France

Moderators: Falc, Administration

Postby mate on 06 Apr 2005, 00:11

Eugene = Doublethink Liar

However there were several notable occasions when the Germans had both the means and the will to mount an effective defense. On these occasions, the thick fortifications combined with determined defenders made the capture of the Maginot Line forts a difficult and time-consuming affair for the U.S. Army.

Read the whole entry and don't selectively take things out of context. Read especially the above quite before you shoot your mouth off. The gist of the story is that the US did what the Germans couldn't...period!

Parts of the French Maginot line held until the French High Command ordered them to surrender...which they cheerfully did, not doubt.

:wink:

Spin your bullshit any way you want, but you're simply wanting here.
Last edited by mate on 06 Apr 2005, 00:15, edited 1 time in total.
Cheers, Mate


KINGS OF THE CROATIAN FRONTIER!!!

-/// /// /// ///-
- /// /// /// -
-/// /// /// ///-
User avatar
mate
National Team
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:25

Postby mate on 06 Apr 2005, 00:14

To All Who Are Interested in WWII

You all might consider these books as well:

Closing with the Enemy, Michael Doubler.

When the Odds Were Even, Keith Bonn.

Draftee Division, John Sloan Brown.

Hell in the Hurtgen, Robert Rush.

All the above are very well academically and militarily credentialed authors who espouse views generally favorable to American performance in World War II. Again, I encourage reading other accounts by authors like Dupuy and Marshall that are not so favorable in this regard.

However, Eugene will dismiss all of these on account of his wisdom that US military officers cannot be objective analysts of history...or their very profession.

:wink:
Cheers, Mate


KINGS OF THE CROATIAN FRONTIER!!!

-/// /// /// ///-
- /// /// /// -
-/// /// /// ///-
User avatar
mate
National Team
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:25

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:17

mate wrote:Eugene = Doublethink Liar

However there were several notable occasions when the Germans had both the means and the will to mount an effective defense. On these occasions, the thick fortifications combined with determined defenders made the capture of the Maginot Line forts a difficult and time-consuming affair for the U.S. Army.

Read the whole entry and don't selectively take things out of context. Read especially the above quite before you shoot your mouth off. The gist of the story is that the US did what the Germans couldn't...period!

Parts of the French Maginot line held until the French High Command ordered them to surrender...which they cheerfully did, not doubt.

:wink:

Spin your bullshit any way you want, but you're simply wanting here.


You are the one lying. If you can see I chose exactly the same points that you yourself emphasized!!!

Besides, dumbo, Germans never intended to attack the Maginot line head-on. They attacked through Belgium and Luxemburg, which made Maginot Line offensive unnecessary. I thought a person who insists on having any idea of history should have known that.
Last edited by Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:20, edited 1 time in total.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:18

mate wrote:To All Who Are Interested in WWII

You all might consider these books as well:

Closing with the Enemy, Michael Doubler.

When the Odds Were Even, Keith Bonn.

Draftee Division, John Sloan Brown.

Hell in the Hurtgen, Robert Rush.

All the above are very well academically and militarily credentialed authors who espouse views generally favorable to American performance in World War II. Again, I encourage reading other accounts by authors like Dupuy and Marshall that are not so favorable in this regard.

However, Eugene will dismiss all of these on account of his wisdom that US military officers cannot be objective analysts of history...or their very profession.

:wink:


I've listed several of authors that I would suggest you read.

Anthony Beevor, Martin Gilbert, Jon Lewis, Kavendish, Time-Life War World II Series...
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:22

For Maginot line:

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/blitzkrieg.htm

The Germans defied military doctrine, skirted the Maginot Line and slashed into France through Luxembourg and the Ardennes Forest. The Blitzkrieg moved with lighting speed as Hitler's tanks turned and raced headlong to the sea. They reached the English Channel on May 21 cutting off the Allied armies in the North

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215466 ... france.htm

Image

Instead of attacking France through the Maginot Line as the French expected, the Germans went north and entered France along its northern border. Germany, first, had to fight its way through Luxembourg and Belgium to get there, but it worked. The Germans had taken the French by surprise. All of the French army was waiting for a battle with Germany on the eastern boarder, which would never occur. This choice would prove fatal.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby mate on 06 Apr 2005, 00:25

Eugene

You still continue to avoid discussing numbers that are given to you on the Western Theatre in 1943 - 1945


No, I just discussed in detail the biggest battle of them all on the western front.

