Military Literature

[vagabond]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i have to agree in part with your analysis on the US declaration of war against germany... i browsed a book (sorry forgot the title) about the Nazi's war plans/expectations and yes the germans knew sooner or later that US was going to enter the war... i dont think they easily forgot WWI...

 

but what intrigued about the book was its nazi/hitler's perspective on russia/soviet union. hitler underestimated the russians! from this we could posit that hitler knew the dangers of a two front war (US/UK in the west and USSR in the east) but since he underestimated russia's red army, he expected a quick victory...

 

also another point i got from the book was that the germans were no longer able to use their blitz tactics. this is not only because of the russian winter but the deeper they got into russian territory, the bloodier the fight got. russians were no longer "dropping like flies" as witnessed during the initial phase of the german offensive. they were fighting to the last man. so the nazi's were forced to alter their tactics. how? sorry i forgot (remeber i just browsed the book). lets just say the russian front became a war of attrition w/c germany could not afford to fight especially with their manpower.

 

also, i think everyone overlooks what the USSR did in WWII. for most of the war, it was the USSR that had to to most of the fighting in the european front. remember, the US and UK was only able to land troops in the continental europe in 1944. if USSR fallen so easily, the allies would surely have a harder time in making a landing in western europe.

Edited May 13, 2006 by vagabond

[Podweed]

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, vagabond. The author wrote the Americans think they've won. In reality, nobody did.

[Podweed]

i have to agree in part with your analysis on the US declaration of war against germany... i browsed a book (sorry forgot the title) about the Nazi's war plans/expectations and yes the germans knew sooner or later that US was going to enter the war... i dont think they easily forgot WWI...

 

but what intrigued about the book was its nazi/hitler's perspective on russia/soviet union. hitler underestimated the russians! from this we could posit that hitler knew the dangers of a two front war (US/UK in the west and USSR in the east) but since he underestimated russia's red army, he expected a quick victory...

 

also another point i got from the book was that the germans were no longer able to use their blitz tactics. this is not only because of the russian winter but the deeper they got into russian territory, the bloodier the fight got. russians were no longer "dropping like flies" as witnessed during the initial phase of the german offensive. they were fighting to the last man. so the nazi's were forced to alter their tactics. how? sorry i forgot (remeber i just browsed the book). lets just say the russian front became a war of attrition w/c germany could not afford to fight especially with their manpower.

 

also, i think everyone overlooks what the USSR did in WWII.  for most of the war, it was the USSR that had to to most of the fighting in the european front. remember, the US and UK was only able to land troops in the continental europe in 1944. if USSR fallen so easily, the allies would surely have a harder time in making a landing in western europe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, buddy. During the earlier phases of the eastern campaign, many hitherto Soviets welcomed the Germans as liberators. The liquidations of kulaks as a class, purges, mass deportations, and the like were still fresh in their memories and they were all too happy to be rid of Stalin.

 

When they realized the Germans were just as determined to brutalize them, they started to flock to the banners of Mother Russia.

[azrach187]

It's funny that this is the very topic we studied at BNOC in Ft. Benning in our class for LOGPAC (Logistical Package). Hitler's massive failure do point at the Russian Winter, yet few takes into account the importance of logistics. But I could assure you that the US learned a lot from earlier mistakes and learned the importance of supply line, something Hitler never really took into account, and ironically, the strength of the Desert Fox in Northern Africa.

 

A good case study would be the Red Ball Express and the Victory/Liberty Ships that contributed the US well in WWII.

 

During the siege of Stalingrad (today's Volgograd), the encircled German Division ran out of supply as Hitler cared less of the supply line and more worried in "opening" the gate to Russia (hence, Enemy at the Gates" and pressed on to a catastrophic result. Their reasoning might have been that once Siberian oil fields is under the German control, they wont have to rely on the supply line, and of the oil crossing the treacherous waters of Mediterranean from Northern Africa. Local resources would be exploited (like the Japs) to contribute to their effort: they forgot winter: all resources are at hibernation!

 

Also, a little known fact but greatly contributed to the Nazi demise in the Ostfront is that the American spies (OSS) found out a large order of wool and leather from Turkey and the processing of big buttons in Ruhr, which if added, means winter coat, means winter offensive. The Allies bombed the button factory at Ruhr and captured a great deal of the wool and leather coming from Turkey (partisans) putting a major dent in the Ostfront and leaving the Germans exposed for winter.

 

The Quartermasters, an integral part of the US Army is now a permanent fixture with any units of the US Army, unlike before where logistics were aranged by commanders. This is the lesson they learned from the Germans in WWII. Tanks needs gas, heater needs fuel, troops need equipment and ammo, s@%t breaks down and needs replacement parts. The Americans never moves forward if supply is compromised, something the fighters learned in Iraq: to hit the American supply convoy.

