by adolf galland.

 

for blitzkrieg tactics, read "panzer leader" by heinz guderian

 

for a good commentary on germany's "greatest mistake (russia)", read "defeat in the west". this last book is one of the most intelligent books on ww2 that i've read.

 

I have been collecting the Ballantine Illustrated war series since I was in high school. I think I have 15 of them. My favorites include "Company Commander" by Charles MacDonald, "Helmet for My Pillow" by Robert Lockie, "Currahee" (forgot the author), "On To Berlin" by James Gavin, "Coral and Brass" by H.M. Smith, and "The Battle for Guadalcanal" by Samuel Griffith.

 

I also collected the "Brotherhood of War"and "The Corps" series by WEB Griffin (?).

Edited by Dr_PepPeR
Link to comment
Follow up again:

 

1. Australia had a tough little army. Emphasis on "little". It wasn't enough to confront the Japanese.

they didn't mobilize and arm as much.

 

2. How would Quezon kick out the Japanese? Plead with them? Nah.

when the bataan battle was winding down. he made the recommendation to roosevelt. the latter vetoed it. if they did become a neutral country, the japanese would have honored the geneva accords but they will insist on the removal/destruction of US forces in the philippines.

 

3. Shipping is the only way to mass-move men and materiel. If the Axis controlled those two passages, the Suez Canal and Gibraltar, forget about outflanking. Britain cannot hope to reinforce its forces in Asia around the Cape of Good Hope in time. Air resupply? Germany couldn't even save its 6th Army using this and Operation Vittles (the Berlin Airlift) involved nightmarish logistics over distances of a few hundred miles.

 

Hmmm, would the British, in the event of capitulation, have scuttled what remained of the RN?

they would have based them in canada, and set up bases in the falklands, south africa, arabia, india.

 

4. What kind of fighter cover would those long-range bombers have? Once when they're in range of land-based interceptors, it'd be a turkey-shoot.

not really, the air war will shift to jets. and jet-powered bombers will have much better survivability than props. they won't need to bristle with 14 .50 cal guns to ward off fighters.

 

5. With North Africa under Vichy French control, where would the Allies land and from where? Brazil?The Afrika Korps and, we can imagine, the Italians will be waiting for the yet-to-be-sprung "Torch". The Balkans? Again, how to enter the Mediterranean? The Pyrenees? Would neutral Spain even allow it? The Alps? From where? There was no soft underbelly of Europe that was Italy without a successful African campaign. Italy had formidable mountain divisions.

west african coast. then push northwards. staging area will be south africa. battle groups based in canada and possibly iceland will engage in running battles to force the german naval forces to split up.

Link to comment
I have been collecting the Ballantine Illustrated war series since I was in high school. I think I have 15 of them. My favorites include "Company Commander" by Charles MacDonald, "Helmet for My Pillow" by Robert Lockie, "Currahee" (forgot the author), "On To Berlin" by James Gavin, "Coral and Brass" by H.M. Smith, and "The Battle for Guadalcanal" by Samuel Griffith.

 

I also collected the "Brotherhood of War"and "The Corps" series by WEB Griffin (?).

the book tilles you mentioned ar enovels, not ballantine :)

 

we had co. comm, helmet, scream of eagles, and the griffith book. my favorite chapter there was "the iron tongue of midnight" telling how the americans has their asses handed to them at savo.

 

i think the very first book i read was "samurai" by saburo sakai.

 

if you're a serious student military of the military, i suggest you read the formal works of strategists such as mahan (navy) and mitchell (stategic bombing).

 

i was so into battleships i even research the metallurgical aspect of battleship armor.

Link to comment

the biggest mistake Adolf made was not to review history. Even Napoleon the Great failed to defeat Russia's "General Winter".

 

and oh, don't accuse the Nazis of a blunder with their declaration of war against the US...that wasn't made by gradeschoolers. Nazis knew very well that it's not gonna be very long before u see Uncle Sam on the European continent. it was an unnecessary declaration actually, moot and academic...but of course, given the imminent American involvement, it was just better to make something positive out of the whole situation...like rallying ur troops and boosting their morale by declaring a war against a big dog.

 

with or w/o a declaration of war against US, the US would have kicked germany's ass. y? there's already a business case to do so.