:wink:

Oh yeah...as to the North African Campaign, read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Afri ... Conclusion

Though Rommel was now pincered between American and Commonwealth forces, he did manage to stall the allies with a series of defensive operations, most notably with the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, but he was flanked, outmanned and outgunned. After shattering the Axis defense on the Mareth Line, the allies managed to squeeze Axis forces until resistance in Africa ended with the surrender of over 275,000 prisoners of war.

Can you get it through your head that the Axis were utterly routed in this Campaign? Sure, they won the battles at Kasserine and even fought disproportionally at El Alamein...but Allied loses here were about 10,000k or so, if I remember correctly. This was the bleeding time for the Allies, especially Americans getting used to sustained combat.

The tide ultimately turned...and big.
Cheers, Mate


KINGS OF THE CROATIAN FRONTIER!!!

-/// /// /// ///-
- /// /// /// -
-/// /// /// ///-
User avatar
mate
National Team
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:25

Postby mate on 06 Apr 2005, 00:26

Eugene...Bzzzt!

Besides, dumbo, Germans never intended to attack the Maginot line head-on.


Once they flanked and went behind it, yes indeed, they did try to take some portions of it...and failed miserably. Pure and simple, the American GI did it even where the Germans strongly defended the same points.

:wink:
Cheers, Mate


KINGS OF THE CROATIAN FRONTIER!!!

-/// /// /// ///-
- /// /// /// -
-/// /// /// ///-
User avatar
mate
National Team
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:25

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:27

mate wrote:Eugene

You still continue to avoid discussing numbers that are given to you on the Western Theatre in 1943 - 1945


No, I just discussed in detail the biggest battle of them all on the western front.

:wink:

Oh yeah...as to the North African Campaign, read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Afri ... Conclusion

Though Rommel was now pincered between American and Commonwealth forces, he did manage to stall the allies with a series of defensive operations, most notably with the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, but he was flanked, outmanned and outgunned. After shattering the Axis defense on the Mareth Line, the allies managed to squeeze Axis forces until resistance in Africa ended with the surrender of over 275,000 prisoners of war.

Can you get it through your head that the Axis were utterly routed in this Campaign? Sure, they won the battles at Kasserine and even fought disproportionally at El Alamein...but Allied loses here were about 10,000k or so, if I remember correctly. This was the bleeding time for the Allies, especially Americans getting used to sustained combat.

The tide ultimately turned...and big.


Doofus! You're giving ME more ammunition.

Rommell was pincered between the Commonwealth and US forces, which had superior numbers and materiel. Yet, he brilliantly defended and defied the Allies for a very long time, until the pressure became too hard for him.

(FROM YOUR OWN QUOTE)

Germans, if they could afford more forces for this minor theatre, would have fought longer. Much longer.

Hey, didn't ai tell you about the Kasserine Pass battle???

I enjoy slapping you all over the place.
Last edited by Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:32, edited 1 time in total.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:29

mate wrote:Eugene...Bzzzt!

Besides, dumbo, Germans never intended to attack the Maginot line head-on.


Once they flanked and went behind it, yes indeed, they did try to take some portions of it...and failed miserably. Pure and simple, the American GI did it even where the Germans strongly defended the same points.

