PDA

View Full Version : WW2 Weapons,Tech., History, etc. Thread!



Pieman13
04-24-2009, 07:01 PM
This thread is for talking about the technology used during WW2. Anything about WW2 tech can be talked about here. I'll start first.

This is the German "elephant" tank destroyer.


http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/elep_1.jpg

Dsmano
05-03-2009, 12:26 PM
Umm, this is the American B17 flying fortress. http://www.propagandaposters.us/imagesofwar/b-17.jpg

Pieman13
05-03-2009, 08:33 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

One of the Nazi Germany's neat ideas was the Zielgerät 1229 also known as the Vampir. It allowed those darn Nazi's to see in the dark http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
Looks a bit big for someone to be carrying around. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://forum.axishistory.com/files/1373_1028899242.jpg

http://www.tankhunters.net/vitrina/NACHTJAGER4.JPG

If there are any Night time maps that actually affect the line of sight of troops i hope this is implented as an upgrade or something like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gypsy816
05-04-2009, 11:49 AM
Pie, I can't see your last picture in your first post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Pieman13
05-04-2009, 03:49 PM
me neither http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

BTOG46
05-04-2009, 04:04 PM
Meh, the Elephant/Ferdinand was a disaster anyway, they lost more to breakdowns than they did to enemy action.

Too slow, too heavy, no defence against infantry till after Kursk, when they added a machine gun, the crews panicked if they had no infantry support to protect them.

They only built them to use up all the chassis that Porsche had built, thinking they would get the contract that went to the Henschel & Sohn for the PzKpfw VI.

Pieman13
05-04-2009, 05:39 PM
Porsche build those http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Gypsy816
05-04-2009, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Pieman13:
Porsche build those http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

History of Porsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pieman13
05-04-2009, 06:50 PM
lol they tried to build the heaviest tank of all time:
The Panzer VIII Maus

http://www.diecasts.biz/images/Armour/DR60325.jpg

http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/picturesg/Maus1000.jpg

Just a little Info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus)

lols how are you supposed to move it. it weighs almost 200 tons
I hope RUSE has an expansion pack (or better yet put them in the game already) with all the prototype stuff.

N3V30
05-11-2009, 08:12 AM
Meh, I doubt prototype units will be in the game, unless their special units in a campagain mission. Anyway, The Bismark....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Bundesarchiv_Bild_193-04-1-26%2C_Schlachtschiff_Bismarck.jpg

Pieman13
05-11-2009, 07:22 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Gypsy816
05-11-2009, 09:01 PM
That's huge! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

KZarr
05-12-2009, 02:50 AM
It's a miniature compared to aircraft carrier's

Anway:
M26 Pershing heavy tank
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/US-tanks-korea.jpg
Howitzer
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/16inch-howitzer.gif

Inquisitor_Zeal
05-12-2009, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by KZarr:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/16inch-howitzer.gif

Psssh thats small compared to, the German's Railway Gun:
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/ATC/ATC-GermanRailGun-1.jpg

Its ammunition:
http://www.armour-models.co.uk/images/Schat/300px-80_cm_Gustav_shell_compared_to_T-34.jpg


Also the one of my favorite tanks of all time:

Ze Tiger I - Its big, and its deadly mounting the 88mm Cannon

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Tiger1_Hunts-2.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o4/74/637374/1/63945628.rjQyjULE.DSC_9063.jpg

ArmagedonBeast1
05-12-2009, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Dsmano:
Umm, this is the American B17 flying fortress. http://www.propagandaposters.us/imagesofwar/b-17.jpg
Screw that check out the B-29 SUPERfortress http://www.lawbuzz.com/tyranny....air.force.photo.jpg (http://www.lawbuzz.com/tyranny/snow_falling/images/b29_bockscar_b.29_u.s.air.force.photo.jpg)

ArmagedonBeast1
05-12-2009, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Inquisitor_Zeal:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KZarr:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/16inch-howitzer.gif