 

wait, let's roll back a bit. it was not really surprising to know that the Americans were actually tolerant of the bully Germans while they were killing the Polish, Czechs, French, etc...an expanding Germany was a good cashcow. actually the americans made a lot of money dealing with both the Allies and Germany early in the war...

 

but at some point, Germany got huge. Not good for the American purse. Plus they start building things on their own at an alarming pace using LOCAL resources. The idea of a Germany-controlled Continental Europe would be an economic nightmare...

 

but still, the Americans exercised caution. it pussyfooted for a while and maintained its strategic ambiguity...

 

then came the realization that Germany ain't so tough. can't bomb the s@%t out of London Brits and was defeated decisively by the Russian winter. It was time to butt in, kick some Nazis' asses, emerge as heroes and then get the lion's share of the spoils. Good plan.

 

and the rest is history. D-day. Germany got divided into West and East. Americans secured rebuilding contracts and a lot of trade concessions.

 

the end result: America became the top dog, economically and militarily. there's not much the Nazis can do with that.

Link to comment
the biggest mistake Adolf made was not to review history. Even Napoleon the Great failed to defeat Russia's "General Winter".

 

and oh, don't accuse the Nazis of a blunder with their declaration of war against the US...that wasn't made by gradeschoolers. Nazis knew very well that it's not gonna be very long before u see Uncle Sam on the European continent. it was an unnecessary declaration actually, moot and academic...but of course, given the imminent American involvement, it was just better to make something positive out of the whole situation...like rallying ur troops and boosting their morale by declaring a war against a big dog.

 

with or w/o a declaration of war against US, the US would have kicked germany's ass. y? there's already a business case to do so.

 

wait, let's roll back a bit. it was not really surprising to know that the Americans were actually tolerant of the bully Germans while they were killing the Polish, Czechs, French, etc...an expanding Germany was a good cashcow. actually the americans made a lot of money dealing with both the Allies and Germany early in the war...

 

but at some point, Germany got huge. Not good for the American purse. Plus they start building things on their own at an alarming pace using LOCAL resources. The idea of a Germany-controlled Continental Europe would be an economic nightmare...

 

but still, the Americans exercised caution. it pussyfooted for a while and maintained its strategic ambiguity...

 

then came the realization that Germany ain't so tough. can't bomb the s@%t out of London Brits and was defeated decisively by the Russian winter. It was time to butt in, kick some Nazis' asses, emerge as heroes and then get the lion's share of the spoils. Good plan.

 

and the rest is history. D-day. Germany got divided into West and East. Americans secured rebuilding contracts and a lot of trade concessions.

 

the end result: America became the top dog, economically and militarily. there's not much the Nazis can do with that.

hohum...

 

well, let's stop accusing people of being amateur scientists and historians. instead, i'd like to see you expand the above essay to answer the following:

 

1. could the US' decision to go into europe, "kick nazi asses", and get the "lion's share in the spoils" been different/early/delayed from atual had the japs not bombed pearl?

 

2. was europe that rich after an allied victory? then why did the US, your everwhelming "top dog", agree to a multi-lateral arrangement with other powers regarding the disposition of "spoils"? they had to wait 50 years for the wall to come down before the real spoils could be taken. a 50-year cold war after wading in with an overwhelming military advantage? not very smart of americans, i should think.

 

3. so what do you think is the real reason why the US would focus on germany first before japan? you already said the germans weren't that good. they failed to beat the brits and ruskies as of december '41. so why didn't they just rebuild their sunken battleships sooner, build more carriers and drive straight to tokyo bay?

Link to comment
they didn't mobilize and arm as much.

 

when the bataan battle was winding down. he made the recommendation to roosevelt. the latter vetoed it. if they did become a neutral country, the japanese would have honored the geneva accords but they will insist on the removal/destruction of US forces in the philippines.

 

they would have based them in canada, and set up bases in the falklands, south africa, arabia, india.

 

not really, the air war will shift to jets. and jet-powered bombers will have much better survivability than props. they won't need to bristle with 14 .50 cal guns to ward off fighters.

 

west african coast. then push northwards. staging area will be south africa. battle groups based in canada and possibly iceland will engage in running battles to force the german naval forces to split up.