:wink:


Wrong again. In June 1940, they did indeed capture several forts on the Maginot line.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/maginot_line.htm

German Army Group B attacked through the Ardennes – such an attack was believed to be impossible by the French. One million men and 1,500 tanks crossed the seemingly impenetrable forests in the Ardennes. The Germans wanted to drive the Allies to the sea. Once the Maginot Line had been isolated it had little military importance and the Germans only turned their attention to it in early June 1940. Many of the ouvrages surrendered after the government signed its surrender with Germany – few had to be captured in battle, though some forts did fight the Germans. One in seven French divisions was a fortress division - so the Maginot Line took out 15% of the French Army. Though not a huge figure, these men may have had an impact on the advance of the Germans - or at least got evacuated at Dunkirk to fight another time.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Leonid on 06 Apr 2005, 00:31

In that case Mate's face should be preserved in the annals of history as the most unslapped. LOL.
Last edited by Leonid on 06 Apr 2005, 00:32, edited 1 time in total.
I will put my breath into you and you shall live again.
EZEKIEL 37:14
User avatar
Leonid
National Team
 
Posts: 4493
Joined: 06 Dec 2004, 21:54

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:32

Just like the sky is green.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby mate on 06 Apr 2005, 00:33

The Tunisia Campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia_Campaign

The final drive to clear Tunisia began on April 19th. By this time the German-Italian forces had been pushed into a defensive line on the north-east coast of Tunis, attempting to protect their supply lines, but with little hope of continuing the battle for long. The Allied forces had re-formed, placing the US II Corps at the north, the British First Army in the center, and the 8th Army on south-east.

With the Allies still preparing their next move, the Germans tested the British center in a attack by the Hermann Goering Division the night of 20-21 April. Though they penetrated up to five miles at some points, they could not force a general withdrawal, and eventually returned to their lines. On the 22nd the British 46th Division struck back at the Hermann Goering Division, losses were high on both sides but the British inched ahead. The next day the entire Allied front attacked, and within three days the Axis lines collapsed.

On May 7th British armor entered Tunis, and American infantry entered Bizerte. Six days later the last Axis resistance in Africa ended with the surrender of over 275,000 prisoners of war, many of them newly arrived from Sicily and more needed there. The Axis's desperate gamble had only slowed the inevitable by perhaps a season, and the US loss at Kasserine may have been the best thing that could have happened to them.

With North Africa now in Allied hands, plans quickly turned to the invasion of Sicily, and Italy after it.



:P :P :P

Like I said Eugene, put it all in context. The US initially suffered some relatively minor reverses, honing its Army for the ultimate job at hand. The Axis lost 275,000 prisoners and all of Africa...setting the stage for an invasion of Sicily, Italy, and Normandy.

Like I said, count the casualties...the math says it all.

:wink:
Cheers, Mate


KINGS OF THE CROATIAN FRONTIER!!!

-/// /// /// ///-
- /// /// /// -
-/// /// /// ///-
User avatar
mate
National Team
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:25

Postby Leonid on 06 Apr 2005, 00:35

....but there were Canadians, Aussies, Poles and of course the galant French...

I can't hear you!:)
I will put my breath into you and you shall live again.
EZEKIEL 37:14
User avatar
Leonid
National Team
 
Posts: 4493
Joined: 06 Dec 2004, 21:54

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:39

mate wrote:The Tunisia Campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia_Campaign

The final drive to clear Tunisia began on April 19th. By this time the German-Italian forces had been pushed into a defensive line on the north-east coast of Tunis, attempting to protect their supply lines, but with little hope of continuing the battle for long. The Allied forces had re-formed, placing the US II Corps at the north, the British First Army in the center, and the 8th Army on south-east.

With the Allies still preparing their next move, the Germans tested the British center in a attack by the Hermann Goering Division the night of 20-21 April. Though they penetrated up to five miles at some points, they could not force a general withdrawal, and eventually returned to their lines. On the 22nd the British 46th Division struck back at the Hermann Goering Division, losses were high on both sides but the British inched ahead. The next day the entire Allied front attacked, and within three days the Axis lines collapsed.

On May 7th British armor entered Tunis, and American infantry entered Bizerte. Six days later the last Axis resistance in Africa ended with the surrender of over 275,000 prisoners of war, many of them newly arrived from Sicily and more needed there. The Axis's desperate gamble had only slowed the inevitable by perhaps a season, and the US loss at Kasserine may have been the best thing that could have happened to them.