Psssh thats small compared to, the German's Railway Gun:
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/ATC/ATC-GermanRailGun-1.jpg

Its ammunition:
http://www.armour-models.co.uk/images/Schat/300px-80_cm_Gustav_shell_compared_to_T-34.jpg


Also the one of my favorite tanks of all time:

Ze Tiger I - Its big, and its deadly mounting the 88mm Cannon

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Tiger1_Hunts-2.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o4/74/637374/1/63945628.rjQyjULE.DSC_9063.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your artillery pails in comparision to the japans Yamoto class witch had 18inch guns the biggest ever http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/japan/battleships/yamato/02_yamato.jpg
close up on da guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://i.pbase.com/u12/paulthedane/large/3028361.012700351.jpg

Inquisitor_Zeal
05-12-2009, 08:44 PM
I'm pretty sure an 80cm diameter shell is better then the 18" in terms of size and destruction based on range I'm not sure though

Edit: According to Wikipedia, the 18" guns could shoot 26.1 miles, and the german railway gun could shoot 61 miles, but it could shoot at a speed of 15 shells per HOUR so thats a disadvantage for sure (1 Shot every 4 minutes).

KZarr
05-13-2009, 02:38 AM
Jezus we might as well invent a nuclear warhead cannon.

ArmagedonBeast1
05-13-2009, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by KZarr:
Jezus we might as well invent a nuclear warhead cannon.
nukes leave radioactive residue so im worcking on an anti-mater bomb witch theroreticly would be able to wipe out half of north america
Ill be ritch in no time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Inquisitor_Zeal
05-13-2009, 02:50 PM
Or you could make a hydrogen bomb which doesn't require a nuke to set it off not as destructive and much more plausible

Pieman13
05-13-2009, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by KZarr:
Jezus we might as well invent a nuclear warhead cannon.

done http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
http://home.att.net/~meiii3/pix/atomcann.jpg

N3V30
05-14-2009, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Inquisitor_Zeal:
Or you could make a hydrogen bomb which doesn't require a nuke to set it off not as destructive and much more plausible


Weren't the first Atomic bombs made during the Manhattan Project Hydrogen bombs??


And Pie, thats no Cannon, that my (You can probably guess where this is going http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

Inquisitor_Zeal
05-14-2009, 10:19 AM
Hydrogen bombs can only be set off by a nuclear fusion reaction(that is currently, but it is sure to change soon due to advances in laser tech) and that requires mad amounts of energy to do that (your creating h2[hydrogen]) and currently the only way to achieve that is through the detonation of nuclear bombs, which ends up creating the radiation. The bombs in ww2 split apart atoms(plutonium or uranium) by destabilizing the nucleus which is a lot easier to do.

Edit: Changed a bit of wording http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Mig-29
05-14-2009, 09:14 PM
Sweet a tech thread for WWII.


Originally posted by Pieman13:
Porsche build those http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Yeah I know, there are many things to learn about WWII.

Anyways, Tiger(P)

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/tigerp_5.jpg

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/sptp.jpg

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/tiger_p.jpg

flamingbbq
05-20-2009, 08:46 PM
One of the Scariest Cannons of all.

Dora Cannon. 800mm(80CM) Cannon. Used 2 railway tracks to transport.

http://home.att.net/~meiii/rrpix/DORA17.JPG

And Above all my favorite weapon of all times.
sturmgewehr 44. The first Assault Rifle invented and the predecessor to the AK-47
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Sturmgewehr_44.jpg/800px-Sturmgewehr_44.jpg

Pieman13
05-22-2009, 07:48 AM
I always like the MP44 and the M1A1 carbine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/M1_Carbine.jpg

ImperialDane
05-22-2009, 04:21 PM
A tech thread eh ?

Plenty of interesting things:
Like the Karl Gerät, a huge self-propelled Howitzer:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Karl6.jpg


Quite massive and devestating.