 

1. No? Australians were "all in" for the war effort. However, even then, that country still needed help by way of protection from Americans.

 

2. When the Japs attacked the 'open city' that was Manila, I really wouldn't put too much stock in their word to abide by the Geneva Convention.

 

3. Possibly.

 

4. Jets, sure. So you had jet-powered bombers. How would they survive, being "heavy", in the face of oncoming jet-fighters out to meet them? What about fighter escorts (these would have to be carrier-based and we know them to be at a serious disadvantage performance-wise compared to land-based interceptors)?

 

C'mon, bombers cannot hope to survive in the face of a determined jet-fighter attack.

 

5. West Africa? I think so, too. Below the equator, that is. South Africa's too far.

Link to comment
Hitler's been accused to no end of micromanaging the campaign in Russia. How big a difference would it have made had he left the conduct of the war to his generals?

 

Just a quick reply to this:

 

The attack on Moscow would have occurred a lot earlier than November 1941. If Hitler's generals had managed the war, Army Group Center could have focused all of its might on captuing Moscow, and probably Stalin too, all during the summer campaign and before the onset of the Russian winter. The people of Moscow would not have had enough time to set up a strong defensive ring around the city. If Stalin was captured or if Moscow had fallen to the Germans, it would have dealt a devastating blow to the morale of the Russians.

Link to comment
Just a quick reply to this:

 

The attack on Moscow would have occurred a lot earlier than November 1941.  If Hitler's generals had managed the war, Army Group Center could have focused all of its might on captuing Moscow, and probably Stalin too, all during the summer campaign and before the onset of the Russian winter.  The people of Moscow would not have had enough time to set up a strong defensive ring around the city.  If Stalin was captured or if Moscow had fallen to the Germans, it would have dealt a devastating blow to the morale of the Russians.

 

But that doesn't address how German armies, no matter how strong or fast they moved, could've managed to defeat Russia's defense-in-depth strategy, which the Soviets employed to the hilt. The further into enemy territory the Wermacht pushed, the stronger the opposition became because retreating Russian troops were absorbed by successive defensive lines, blitzkrieg tactics notwithstanding.

Link to comment
But that doesn't address how German armies, no matter how strong or fast they moved, could've managed to defeat Russia's defense-in-depth strategy, which the Soviets employed to the hilt. The further into enemy territory the Wermacht pushed, the stronger the opposition became because retreating Russian troops were absorbed by successive defensive lines, blitzkrieg tactics notwithstanding.

 

This defensive strategy you're referring to started taking place during the 1942 campaign when the Russian generals and armies started learning from their mistakes the previous year. However, during the 1941 campaign, in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa, a lot of their armies were routed by the Germans due to the absence of experienced officers (a result of Stalin's purges from the 1930s). The Germans, due to Hitler's micromanaging, failed to take advantage of this Russian inexperience to maximum effect in 1941.

Edited by willow_boy
Link to comment
This defensive strategy you're referring to started taking place during the 1942 campaign when the Russian generals and armies started learning from their mistakes the previous year.  However, during the 1941 campaign, in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa, a lot of their armies were routed by the Germans due to the absence of experienced officers (a result of Stalin's purges from the 1930s).  The Germans, due to Hitler's micromanaging, failed to take advantage of this Russian inexperience to maximum effect in 1941.

 

By accident or by design?

 

An early general retreat was part of Soviet strategy because the Russians knew they still did not have enough by way of defense against Germany. By the very nature of this, fleeing units were dragooned by those in place. Also, Barbarossa was effected on a front so wide that two million men, despite six major points of attack, could not possibly hope to overwhelm a numerically-superior albeit generally ill-equipped foe.

 

Let's fast-forward to when Russia regained its footing and Germany was on the defensive. Could the latter have held out longer had it consolidated its forces and shortened the front-lines by strategic withdrawals? Was forward-defense essentially military-suicide?

Edited by Podweed
Link to comment
the book tilles you mentioned ar enovels, not ballantine :)

 

we had co. comm, helmet, scream of eagles, and the griffith book. my favorite chapter there was "the iron tongue of midnight" telling how the americans has their asses handed to them at savo.

 

i think the very first book i read was "samurai" by saburo sakai.