With North Africa now in Allied hands, plans quickly turned to the invasion of Sicily, and Italy after it.



:P :P :P

Like I said Eugene, put it all in context. The US initially suffered some relatively minor reverses, honing its Army for the ultimate job at hand. The Axis lost 275,000 prisoners and all of Africa...setting the stage for an invasion of Sicily, Italy, and Normandy.

Like I said, count the casualties...the math says it all.

:wink:


That's right! Count the casualties! The Germans have suffered fewer casualties in Africa than did the Americans and the allies. That is also available from the sources I have provided.

German fate in Africa was predictable, given the insufficient menpower and materiel they could afford for such a minor theatre. Yet, they fought the Allies for quite a long time, all the while inflicting serious losses upon both the US and the Commonqwealth forces.

Besides, according to the Kavendish World War II Chronology, only 100,000 of the 250,000 PoWs were German. Not too many Germans actually died or were wounded. They fought as long as they could. When they were in the untanable position, they surrendered. Just like US forces on Bataan.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby mate on 06 Apr 2005, 00:39

Leo...See What I Mean?

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... tline.aspx

As a result, the U.S. Army ultimately accomplished what the German Army had been largely unable to do in 1940: capture Maginot Line forts by assault.

Eugene is a lying sack of you know what who cannot accept the above conclusion. He is trying hard to distort things, equating the German defeat of the Maginot Line with how the US took it...when the article shows that the US showed greater ability in taking it through direct assault.

:wink:
Cheers, Mate


KINGS OF THE CROATIAN FRONTIER!!!

-/// /// /// ///-
- /// /// /// -
-/// /// /// ///-
User avatar
mate
National Team
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:25

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:40

Leonid wrote:....but there were Canadians, Aussies, Poles and of course the galant French...

I can't hear you!:)


Yep, the French too, of which 19,439 died in the Tunisian campaign, for example. They must have poisoned themselves while eating, right?
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:40

mate wrote:Leo...See What I Mean?

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... tline.aspx

As a result, the U.S. Army ultimately accomplished what the German Army had been largely unable to do in 1940: capture Maginot Line forts by assault.

Eugene is a lying sack of you know what who cannot accept the above conclusion. He is trying hard to distort things, equating the German defeat of the Maginot Line with how the US took it...when the article shows that the US showed greater ability in taking it through direct assault.

:wink:


The above conclusion is simply uninformed. I provided to you the exact opposite of your conclusion. WHY CAN'T YOU ACCEPT????? Do you read others' posts?
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:49

Just tell me Mate, does it hurt?

http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/blitz/1farmistice.htm

What are those German arrows doing crossing the Maginot Line??? According to you they should not be there!!!!!!!!
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby mate on 06 Apr 2005, 00:51

Eugene

The above conclusion is simply uninformed.


Yes, just like all those US military officers who cannot be trusted to write analysis about history involving their profession.

:wink:
Cheers, Mate


KINGS OF THE CROATIAN FRONTIER!!!

-/// /// /// ///-
- /// /// /// -
-/// /// /// ///-
User avatar
mate
National Team
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:25

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:53

That's right Mate. Just like you staring at something that contradicts you. Both in writing and visually and continuing to disagree with it.

The sky is never BLUE in your world.

I suggest, instead, you look for a neutral observer. Unlike US military, their profession is HISTORY, which is suited better to write about HISTORY.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:54

Eugene Berkovich wrote:That's right Mate. Just like you staring at something that contradicts you, both in writing and visually, and continuing to disagree with it.

The sky is never BLUE in your world.

I suggest, instead, you look for a neutral observer. Unlike US military, their profession is HISTORY, which is suited better to write about HISTORY.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 00:57

Here's more. It's a very good animated map of the Fall of France, done by BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/ ... aign.shtml
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby mate on 06 Apr 2005, 01:00

Eugene...Final Salvo For the Night

The following comes from another US military site. Mind you, I am only toying with you regarding the Africa campaign...as even here the Allies won big...but my main focus is on aggregate casualties, focusing on the larger and more significant battles in Europe.