Or what about the Jagdtiger ?:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/Jagdtiger_ussr_1945.jpg/300px-Jagdtiger_ussr_1945.jpg

Biggest and most armoured Tank hunter ever.. of course it did suffer under the same problems as all the other tigers.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

And while we are at the more specialized Tiger tanks.. why not look at the sturmtiger ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Sturmtiger_frontal.jpg/300px-Sturmtiger_frontal.jpg

Fired a massive rocket that would level whatever it hit.. and then took a few hours to reload :P A bit impractical i would wager..

Mig-29
05-27-2009, 07:01 PM
Wasser Schlepper

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/heer/amphibious/lws/lwsn2.jpg

Yay 2000!

Pieman13
05-27-2009, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by ImperialDane:

And while we are at the more specialized Tiger tanks.. why not look at the sturmtiger ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Sturmtiger_frontal.jpg/300px-Sturmtiger_frontal.jpg

Fired a massive rocket that would level whatever it hit.. and then took a few hours to reload :P A bit impractical i would wager..

I'm actually building a model Sturmtiger right now. Fired a 380mm Rocket http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

flamingbbq
05-27-2009, 09:59 PM
I am currently creating a Model in Inventor for the British SpitFire. Lets say it is taking longer then expected....

MrRandom004
05-29-2009, 03:04 PM
I really like this experimental idea the Russians were trying
In order to try a deploy tanks quickly they tried attaching tanks to gliders
http://englishrussia.com/images/weird_tanks/7.jpg

Another thing they experimented with was the Flying Submarine which would have flown over anti-submarine nets then dived to launch torpedoes at German Battleships while they were in port
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxyf3O_SyYQ
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3460/3269084965_b4de0f94db.jpg

ArmagedonBeast1
05-30-2009, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Inquisitor_Zeal:
Hydrogen bombs can only be set off by a nuclear fusion reaction(that is currently, but it is sure to change soon due to advances in laser tech) and that requires mad amounts of energy to do that (your creating h2[hydrogen]) and currently the only way to achieve that is through the detonation of nuclear bombs, which ends up creating the radiation. The bombs in ww2 split apart atoms(plutonium or uranium) by destabilizing the nucleus which is a lot easier to do.

Edit: Changed a bit of wording http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Thats partily incorect.its not energy thats need to fuse atoms its heat the only way to generate that heat is with an atom bomb(or a star) witch is fisson(the spliting of atoms) so you can excite the hydrogon enoph for them to start colliding and combing releasing massive amounts of energy(the equivlant of taking a peice of the sun and putting on earth for about half a second). currenly there is no way to contain it. Any ways a Nuke is a fussion bomb and the atom bomb is fission bomb.And both leave radioactive residue.Almost forgot! an anti-matter bomb is quit possible there are atoms of anti mater being pruduced to day(dont remember where)it would be much more power full then a hydrogon bomb and will probably be the next great super weapon(That or dark matter).

Inquisitor_Zeal
05-31-2009, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by ArmagedonBeast1:
Thats partily incorect.its not energy thats need to fuse atoms its heat the only way to generate that heat is with an atom bomb

And Heat is a form of energy...


And both leave radioactive residue.

I could be wrong when i say this but, what my grade 12 chem teacher told us last semester was that, the actual hydrogen bomb portion itself does not create the radiation. It is the Nuclear blast required to set off the Hydrogen bomb that does. Then the radiation from the first blast is carried by the blast of the second bomb farther out. But it is not actually created from it.