 

if you're a serious student military of the military, i suggest you read the formal works of strategists such as mahan (navy) and mitchell (stategic bombing).

 

i was so into battleships i even research the metallurgical aspect of battleship armor.

 

The WEB Griffin series are fiction. They incorporate historical events and characters into the plots. The dialogue and characters are stilted but make for good light reading.

 

The other books mentioned are mostly first hand accounts of the incidents/battles described. Another Ballantine illustrated war book that I vividly remember is entitled "Brazen Chariots" although I forget the author. He describes what desert tank warfare was like for the British tankers in the Middle East in WWII.

Link to comment
hohum...

 

well, let's stop accusing people of being amateur scientists and historians. instead, i'd like to see you expand the above essay to answer the following:

 

1. could the US' decision to go into europe, "kick nazi asses", and get the "lion's share in the spoils" been different/early/delayed from atual had the japs not bombed pearl?

 

of course, it'll be different. losing a fleet is always a setback. but the japs gave the americans a valid reason to join the war.

 

2. was europe that rich after an allied victory?

resource-wise yes. and oh, the colonies. don't forget them jewels.

 

then why did the US, your everwhelming "top dog", agree to a multi-lateral arrangement with other powers regarding the disposition of "spoils"?

 

politics of course. The emerging communist Russia would be a tough rival. You obviously wanted to surround a big bully with your friends. Besides, there was an emerging new world order...nationalism is on the uptrend and it would be terribly unwise for the Americans to bully them Europeans.

 

And tell me, why impose your will on them by having ur big fat ass on their soil when u can easily peg their economies to the dollar? That's what US did. A vibrant Europe reliant on American money is better than military occupation, w/c drains treasury most of the time.

 

they had to wait 50 years for the wall to come down before the real spoils could be taken. a 50-year cold war after wading in with an overwhelming military advantage? not very smart of americans, i should think.

 

or maybe not so smart of u i guess. There was really no economic imperative to physically occupy any European country OR invade Russia after WWII. Sure, the Americans obviously can do that. But at what cost? for what purpose?

 

anybody who thinks that Cold War crippled the US in any way is patently ignorant of history. The Cold War benefitted America. It stimulated their weapons business sector and forged trading agreements with Free World countries favorable to Americans in exchange for American patronage.

 

3. so what do you think is the real reason why the US would focus on germany first before japan?you already said the germans weren't that good. they failed to beat the brits and ruskies as of december '41. so why didn't they just rebuild their sunken battleships sooner, build more carriers and drive straight to tokyo bay?

 

1. bec. germany wasn't buying as much as before from the americans and even starting to irritate the trade between americans and the allies.

 

2. the spoils in Europe are far complicated to address than in the Far East. The Pacific was already an American lake on Japanese lease. well, the Russians wouldn't agree to that but hell, it got no Fleet to seriously contest that.

 

3. the germans weren't invincible but surely had enough gas in the tank to at least occupy Continental Europe sans Russia. and it's a no-brainer than given time, the germans could develop the BOMB. and that would change the whole equation. not good for the americans.

 

so there's a bit of urgency to address the german problem. the same kind of urgency is not present in the Far East with Japan busy fighting local insurgencies while constantly struggling with logistics.Geographical problems are much worse in the Far East making it harder for Japan to fortify its forces. They don't have the luxury of using railways like the Nazis. And guerilla tactics, things that rarely see at the more established war fronts in Europe upset the Japs. All in all, even before the Americans decided to literally obliterate the Japs to oblivion, the Japs weren't a threat as Germans were.

Link to comment
By accident or by design?

 

An early general retreat was part of Soviet strategy because the Russians knew they still did not have enough by way of defense against Germany. By the very nature of this, fleeing units were dragooned by those in place. Also, Barbarossa was effected on a front so wide that two million men, despite six major points of attack, could not possibly hope to overwhelm a numerically-superior albeit generally ill-equipped foe.

 

Let's fast-forward to when Russia regained its footing and Germany was on the defensive. Could the latter have held out longer had it consolidated its forces and shortened the front-lines by strategic withdrawals? Was forward-defense essentially military-suicide?