Anyways, sorry, the fact remains that the Americans ultimately outfought the Germans...learning in Africa, bringing the experience to bear in a big way in rolling through Sicily, Italy, Normandy, and Western Europe.

Like I said, consider the actual numbers...especially those I detailed for you in the decisive Battle of the Bulge. The math doesn't lie...even if you do.

And, let's see what others have to say. You no doubt will lie in the most banal, betraying ways...but let's see what others have to say who follow any of this.

:wink:

http://www.army.mil/CMH-PG/brochures/tu ... unisia.htm

But that was perhaps not so bleak a prospect when considered against enemy losses in Tunisia: nearly 200,000 battle casualties (an entire field army), 275,000 prisoners of war, tons of equipment and supplies, and the mortal wounding of Italy as an Axis partner.

With victory in Tunisia, the Allies had expelled Axis forces from North Africa and thereby taken a giant step toward victory in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations. The United States Army had contributed mightily toward that accomplishment. The victory in northwest Africa, however, did not come cheaply. Of 70,000 Allied casualties, the United States Army lost 2,715 dead, 8,978 wounded' and 6,528 missing. At the same time, however, the Army gained thousands of seasoned officers, noncommissioned officers, and troops whose experience would prove decisive in subsequent campaigns. These seasoned soldiers of all ranks would not have long to wait or far to go, for the next test was only two months and 150 miles away: the island of Sicily

Chew on the above.

:wink:
Cheers, Mate


KINGS OF THE CROATIAN FRONTIER!!!

-/// /// /// ///-
- /// /// /// -
-/// /// /// ///-
User avatar
mate
National Team
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:25

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 01:06

mate wrote:Eugene...Final Salvo For the Night

The following comes from another US military site. Mind you, I am only toying with you regarding the Africa campaign...as even here the Allies won big...but my main focus is on aggregate casualties, focusing on the larger and more significant battles in Europe.

Anyways, sorry, the fact remains that the Americans ultimately outfought the Germans...learning in Africa, bringing the experience to bear in a big way in rolling through Sicily, Italy, Normandy, and Western Europe.

Like I said, consider the actual numbers...especially those I detailed for you in the decisive Battle of the Bulge. The math doesn't lie...even if you do.

And, let's see what others have to say. You no doubt will lie in the most banal, betraying ways...but let's see what others have to say who follow any of this.

:wink:

http://www.army.mil/CMH-PG/brochures/tu ... unisia.htm

But that was perhaps not so bleak a prospect when considered against enemy losses in Tunisia: nearly 200,000 battle casualties (an entire field army), 275,000 prisoners of war, tons of equipment and supplies, and the mortal wounding of Italy as an Axis partner.

With victory in Tunisia, the Allies had expelled Axis forces from North Africa and thereby taken a giant step toward victory in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations. The United States Army had contributed mightily toward that accomplishment. The victory in northwest Africa, however, did not come cheaply. Of 70,000 Allied casualties, the United States Army lost 2,715 dead, 8,978 wounded' and 6,528 missing. At the same time, however, the Army gained thousands of seasoned officers, noncommissioned officers, and troops whose experience would prove decisive in subsequent campaigns. These seasoned soldiers of all ranks would not have long to wait or far to go, for the next test was only two months and 150 miles away: the island of Sicily

Chew on the above.

:wink:


According to Kavendish, the US forces had lost more in the Tunisian campaign alone than the number of its "northwest Africa losses" published in your article.

And, as even your article indicates, Germans were outgunned, outmatched and pincered from two directions. Yet, they fought in these conditions for a year!

That actually evidences the efficiency of Wehrmacht.

US forces have suffered greater losses than Germans almost everywhere.

Even in the Battle of the Bulge, where Germans were the attackers (thus - higher losses), the US lost 733 tanks to German 600. Germans, including the PoWs, have lost 120,000. Americans alone had lost 75,000. British - another 1,400 (dead only), French had lost 200 (dead only)
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 01:12

Losses at Kasserine Pass, (Feb 14-25, 1942):

Americans - 10,000, Germans - 2,000 (page 121, Cavendish World War Two Chronology, First Edition)

Tunisian Campaign losses - (page 129, Cavendish World War Two Chronology, First Edition)

Verbatim:

Axis: 250,000 PoWs (100,000 German). French - 19,439, US - 18,221, British - 38,360.