ImperialDane
05-31-2009, 01:56 PM
@armagedonbeast1:
That made little sense, a nuke and an atom bomb are the same mate :P And a hydrogen bomb does not create radiation, that would be the nuclear bomb used to set it off that does the bit with the radiation.. Also, heat is energy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And regarding the anti matter.. at the rate it is collected.. it's going to take ages :P

ArmagedonBeast1
05-31-2009, 04:59 PM
And regarding the anti matter.. at the rate it is collected.. it's going to take ages :P
It only takes one atom to wipe out half a continent.so ill be fine

Pieman13
05-31-2009, 09:03 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

MrRandom004
06-16-2009, 01:09 PM
If the Soviet Union is in the game how about the Borovkov D fighter

http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/on/bord/bordbox.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/on/bord/borddr.jpg

This design was started in 1941 by two young Soviet engineers, A.A.Borovkov and I.F.Florov. It was planned as advanced interceptor powered with one pusher Tumansky M-71 radial engine (2,000hp) assisted with two Merkulov DM-12 ramjets housed inside the booms. The fixed armament (2x37mm NS-37 and 2x20mm ShVAK-20 cannon) was installed in the nose of the aircraft. The cockpit featured a pneumatic ejection system which rotated the seat downwards and fired it clear of the propeller arc. The mockup was almost ready when the Great Patriotic War interrupted all works on this project.
"D" data:
Span.............14.5m
Length..........11.67m
Wing area......35m²
Top Speed.....837km/h (with ramjets)
Max. Cruise Speed..600km/h (without ramjets)

KZarr
06-16-2009, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by ArmagedonBeast1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And regarding the anti matter.. at the rate it is collected.. it's going to take ages :P
It only takes one atom to wipe out half a continent.so ill be fine </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is kinda scary considering the easy at which a chain reaction is caused.

Gypsy816
06-16-2009, 08:26 PM
Wow I'm actually learning a lot from this thread! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

N3V30
06-17-2009, 08:01 AM
So am I. 2,000hp is enough to make me cry tears of joy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KZarr
06-18-2009, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by N3V30:
So am I. 2,000hp is enough to make me cry tears of joy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.hasthelargehadronco...oyedtheworldyet.com/ (http://www.hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet. com/)
I was going to link to that site, but I couldn't find it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

N3V30
06-18-2009, 05:22 PM
I'm wanting them to update it to YES! to freak people out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

bruce57
06-30-2009, 08:31 PM
haha that would be funny.
soo i got a question: do you think that, had germany been able to launch more V1's, V2's, and the feared V3's, they would have been able to win the war?

N3V30
07-01-2009, 07:02 AM
Nope.

Germany launched thousands of V1's on London and that didn't help.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Spitfire_Tipping_V-1_Flying_Bomb.jpg

bruce57
07-01-2009, 07:48 AM
yes, but the V2 and V3 were considerably more powerful.

Pieman13
07-03-2009, 03:56 PM
Whats the V3? i've only heard of the V1 and V2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

bruce57
07-03-2009, 04:22 PM
here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon)

N3V30
07-03-2009, 06:13 PM
Still would be a No. Even if they were more powerful. They weren't able to hit specific targets like troops, thats why they were used against Cities. They would cause more damage, but not win the war...Especially by themselves.

If Hitler invaded the UK instead of the Eastern Front against Russia, things may have been different.

bruce57
07-03-2009, 08:27 PM
but, in order to invade england, they would have to at least have air superiority to defend the invading fleet from bombers, which the Luftwaffe was unable to get during the Battle of Britain. and even air superiority wouldnt be enough to counter the Royal Navy's strength. the invasion force would be annihilated.

xxxthatcherxxx
07-05-2009, 10:57 AM
http://www.worldwar2database.com/images/xcraft.jpg



x craft booo yaaa

bruce57
07-05-2009, 05:03 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif sweet what is it??

xxxthatcherxxx
07-05-2009, 05:12 PM
really small submarine the royal navy used to sneak into heavily defended harbours and set limpet mines on the side of battleships, like the tirpiz

bruce57
07-05-2009, 06:35 PM
oh cool. so thats how the tirpitz sunk?

Scorch621
07-16-2009, 02:33 PM
good old fashion explosives....they get the job done or your money back!