 

So they smarten up, the supply convoys are now more heavily armed than a regular patrol.

[shadowsniper]

Vom Kriege " On War" by Carl Von Clausewitz... i like his arguements and insights about war... his concepts are still applicable up to now..

[azrach187]

Ack! I forgot to put the book's name: "U.S. Military Logistics: 1607-1991" Shrader, 1992

[belisarius]

stlingrad was ultimately lost even before the 6th army reached. when von paulus was encircled, von manstein, the new chief of staff of army group south immediately cabled the sixth army:

 

von paulus must stand. they cannot break out forward, and they definitely cannot break backwards, even while they can. to do so would mean the collapse of the entire southern flank of the german forces. therefore, if the germans are going to lose the sixth army, they might as well take advantage of the lost to regroup the rear forces.

 

of course, that order practically sentenced to death 350,000 german soldiers. ah, war.

[Podweed]

Oh, what happened na here? Everyone turned busy all of a sudden? C'mon, guys.

[belisarius]

question#1

 

which, in your opinion is the most powerful battleship ever built?

[Podweed]

question#1

 

which, in your opinion is the most powerful battleship ever built?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do battlecruisers count? Maybe what was once the "Kirov"?

[belisarius]

nyehh...hanggang WWII-type lang naman, noh? pero sige, pedo, as long as you use no nukes.

 

yours is the kirov? mine is still the new jersey. there are arguments favoring the yamato, even the bismark. but do you know the most powerful "gun" battleship ever designed?

[willow_boy]

USS Missouri?

[Podweed]

nyehh...hanggang WWII-type lang naman, noh? pero sige, pedo, as long as you use no nukes.

 

yours is the kirov? mine is still the new jersey. there are arguments favoring the yamato, even the bismark. but do you know the most powerful "gun" battleship ever designed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have no idea. Maybe we do, as in we know the ship, but aren't aware it holds that distinction. Sirit na.

[belisarius]

google "super battleships". there's an article "super battleships that were never built".

 

you probably heard of the US montana class. it's basically a stretched new jersey class with 12 16" guns instead of 9. the new jerseys were "only" intended to escort the fleet carriers (that's why they had to go 35 knots). the montanas can go only 27 knots. but they're designed to slug it out with the yamatos.

 

the british and russian navies also had super battleships in the drawing board but they're puny compared with the montana design.

 

there was supposed to be a "super yamato" with roughly the same size but mounting 6 20" guns instead of the "ordinary" 18.1

 

the grand champion in battleship design was the german h-44 (super-super bismark). it turns out the bismark was only h-38 design. the h-44 (the last) was supposed to mount 8 20" high velocity guns and displace 140,000 tonnes!!!

 

h-44 was really just a design exercise, to see how big a ship needs to be to to able to slug it out with anything it meets and not sink.

[Podweed]

google "super battleships". there's an article "super battleships that were never built".

 

you probably heard of the US montana class. it's basically a stretched new jersey class with 12 16" guns instead of 9. the new jerseys were "only" intended to escort the fleet carriers (that's why they had to go 35 knots). the montanas can go only 27 knots. but they're designed to slug it out with the yamatos.

 

the british and russian navies also had super battleships in the drawing board but they're puny compared with the montana design.

 

there was supposed to be a "super yamato" with roughly the same size but mounting 6 20" guns instead of the "ordinary" 18.1

 

the grand champion in battleship design was the german h-44 (super-super bismark). it turns out the bismark was only h-38 design. the h-44 (the last) was supposed to mount 8 20" high velocity guns and displace 140,000 tonnes!!!

 

h-44 was really just a design exercise, to see how big a ship needs to be to to able to slug it out with anything it meets and not sink.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Try this on for size, do you think if that H-44 was ever launched and was still in service up to this day (unmodified), would it survive against, say, a destroyer of any of the world's major navies?

Edited May 17, 2006 by Podweed

[belisarius]

you most navy ships today are unarmored. they rely on firepower to destroy any threat that comes near. well a kirov cruiser won't survive more than two direct hits from a battleship shell.

 

today's weapons? ship/plane-launched missiles don't have warheads heavier than 1,000 kg. and they explode on proximity, not contact. what would happen if you launch the best anti-ship missiles today (arguably the russian yakhont) adainst a new jersey?

 

if you hit it midships, hardly any damage.

hit it at the waterline, maybe blow a hole the size of a house. still won't sink

you hit the bridge, you might k*ll several officers (but only if it slips through an unarmored door)

you hit a main turret, you'll probably knock out one gun. the new jersey has nine.

 

that's basically it.

[Podweed]

you most navy ships today are unarmored. they rely on firepower to destroy any threat that comes near. well a kirov cruiser won't survive more than two direct hits from a battleship shell.

