Military Literature

[belisarius]

I wish I was into military history novels but I'm not.  I'm more into books that focus on the technical and tactical details discussing the following topics:

 

1.  Planes of the Luftwaffe and Luftwaffe aces

2.  Wehrmacht's military strategies in the Eastern Front (Stalingrad, Kurst, German Retreat, Leningrad, etc.)

3.  Development of the German Army from 1933-1945

4.  Blitzkrieg tactics

5.  Biographies of German military heroes (Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian, etc.)

6.  U-boat Campaigns (1939-1945)

 

Though I do not agree with Germany's anti-Semitic politics during the period, I am amazed at the advances they made in the field of battlefield strategy, and the development of the first jet fighter (Me-262) and the first modern submarine (Type XXIII).

 

It took the full might of the US, British, and Russian forces to destroy this military machine.

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.

[belisarius]

Question, guys:

 

If, in World War 2, Russia had been defeated, do you think the Allies could've successfully mounted an invasion of Festung Europa?

 

And conversely, if Overlord foundered in the Channel, would the Reich have had enough fight left in it to stop the Red Army?

russia may have been germany's greatest mistake in ww2. but the decisive mistake was declaring war agains the US. after that, there was no longer any question as to whether or not germany had lost ww2.

 

conquering russia would have simply served to stretch out germany's forces farther.

 

even if russia was subjugated and the japanese came over to help in the war in europe or africa, i think the US-led forces would still have rolled over them.

[belisarius]

Not all of Hitler's generals were Nazis. I think that certain of the Waffen SS divisions were one of the most courageous soldiers, and the Wehrmacht's NCOs were unquestionably the best.

 

As to technology, I still think they wasted too much energy on wild development projects such as the E-100 and the use of the Me 262 as a bomber.

 

So I also collect books on the panzers and luftwaffe, no denying the technoligical advantage of the Germans there.

the tehnological advantage held by the axis was mostly a myth. think rather they had a 10-year headstart at developing modern weapons and tactics. even before the age of hi-tech, a ten-year headstart could be formidable.

 

the truth back in ww2 was that nearly all the major powers (including japan and italy) had a nuclear weapons program. the japanese even had a top-secret "death ray" project that was never published.

[belisarius]

It also didn't help either that when the landings started on the early morning of June 6th that the panzers could not be deployed immediately because the Wehrmacht's generals were under very strict orders to obtain Hitler's blessings before the tanks could be deployed. It is one of the sad and tragic stories of WW2 for the Germans that their supposed great Fuehrer, Hitler, was still asleep and could not be roused from his sleep while his men were getting blasted and dying in Normandy waiting for tanks that came too late to make a difference in the outcome of the battle.

would not have mattered, unless they still had the logistics capabilities they had before 1943.

[willow_boy]

russia may have been germany's greatest mistake in ww2. but the decisive mistake was declaring war agains the US. after that, there was no longer any question as to whether or not germany had lost ww2.

 

conquering russia would have simply served to stretch out germany's forces farther.

 

even if russia was subjugated and the japanese came over to help in the war in europe or africa, i think the US-led forces would still have rolled over them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with your analysis that Hitler made the fatal mistake of declaring war on the US. Prior to that, Germany's western front in Europe was totally under control save for some minor partisan activity. Hitler could have focused his best forces and war resources on the Eastern front and the Germans could have defeated the Russians. It still might have been a long, drag-out war but the Germans could have prevailed.

 

Britain was not in a position to invade the European continent since it did not have the manpower and resources needed for such an undertaking. It was pretty much in a defensive stance in the Atlantic and in Northern Africa. D-Day became reality only because of US involvement and resources.

[willow_boy]

Question for Dr. Pepper,

 

How about websites that contain military (history, war stories, technical information, etc.) information? Are we allowed to post them on this thread or will they be considered OT? Please advise. Thanks and regards.

[Podweed]

russia may have been germany's greatest mistake in ww2. but the decisive mistake was declaring war agains the US. after that, there was no longer any question as to whether or not germany had lost ww2.

 

conquering russia would have simply served to stretch out germany's forces farther.

 

even if russia was subjugated and the japanese came over to help in the war in europe or africa, i think the US-led forces would still have rolled over them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Question:

 

With the Russian campaign under wraps, Germany possibly could've executed the shelved "Sea Lion", and if Britain fell, (I forget the book that explored this scenario), what nation would the U.S. use as a springboard for Overlord?