N3V30
07-16-2009, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Scorch621:
good old fashion explosives....they get the job done or your money back!

Lol, I bet Guy Fawkes must be ****ed.

Scorch621
07-16-2009, 03:14 PM
remember rememeber the 5th of novemeber the gunpoweder treason plot...I cant remember the rest

N3V30
07-16-2009, 03:18 PM
Thats all I can remember aswell...Maybe thats all there is.

Scorch621
07-16-2009, 03:20 PM
I think its and I cannot remember why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot..

bruce57
07-22-2009, 08:28 PM
anyway, what was the better fighter in your opinion: the ME 262 or the P-51?

Pieman13
07-22-2009, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by xxxthatcherxxx:
really small submarine the royal navy used to sneak into heavily defended harbours and set limpet mines on the side of battleships, like the tirpiz

figured out another RUSE battle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

I think the P-51 is better. I heard it had better maneuverability but idk

bruce57
07-23-2009, 08:16 AM
what is this new RUSE battle u speak of?

Pieman13
07-23-2009, 01:15 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

bruce57
07-23-2009, 03:15 PM
come on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

N3V30
07-26-2009, 12:03 PM
De...Wait for it...Nied. Denied

bruce57
07-26-2009, 04:19 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

OnlyMeNoMas
08-13-2009, 08:00 PM
Wellllllllllllllllllll, The germans could've taken the UK easy seeing as they were working on a flying wing that could fly under radar until it was about 100 miles out, but flying at 600 mph would give the british 4 minutes to react, which is barely enough time to confirm and send a radio transmission out. So yeah, I post from my ps3 & Idon't think I can post pics, but Northrop-Grumman made a Mock-up model out of wood to test it's radar signature & such. I forget what it's called, I'll try to find the name.
Hortan 229A (V3)
Here are the specs:
Crew:1
Length:7.47 m (24 ft 6 in)
Wingspan:16.76 m (55 ft 0 in)
Height:2.81 m (9 ft 2 in)
Wing area:50.20 m² (540.35 ft²)
Empty weight:4,600 kg (10,141 lb)
Loaded weight:6,912 kg (15,238 lb)
Max takeoff weight:8,100 kg (17,857 lb)
Powerplant:2× Junkers Jumo 004B turbojet, 8.7 kN (1,956 lbf) each
Maximum speed:Mach 0.92, 977 km/h (607 mph) at 12,000 m (39,370 ft)
Combat radius:1,000 km (620 mi)
Ferry range:1,900 km (1,180 mi)
Service ceiling:16,000 m (52,000 ft)
Rate of climb:22 m/s (4,330 ft/min)
Wing loading:137.7 kg/m² (28.2 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight:0.26
And armament
2 × 30 mm MK 108 cannon
R4M rockets
2 × 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs
Britain = United Germany if they had not opened a second front against Russia http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bruce57
08-14-2009, 07:30 AM
Horten 229
http://greyfalcon.us/pictures/ho229B.jpg
only one airframe survives. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Mig-29
09-17-2009, 10:13 PM
Bergetiger

Unknown vehicle.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b7/Bergetiger.jpg/300px-Bergetiger.jpg

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

bruce57
09-18-2009, 03:00 PM
intriguing..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
german super heavy tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerkampfwagen_E-100) still in development at wars end.

Pieman13
07-09-2010, 12:32 PM
why not resurrect this thread from the dead? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

anyone heard of this thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/P68l.jpg

namomo
07-09-2010, 02:51 PM
There's actually a underground fight between UK and German in WW2.
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n179/STARMISTRAX/1196394248864.jpg
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n179/STARMISTRAX/nazi.jpg
Although German never got a single transport purpose ship in WW2,in the beginning of 1943 a division of German special force managed to swim through the river and land on the soil of UK, however since the German soldiers were exhausted and lightly armed, secret service of UK silent the German troops quick enough before anyone noticed.