 

well, had the German army marched earlier, they could have captured Moscow...but I doubt that it would make any difference given that the Russians knew very well how to fight on their own soil. I think they would go for stalemate and wait for winter before employing decisive strategic moves against the Germans.

 

the Russian campaign was a strategic error. Hitler should have kept his unholy alliance with the Russians and should have given them concessions over Eastern Europe. the Nazis should have directed their campaigns westward and focused on technological dev'ts, w/c had given their smaller army a decisive edge over bigger but technologically-backward Allied armies. Fighting war on 2 fronts was the cause of Nazi collapse.

Link to comment
of course, it'll be different. losing a fleet is always a setback. but the japs gave the americans a valid reason to join the war.

correct.

 

resource-wise yes. and oh, the colonies. don't forget them jewels.

politics of course. The emerging communist Russia would be a tough rival. You obviously wanted to surround a big bully with your friends. Besides, there was an emerging new world order...nationalism is on the uptrend and it would be terribly unwise for the Americans to bully them Europeans.

regarding natural resources, patently wrong. europe is resource rich? well if you're so hot on lacustrine coal, lignite and several deposits of rock salt, maybe.

 

the russian factor is of course correct. you don't even have to mention its growing military power. you just have to consider the fact that they lost 100,000 men just to take berlin. so you realize how hard it was to kick them out of brandenburg.

 

but you missed the two biggest points: first, the biggest economic opportunity in a war-torn region is reconstruction. infrastructure, re-industrialization, and a return of commercial activity (along with reparation charges on anyone who has something to cough up). that's the prize they missed with more than 1/2 of europe for two reasons: 1) the allied boo-boo at arnhem (monty was right --he should have received greater support in his plan) and 2) hitler's ill-advised ardennes offensive that delayed the americans and stripped the eastern front of weapons to stem the russians. the americans would have reached berlin in late-1944.

 

second, i wanted you point out the difference in japan's reconstruction. now that's a textbook example of reconstruction and redevelopment done on a unilateral platform. of course, there were no hard-nosed russians around and you practically scared the entire world shitless with your atomic bomb.

 

And tell me, why impose your will on them by having ur big fat ass on their soil when u can easily peg their economies to the dollar? That's what US did. A vibrant Europe reliant on American money is better than military occupation, w/c drains treasury most of the time.

or maybe not so smart of u i guess. There was really no economic imperative to physically occupy any European country OR invade Russia after WWII. Sure, the Americans obviously can do that. But at what cost? for what purpose?

which somehow goes against your mother statement as to why the US went to europe in the first place.

 

anybody who thinks that Cold War crippled the US in any way is patently ignorant of history. The Cold War benefitted America. It stimulated their weapons business sector and forged trading agreements with Free World countries favorable to Americans in exchange for American patronage.

too much of american revisionism. the economic losses from the cold war were simply overshadowed by economic growth from the baby boomer generation.

 

but now that we're touching on the cold war, revisionists insist that ww2 was a mere blip on 20th century military history. the real war, they say (which i dispute) began when the soviets penned their strategy for boshevik expansion world-wide in the 1920s and ended in 1990 when the wall fell. in between you had a number of short flare-ups (called proxi wars) such as vietnam, afghanistan, latin america, africa, etc.

 

it all ended in a decisive victory for the yoo-nited states (ew..)

 

1. bec. germany wasn't buying as much as before from the americans and even starting to irritate the trade between americans and the allies.

 

2. the spoils in Europe are far complicated to address than in the Far East. The Pacific was already an American lake on Japanese lease.  well, the Russians wouldn't agree to that but hell, it got no Fleet to seriously contest that.

 

3. the germans weren't invincible but surely had enough gas in the tank to at least occupy Continental Europe sans Russia. and it's a no-brainer than given time, the germans could develop the BOMB. and that would change the whole equation. not good for the americans.

 

so there's a bit of urgency to address the german problem. the same kind of urgency is not present in the Far East with Japan busy fighting local insurgencies while constantly struggling with logistics.Geographical problems are much worse in the Far East making it harder for Japan to fortify its  forces. They don't have the luxury of using railways like the Nazis. And guerilla tactics, things that rarely see at the more established war fronts in Europe upset the Japs. All in all, even before the Americans decided to literally obliterate the Japs to oblivion, the Japs weren't a threat as Germans were.

mostly correct. except that i found the american sale of metal commodities to germany somewhat funny. who was resource-rich? :lol:

Link to comment

the russian campaign was deemed feasible by hitler's top strategists and planners. i thought so too (but that will require a degree from the command general staff college before anyone will take me seriously).