 

Added:

 

Oh, I just remembered, the book is "Clash of Eagles".

 

Also, with the Soviets conquered, would their manpower and resources employed on the Axis side have been enough to match the remaining Allies'?

Edited May 8, 2006 by Podweed

[belisarius]

it turns out germany could have subjugated britain ---assuming it could find a way to get its troops over the channel. britain could have mustered no more than a five divisions to defend the london area.

 

when america entered the war after pearl harbor, roosevelt's immediate strategy was to help in the war in europe. the reason was they felt germany was strong enough to knock out both britain and russia. and if that happened, america would be left to fight the rest of the world, with some remaining pockets of allies such as india, australia, china, canada, and latin america. once germany was defeated, the full weight of american power can be focused on japan.

 

so going back, what if russia and britain fell? it would become a trans-atlantic war. both side were already developing bombers that could cross the atlantic (the US B-36 and the german "new york bomber"). america would have focused on destroying japanese naval power so that it could outflank the germans (possibly trying to sneak in through india, or the persian gulf, or even china).

 

but the two like scenarios were:

 

1. the war could have been decided ultimately by nuclear weapons or

 

2. the germans would have taken the place of the soviet union and enter into a cold war with the US that would persist till the end of the 20th century.

[Podweed]

it turns out germany could have subjugated britain ---assuming it could find a way to get its troops over the channel. britain could have mustered no more than a five divisions to defend the london area.

 

when america entered the war after pearl harbor, roosevelt's immediate strategy was to help in the war in europe. the reason was they felt germany was strong enough to knock out both britain and russia. and if that happened, america would be left to fight the rest of the world, with some remaining pockets of allies such as india, australia, china, canada, and latin america. once germany was defeated, the full weight of american power can be focused on japan.

 

so going back, what if russia and britain fell? it would become a trans-atlantic war. both side were already developing bombers that could cross the atlantic (the US B-36 and the german "new york bomber"). america would have focused on destroying japanese naval power so that it could outflank the germans (possibly trying to sneak in through india, or the persian gulf, or even china).

 

but the two like scenarios were:

 

1. the war could have been decided ultimately by nuclear weapons or

 

2. the germans would have taken the place of the soviet union and enter into a cold war with the US that would persist till the end of the 20th century.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, this is a good one.

 

I think "Sea Lion" called for high-speed barges to make continuous runs across the Channel protected by the German Navy and Luftwaffe. Hitler did not feel he had adequate covering forces to neutralize the threats to his invasion posed by the RAF and the Royal Navy.

 

If the operation was unleashed, Britain, at that time, was not sure it could mount a counterattack poweful enough to destroy the anticipated German beachheads. Maidstone, if London fell, was to be the site of a last stand. The English had the men, but not the materiel. They were left on the Continent.

 

Okay, so assuming the U.K. and U.S.S.R. were now part of the Reich, who would've struck first, the Americans or the Nazis? Through where? Canada, Africa, or Alaska?

 

And, would not the British have surrendered their Empire like the Vichy French? Might not those 'Pockets of Allies' become 'Pockets of Axis"?

Edited May 9, 2006 by Podweed

[Dr_PepPeR]

erwin rommel wanted to make use of the best intelligence info vailable so that he can catch the allies just as they were landing on the beach. von runstedt, never having much faith in intelligence and, knowing a beach-side force was vulnerable to a combination of air, naval and paratrooper attack, wanted the panzers where they can perform best --inland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This was one of the conflicts of Runstedt and Rommel. Rommel believed that the best time and place to stop the allied invasion was at the beach. Once the allies had a beachhead, the logistical machine of the Allies would enable them to pour enough men and materials to complete the invasion. Runstedt believed that it would be easier to defeat the Allies beyond the beaches, and that it a beachhead by the Allies could not be prevented.

[belisarius]

not likely surrendered australia, canada, england and new zealand. these are powerful and populous nations whose war potentials were not fully realized in ww2. they already had the advantage of geography to protect them.

 

"and even if (which right now i do not believe) this country or a large part of were subjugated and starving, our colonies will continue the fight until, in god's time, the "young" with all its attendant military might, would come forth and liberate the old."