Pieman13
07-09-2010, 03:11 PM
wtf.....

Pieman13
07-09-2010, 03:16 PM
Heh, i read a book on the Battle of Stalingrad a while back.

Odd story i found when i was reading it:

"A Russian Cavalryman found a small pipe looking thing in a field. He though he could use it as a brush for his horse. Turns out it was an incendiary bomb and it blew up in his hand."

Pieman13
07-09-2010, 08:13 PM
no one interested http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

bruce57
07-09-2010, 09:08 PM
bruce interested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tomorrow is the 67th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Sicily!

Pieman13
07-09-2010, 09:21 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

bruce57
07-09-2010, 09:43 PM
It was supposed to be a strike at the "soft underbelly" of Europe, of course that turned out to be false http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

koolhandluke777
07-10-2010, 10:31 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/P1500_Monster.gif

Coolest weapon of all time if they could build it...

Main armament is an 800mm gun, sweet.

Pieman13
07-10-2010, 12:05 PM
Cool, but good, no http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


too many resources to take, can be easily be taken out by massed air attack, and it would just slow an army down if it had to wait on this thing lol

STRONTJESBERG
07-10-2010, 01:19 PM
It is kinda WW I:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Parisgun2.jpg

But the Paris Gun is still amazing. it could fire up to 130 KM
"The projectile reached so high that it was the first human-made object to reach the stratosphere. This virtually eliminated drag from air resistance, allowing the shell to achieve a range of over 130 kilometres (81 mi)."

"The Paris gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 120 km (75 miles). The distance was so far that the Coriolis effect — the rotation of the Earth — was substantial enough to affect trajectory calculations."

bruce57
07-10-2010, 03:44 PM
oh my god! that is the coolest thing ive ever seen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but it was used in World War I, you say?

Pieman13
07-10-2010, 06:06 PM
maybe i should change the threads name to Military Weapons,Tech.,History, etc. Thread so that we don't just have to talk about WW2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

bruce57
07-10-2010, 08:37 PM
but that thread's already in the endwar forums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pieman13
07-10-2010, 09:12 PM
Endwar forums = dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Pieman13
07-10-2010, 09:34 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Hoffmann-023-11%2C_Russland%2C_bei_Charkow%2C_Himmler_bei_SS-Division_%22Das_Reich%22.jpg

awesome pick of Germans with Russian T-34s

bruce57
07-10-2010, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Pieman13:
Endwar forums = dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
BTR is still there, atacms posts sometimes, dafoc and inquisitor too

koolhandluke777
07-11-2010, 12:31 AM
http://www.luft46.com/profiles/m262t-1.jpg

The first jet in ww2... Made by the Germans!!!

STRONTJESBERG
07-11-2010, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by bruce57:
oh my god! that is the coolest thing ive ever seen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but it was used in World War I, you say?

Yes. Wikipedia--> Paris Gun

And it isn't the first jet plane. According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coanda-1910
However, the Schwalbe was the first Jet-powered FIGHTER.

But I adore the Nazi-German Me 163, first and only operational rocket powered plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163
(sorry, no pics, they are all huge)

Pieman13
07-11-2010, 09:09 AM
One of the first helicopters to actually go into production, the Fa-223 "Dragon"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/FA223.jpg

MadMat20
07-12-2010, 05:16 AM
The Flammwagen auf Panzerkampfwagen B-2 (f).
There were sixty of them, B1 bis seized by the Germans and converted into flamethrower tanks under the name B-2 (f) [the last letter "f" standing, as for every German foreign vehicles, for the country's name, here "f" for "Frankreich"] and mostly used against partisans behind the frontlines. But some were involved in famous battles like the German Panzer-Kompanie 224 at Arnhem, which was fully equiped with those vehicles.