Right above this statement, we learn that, in reality, that number (the 250,000 PoWs) is actually a number of ALL AXIS POWS DURING THE ENTIRE AFRICAN THEATRE DURATION!!!. ONly 150,000 Axis surrendered in Tunisian Campaign, under 80,000 of which were German. Oops...

This was campaign predominantly fought by Commonwealth forces and the most of the US encounters led to less than brilliant successes (possibly excused by lack of experience and training).
Last edited by Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 01:16, edited 1 time in total.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby mate on 06 Apr 2005, 01:14

Eugene

Now you're starting to come clean...a bit.

:wink:

I never said the Germans weren't outgunned in Africa...only that they were well defeated with their Axis partners by increasingly efficient Allied forces. They ultimately lost in a huge way, suffering more losses than the Allies in absolute numbers...and, if we do the math, roughly evenly relatively speaking.

As to Battle of the Bulge...come on! Please do that math against what you yourself just posted. 120000 versus 75000 with numbers of 500000 versus 600000. Also, consider the initial numbers when the surprise counter-offensive opened, where the Germans had nearly every numerical advantage.

The math supports the US in such situations.

See you all tomorrow.
Cheers, Mate


KINGS OF THE CROATIAN FRONTIER!!!

-/// /// /// ///-
- /// /// /// -
-/// /// /// ///-
User avatar
mate
National Team
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:25

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 01:18

The math does not support you in other battles of the Western Theatre. How come you are excluding the overwhelming majority of battles of that theatre?

Besides, German army showed a much better efficiency and resiliency than US forces did, including in Northern Africa.

You continue to avoid the total numbers for the casualties for the entire Western Front. Why is that?

I'll tell you why. Because US forces did not fare as well as the Germans did.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 01:20

Last edited by Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 01:21, edited 1 time in total.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 01:20

mate wrote:I never said the Germans weren't outgunned in Africa...only that they were well defeated with their Axis partners by increasingly efficient Allied forces. They ultimately lost in a huge way, suffering more losses than the Allies in absolute numbers...and, if we do the math, roughly evenly relatively speaking.


Yet, you use the "outgunned and outmatched" references for the US at the Bulge.

No, Mate, you've been soundly laid out here.

So, what of Maginot line? Did German forcing it still a mystery to you, 65 years after the fact???

Mate, why don't you just admit that your clock has been decisively cleaned and move on? For your own sake.
Dynamo is a religion
User avatar
Eugene Berkovich
National Team
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 14:54
Location: Florida, USA

Postby mate on 06 Apr 2005, 12:42

Eugene

Christ Almighty! Can you not do the math?

550k Americans vs 500k Germans total in the Battle of the Bulge.
75k American casualties vs 120k German casualties. Do you not see that the casualty ratio is proportionately in favor of the US?

The US suffered ~13% casualties versus ~24% for the Germans.

:wink:

Yet, you use the "outgunned and outmatched" references for the US at the Bulge.


Mind you, please read what I posted about initial correlation of forces, where the Germans threw 200k troops against 80k American defenders. The American lines bent but did not break. In fact, American reinforcements, backed by skillfully deployed air and artillery assets quickly turned the tide and inflicted a devestating defeat upon the Wermacht.

Read the actual US Army reports I provided and then tell me that the US military did not fight well. On the contrary, the US Army fought supremely well, leveraging to maximum advantage all their assets...in sharp contrast to what the Wermacht faced against the Red Army.

The facts remain:

1) The Wermacht nearly always managed to inflict hugely disproportionate casualties, both in relative and absolute terms, against the Red Army...even when outnumbered.

2) The Wermacht could not over the long term inflict disproportionate casualties upon the Americans, both in relative and absolute terms...whether they were outnumbered or in the numerical advantage.