 

the primary strategy was for a three-month campaign into western russia. army group center was to destroy the main russian forces in the ukrainian and middle russian areas and lay seige to moscow. army group south was to destroy the southern forces near the crimean area.

 

lastly, army group north which had the crucial role: it was to lay siege on leningrad, close off the lake ladoga supply line, ---then drive east past moscow and then veer south to link with the southern arm of army group center; cutting off the entire moscow area.

 

what happened was army groups center and south encountered stiff opposition in the kiev and rostov area. that prompted guderian (in charge of the lower panzer army of army group center to propose that he veer south beyond kiev and link up with the northern forces of von runstedt's army group south. it took two weeks to plan the movement and it went off brilliantly; encircling marshall budenny's 600,000-man force in kiev. but the russian winter was approaching, the russians were still far from beaten, and they (the russians) were now starting to learn how to use their t-34s en masse, just like the germans.

 

so it was a sorry army group center that knocked on moscow's doors. there was nothing hitler ---or his best generals could do about it. hitler's blunders only exacerbated an already stupid situation.

Link to comment
1. No? Australians were "all in" for the war effort. However, even then, that country still needed help by way of protection from Americans.

play it this way: if the aussies thought of developing a far east navy that can match the japanese as early as 1920, they would have.

 

2. When the Japs attacked the 'open city' that was Manila, I really wouldn't put too much stock in their word to abide by the Geneva Convention.

they didn't attack it. they just marched into it.

 

4. Jets, sure. So you had jet-powered bombers. How would they survive, being "heavy", in the face of oncoming jet-fighters out to meet them? What about fighter escorts (these would have to be carrier-based and we know them to be at a serious disadvantage performance-wise compared to land-based interceptors)?

 

C'mon, bombers cannot hope to survive in the face of a determined jet-fighter attack.

question: how many gun mounts did the b-36, the b-47 and the b-52 have? just one, right? the bomber-fighter inter-action changed dramatically once both exceeded 400 mph level speed. it's now up to jet fighters and short-range bombers to neutralize air opposition and let the big boys from the stategic air command to go in and drop their big munitions.

 

post 1945 air warfare over europe would still have been dominated by props (in the first few years at least). the p-51d would still provide the main all-around protection due to its range and manuevarability. however, interceptor role would be given to the latest version of the p-38, the p-61 black widow and improvements over the mustang (like the p-51h and that weird twin-bodied mustang.)

 

proof: even during the korean war, it was still props that dominated although jets were beginning demonstrate their advantages.

 

reliability, numbers and easier familiarity were among the advantages props had.

 

a couple of me-264 jets were shot down by p-51d props.

 

in korea, a couple of mig-15s and 17s were shot down by f-1 sky raider fighter bombers.

5. West Africa? I think so, too. Below the equator, that is. South Africa's too far.

i wouldn't be too hot on a direct assault on gibraltar. i would prefer north africa and then take gibraltar, crete and the suez one by one.

Link to comment
correct.

regarding natural resources, patently wrong. europe is resource rich? well if you're so hot on lacustrine coal, lignite and several deposits of rock salt, maybe.

 

the russian factor is of course correct. you don't even have to mention its growing military power. you just have to consider the fact that they lost 100,000 men just to take berlin. so you realize how hard it was to kick them out of brandenburg.

 

but you missed the two biggest points: first, the biggest economic opportunity in a war-torn region is reconstruction. infrastructure, re-industrialization, and a return of commercial activity (along with reparation charges on anyone who has something to cough up). that's the prize they missed with more than 1/2 of europe for two reasons: 1) the allied boo-boo at arnhem (monty was right --he should have received greater support in his plan) and 2) hitler's ill-advised ardennes offensive that delayed the americans and stripped the eastern front of weapons to stem the russians. the americans would have reached berlin in late-1944.

 

missed what again? read this dude:

 

and the rest is history. D-day. Germany got divided into West and East. Americans secured rebuilding contracts and a lot of trade concessions.