 

today's weapons? ship/plane-launched missiles don't have warheads heavier than 1,000 kg. and they explode on proximity, not contact. what would happen if you launch the best anti-ship missiles today (arguably the russian yakhont) adainst a new jersey?

 

if you hit it midships, hardly any damage.

hit it at the waterline, maybe blow a hole the size of a house. still won't sink

you hit the bridge, you might k*ll several officers (but only if it slips through an unarmored door)

you hit a main turret, you'll probably knock out one gun. the new jersey has nine.

 

that's basically it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mean there is currently no anti-ship missile deployed by any destroyer of any modern navy capable of sinking or crippling a New Jersey-class battleship?

[belisarius]

my mistake, the yakhont carries a 1,000 pound warhead, not kilogram. the tomahawk carries 700 pounds. the exocet that sank the sheffield (MM-38) had only 350 pounds while later exocets already carry 600 pounds.

 

the russian submarine-launched ss-19 (those in the ill-fated kursk) might be even more powerful than the yakhont.

 

but these are missiles with high explosives. they couldn't match the impact of a 2,000 pound armor-piercing shell traving at mach 3. that's how powerful one shot from the new jersey is. the yamato's gund are even more powerful. the bismark could fire more salvos on a sustained rate. and a well-armored battleship could take a couple of direct hits and still fight on.

 

here's one fallacy about battleships: they were rendered obsolete not because they were not powerful enough. they were obsolete partly because of their limited range but mostly due to cost of operation.

[hellspawn]

podweed

 

the books i referred to were written by stephen pressfield. highly recommended. his new book "the afghan campaign" should be out soon.

[BlackWizard]

We were soldiers then... And now.

[Podweed]

my mistake, the yakhont carries a 1,000 pound warhead, not kilogram. the tomahawk carries 700 pounds. the exocet that sank the sheffield (MM-38) had only 350 pounds while later exocets already carry 600 pounds.

 

the russian submarine-launched ss-19 (those in the ill-fated kursk) might be even more powerful than the yakhont.

 

but these are missiles with high explosives. they couldn't match the impact of a 2,000 pound armor-piercing shell traving at mach 3. that's how powerful one shot from the new jersey is. the yamato's gund are even more powerful. the bismark could fire more salvos on a sustained rate. and a well-armored battleship could take a couple of direct hits and still fight on.

 

here's one fallacy about battleships: they were rendered obsolete not because they were not powerful enough. they were obsolete partly because of their limited range but mostly due to cost of operation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Understood, but with a gun range of less than 50 miles and without any radar or sophisticated fire-control, that WW2-era warship can't even close undetected to within striking distance of a modern destroyer.

 

It's no contest.

[belisarius]

strickly for the new jersey:

 

not all moders destroyers and frigates can run > 35 knots because they have shallow drafts. that means the NJ can catch them in open sea. they may run to shallow water but they'll surely be within gun range.

 

now for those who can outrun NJ, the question now is, who wants to come near who? if the NJ's mission is to climb up the kola peninsula and bombard the russian airfields there, it will be the destroyers and crusiers that will have to approach (possibly to within 50 miles). they will have to hit it at least ten times with their strongest missiles to put it out of action, or at least twice using their sub-launched long range torpedoes (containing a 1-tone warhead, designed to knock out US nuclear powered carriers).

 

if you need to chase and destroy those fast ships, then the NJ is not your suitable weapon.

[Podweed]

strickly for the new jersey:

 

not all moders destroyers and frigates can run > 35 knots because they have shallow drafts. that means the NJ can catch them in open sea. they may run to shallow water but they'll surely be within gun range.

 

now for those who can outrun NJ, the question now is, who wants to come near who? if the NJ's mission is to climb up the kola peninsula and bombard the russian airfields there, it will be the destroyers and crusiers that will have to approach (possibly to within 50 miles). they will have to hit it at least ten times with their strongest missiles to put it out of action, or at least twice using their sub-launched long range torpedoes (containing a 1-tone warhead, designed to knock out US nuclear powered carriers).

 

if you need to chase and destroy those fast ships, then the NJ is not your suitable weapon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Alright, alright, belisarius. C'mon, smokescreens here and there. My earlier question was simply: had that super-Kraut battleship been launched and was still in commission today (unmodified), would it survive an encounter with a modern destroyer?

[BlackWizard]

Walang tatalo sa Thundersub...

 

Peace :hypocritesmiley:

[belisarius]

Alright, alright, belisarius. C'mon, smokescreens here and there. My earlier question was simply: had that super-Kraut battleship been launched and was still in commission today (unmodified), would it survive an encounter with a modern destroyer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the answer will of course be yes.