 

so you see, even in 1940, churchill already knew that the US was the crucial factor to an axis defeat.

 

but if the US were to attack a 'fistung' eurasia using conventional weapons, it would have set strategic air bases in north africa, the middle east and india. the air war would have been long-range, until either german industrial strength was sapped, or the US would have used nukes.

 

the 1944 strategic bombing of germany appeard to have been a failure. i think it was a success. critics say the 1944 was actually germany's most productive year in weapons manufacturing. there were more planes, tanks and u-boats launched in 1944 than in any other year of the war.

 

but that is not the aim of strategic bombing. strategin bombing weakens the war machine in the long run and demoralizes the civilian population. germany would have lasted to 1946 without the bombing.

[cabbage_patch]

SURVEY SHEET for FEMALES

 

Name (optional):

Age: Civil Status:

Occupation: Contact #s:

Personal income:

• P4,999 & below

• P5,000 – P9,999

• P10,000 – P15,999

• P16,000 – P25,999

• P26,000 – P40,999

• P41,000 & above

Area of residence:

QUESTIONNAIRE:

1. Do you read magazines?

2. If yes, what magazines?

3. What are your favorite topics to read about in magazines?

a. Beauty

b. Fashion

c. Men

d. Home

e. Career & Business

f. Travel

g. Entertainment & Movies

h. Celebrity/ Showbiz

i. Love & Sex

j. Events

k. Literary

l. Others: _____________________________________________________

4. What do you think of female magazines?

5. Have you heard of MOD Magazine?

6. If yes, what do you think of MOD Magazine?

7. Do you read MOD Magazine?

8. If yes, why do you read MOD Magazine?

9. If no, why not?

10. Who do you think are the readers of MOD Magazine?

11. What other female magazines do you read and why?

a. Mr. & Ms.: __________________________________________________

b. Woman Today: _______________________________________________

c. Me: ________________________________________________________

d. Cosmopolitan: _______________________________________________

e. Preview: ____________________________________________________

f. Others: _____________________________________________________

12. What are your reason/s for buying &/or reading magazines?

13. Where do you buy your magazines (check all that apply)?

a. Magazine & news stands on the street

b. Magazines & news stands in malls

c. Department stores & supermarkets

d. Bookstores

e. Convenient stores

f. Drugstores

g. Subscription delivered

h. Others: _____________________________________________________

14. How often do you buy magazines?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Yearly

e. Others: __________________________________________________

15. Are you willing to be surveyed through a phone interview? (Contact #)_________

 

Thank you!

[hellspawn]

cabbage patch

 

f#&k off dickweed, you're in the wrong section for this bullshit.

[Podweed]

not likely surrendered australia, canada, england and new zealand. these are powerful and populous nations whose war potentials were not fully realized in ww2. they already had the advantage of geography to protect them.

 

"and even if (which right now i do not believe) this country or a large part of were subjugated and starving, our colonies will continue the fight until, in god's time, the "young" with all its attendant military might, would come forth and liberate the old."

 

so you see, even in 1940, churchill already knew that the US was the crucial factor to an axis defeat.

 

but if the US were to attack a 'fistung' eurasia using conventional weapons, it would have set strategic air bases in north africa, the middle east and india. the air war would have been long-range, until either german industrial strength was sapped, or the US would have used nukes.

 

the 1944 strategic bombing of germany appeard to have been a failure. i think it was a success. critics say the 1944 was actually germany's most productive year in weapons manufacturing. there were more planes, tanks and u-boats launched in 1944 than in any other year of the war.

 

but that is not the aim of strategic bombing. strategin bombing weakens the war machine in the long run and demoralizes the civilian population. germany would have lasted to 1946 without the bombing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Follow-up:

 

Not surrendered England? But it would've been occupied being part of the island, right?

 

Canada and the Anzac countries weren't populous then and still aren't now.

 

What about the 'jewel' of the British Crown that was India? With England and Russia conquered, would they (Indians) have ejected the Raj and made a separate peace with Hitler lest his minions (German-controlled Soviet units) 'cross the Khyber Pass' into the subcontinent, so to speak?

 

For that matter, what about Egypt and its straddling of the British Empire's solar plexus? With North Africa under Axis control, would the canal have remained in Allied hands for long?

[belisarius]

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.