 

all ur trivia are unnecessary clutter. hmm, where did all the metal come from if Europe's too poor in resource?

 

did i not mention the colonies? these are colonies of what? martians? As far as I remember, WWII didn't stop Europeans from exercising control and funnelling everything from the colonies to their soil.

 

 

second, i wanted you point out the difference in japan's reconstruction. now that's a textbook example of reconstruction and redevelopment done on a unilateral platform. of course, there were no hard-nosed russians around and you practically scared the entire world shitless with your atomic bomb.

which somehow goes against your mother statement as to why the US went to europe in the first place.

too much of american revisionism. the economic losses from the cold war were simply overshadowed by economic growth from the baby boomer generation.

 

japan's reconstruction was unilateral bec. the Pacific war was essentially a 2-nation slugfest, which America won. geesh, isn't that obvious at all? is that the same thing in Europe?

 

did I just mention that Europe is a higher priority bec. spoils over there require elaborate partitioning? Japan was a done deal. Europe was up for grabs. Americans, with foresight, had to secure their place in Europe.

 

Where's the contradiction there??? where's the revisionism??? btw, what's "american revisionism"? don't blabber words u don't understand. it's pathetic.

 

and oh, the bomb went off in Japan bec. Americans don't want to lose more men fighting Japs on land...so that reconstruction could start soon.

 

but now that we're touching on the cold war, revisionists insist that ww2 was a mere blip on 20th century military history. the real war, they say (which i dispute) began when the soviets penned their strategy for boshevik expansion world-wide in the 1920s and ended in 1990 when the wall fell. in between you had a number of short flare-ups (called proxi wars) such as vietnam, afghanistan, latin america, africa, etc.

 

hahaha...funny. ur point? again, narrating irrelevance and all just to be able to say something. anyways, indulge in it and have ur fill.

 

it all ended in a decisive victory for the yoo-nited states (ew..)

 

well, economists have long known that any command economy ain't sustainable. and there are a lot of economists in the US. so m not surprised if the US just let communist Russia self-destruct with its decrepit economic system.

 

mostly correct. except that i found the american sale of metal commodities to germany somewhat funny. who was resource-rich?  :lol:

 

sale of metal commodities? like? who told u that? me? trading between Germany and America doesn't concern weapons...if that's what u'r pointing at. again, strawman fallacy: arguing a non-existing argument.

Link to comment
question: how many gun mounts did the b-36, the b-47 and the b-52 have? just one, right? the bomber-fighter inter-action changed dramatically once both exceeded 400 mph level speed. it's now up to jet fighters and short-range bombers to neutralize air opposition and let the big boys from the stategic air command to go in and drop their big munitions.

 

post 1945 air warfare over europe would still have been dominated by props (in the first few years at least). the p-51d would still provide the main all-around protection due to its range and manuevarability. however, interceptor role would be given to the latest version of the p-38, the p-61 black widow and improvements over the mustang (like the p-51h and that weird twin-bodied mustang.)

 

Yes, fighters with 'props' or jets, same banana if you consider their range. Trans-Atlantic war now, correct? They can't conduct trans-oceanic missions and make it back home. Your bomber fleets will be decimated.

Link to comment
Nobody won the war in that book, buddy. Near the end of the story, the Soviet general (Alexei-something) said to his American counterpart (Robinson?), "Push us hard if you will. Though the Soviet Union can no longer win, both sides can still lose".

 

They stalemated each other and the only alternative was an escalation to a nuclear exchange.

if i remember it correctly the US won that war with an important supply convoy getting through... though i have to say i read this book a long time ago...

Link to comment
they didn't mobilize and arm as much.

rather, the bulk of the australian army was in europe... read The American Caesar...

 

when the bataan battle was winding down. he made the recommendation to roosevelt. the latter vetoed it. if they did become a neutral country, the japanese would have honored the geneva accords but they will insist on the removal/destruction of US forces in the philippines.

japan would have honored? if they were losing w/c they were obviously not! to leave the philippines just because it declared neutrality is one absurd military decision. would japan throw its plans, w/c it made in previous months (or even years) before the actual invasion, in disarray? i dont think so.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...