The Battle of the Bulge is the best case in point. The math stands.

As for Africa, I stand by what I originally posted and the accompanying figures:

But that was perhaps not so bleak a prospect when considered against enemy losses in Tunisia: nearly 200,000 battle casualties (an entire field army), 275,000 prisoners of war, tons of equipment and supplies, and the mortal wounding of Italy as an Axis partner.

With victory in Tunisia, the Allies had expelled Axis forces from North Africa and thereby taken a giant step toward victory in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations. The United States Army had contributed mightily toward that accomplishment. The victory in northwest Africa, however, did not come cheaply. Of 70,000 Allied casualties, the United States Army lost 2,715 dead, 8,978 wounded' and 6,528 missing. At the same time, however, the Army gained thousands of seasoned officers, noncommissioned officers, and troops whose experience would prove decisive in subsequent campaigns. These seasoned soldiers of all ranks would not have long to wait or far to go, for the next test was only two months and 150 miles away: the island of Sicily


Run the math in comparing your 100k German losses versus 2.7k + 9k + 6.5k American casualties. Also, keep it all in context...the Germans ultimately were crushed and lost decisively to a superior foe...especially as the US Army got better and better, Africa being a proving ground for us.

:wink:
Cheers, Mate


KINGS OF THE CROATIAN FRONTIER!!!

-/// /// /// ///-
- /// /// /// -
-/// /// /// ///-
User avatar
mate
National Team
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:25

Postby Synthese on 06 Apr 2005, 13:45

Much ado about nothing.

Yes, America was a superior fighting force in WW2. So what?

Besides, your numbers, mate, do not take into account the civilian casualties from inaccurate Allied bombing. They were, for the most part, mostly French and German civilians who died.

I am not sure what the debate is about. That as a superior fighting force the US "deserved to win the war". Again, so what?

What the hell do the numbers have to do with winning the war? Fault the Germans with bad strategy and maybe you have a good case. Hitler was a nut case and deserved full guilt for the military mistakes he caused. For instance, he practically decimated his army by fighting a two-front war, in the east and the west. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

He thought that his army would blitzkrieg the Russians as it had the Poles, the Dutch and the French. The Russians just pulled back and sucked his division into the Russian winter.
Synthese
Match Roster
 
Posts: 381
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 16:14

Postby Leonid on 06 Apr 2005, 14:46

As opposed to the accurate bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, London, Birmingham and Liverpool and the great concern for human life displayed by the Frenchmen at Drancy?
I will put my breath into you and you shall live again.
EZEKIEL 37:14
User avatar
Leonid
National Team
 
Posts: 4493
Joined: 06 Dec 2004, 21:54

Postby Eugene Berkovich on 06 Apr 2005, 18:01

mate wrote:Eugene

Christ Almighty! Can you not do the math?

550k Americans vs 500k Germans total in the Battle of the Bulge.
75k American casualties vs 120k German casualties. Do you not see that the casualty ratio is proportionately in favor of the US?

The US suffered ~13% casualties versus ~24% for the Germans.

:wink:


What a preponderance! American forces at the Western Front were significantly larger than the German forces and augmented by the other allies. Yet, the Americans and the allies had suffered more casualties than the Germans did! DO THE MATH! Wehrmacht was far mkore effective than the US Army. It can not be any simpler than that!!!!
Mind you, please read what I posted about initial correlation of forces, where the Germans threw 200k troops against 80k American defenders. The American lines bent but did not break. In fact, American reinforcements, backed by skillfully deployed air and artillery assets quickly turned the tide and inflicted a devestating defeat upon the Wermacht.


That is ONLY ONE OF MANY engagements in the Western theatre.

Read the actual US Army reports I provided and then tell me that the US military did not fight well. On the contrary, the US Army fought supremely well, leveraging to maximum advantage all their assets...in sharp contrast to what the Wermacht faced against the Red Army.


You did not provide any relevant information outside the Battle of the fucking Bulge. How many times can one tell you that?

The facts remain:

1) The Wermacht nearly always managed to infl