http://forum.valka.cz/files/52_111.jpg


http://forum.valka.cz/files/oosterbeck_ps_kompanie_224_187.jpg

http://forum.valka.cz/files/53_815.jpg

http://forum.valka.cz/files/42_171.jpg

EUGEN TEAM

Pieman13
07-12-2010, 12:23 PM
Looks too slow for front line use http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

so i could see why they would put it against anti partisan operations

My book over Stalingrad also states that there over 50,000 Russians fighting for the Germans at Stalingrad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

there was also a a Waffen SS Cossack division : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cossack_Division

MadMat20
07-12-2010, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Pieman13:
My book over Stalingrad also states that there over 50,000 Russians fighting for the Germans at Stalingrad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

Yep, they were called "HiWis" (standing for "Hilfswillige", or "Voluntary auxiliaries") by the Germans. Most were not Russians, but from other Soviet Union states (Ukraine, Georgia, Turkestan, ...) willing to get rid of the Russian/Soviet rules. They were either former Red Army POWs or deserter, or even mere civilians who volunteered to serve in the Wehrmacht. They had a German uniform and were serving in German units, although officialy part of the ROA, an anti-Soviet "Russian Army of Liberation". This army was on paper only until late 1944, when several German divisions entirely made of volunteers from Eastern countries (including the two SS Cossack divisions) were gathered to form the Vlassov's Army, from the name of its commanding officer.

Several other battalions ("Ostbataillon") made up entirely of Ukrainians & Georgians were also formed and send France, where they fought in Normandy or Holland.
If the HiWis incorparated into actual German units were regarded as very good and brave soldiers, the Ostbataillon were troops of very dubious quality, if not mere loyalty! When the British armada of transport planes flew above Holland in the first hours of Operation Market Garden, only a very handful were damaged by German AA fire. It is said that many "German" AA guns were actually manned by Osttruppen ... who delibarately missed their targets. German officers had to shot several of them for treason for their fire to become much more accurate on the British planes' returning flight ...

EUGEN TEAM

Pieman13
07-12-2010, 02:18 PM
heh i think they tried something with British and American POW's, didn't work out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

MadMat20
07-12-2010, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Pieman13:
heh i think they tried something with British and American POW's, didn't work out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

It worked pretty well among Commowealth POWs taken in North Africa, especially Indians: 2.000 of them volunteered to be part of the Legion Freies Indien (Free Indian Legion), aka Indishe Legion, aka Pnzergrenadier-Regiment 950 (indische).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Freies_Indien_Legion_Soldier.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-263-1580-05%2C_Atlantikwall%2C_Soldaten_der_Legion_%22Freie s_Indien%22.jpg

They were intended to spearhead a future offensive in India once Egypt would have fallen. When in proved impossible, they were transfered in France, Holland & Italy, but for a hundred men commando which had been dropped earlier in India and fought with the Japanese for the rest of the war.

There was also a Britishes Freikorps, aka British Free Corps (BFC), but it never saw action for there has never been more than 30 volunteers in it.
Here's a picture of two of the BFC, with the Union flag on the armshield:
http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/w/wss-bfc.jpg

Also, there was a Waffen-SS Abteilung called "SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers" which trained war reporters attached to SS units and then dispatched them into frontline units. Several foreign nationals were trained there, and the German propaganda made use of their writing skill and mastery of other languages: among them were some British and US citizens.

EUGEN TEAM

Pieman13
07-12-2010, 08:20 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Pieman13
07-18-2010, 07:01 PM
anyone here read any good books on WW2?

i have a bunch on my bookshelf, just to name a few:
A Bridge Too Far
The Longest Day
Das Reich: The Military Role of the 2nd SS Division
Rommel
War As I Knew It
Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege

those are the ones i've read so far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Pieman13
07-18-2010, 10:03 PM
aww comon, there's got to be a WW2 nut out there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

bruce57
07-18-2010, 10:10 PM
most of stephen ambrose's stuff is amazing. I loved Pegasus Bridge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MadMat20
07-19-2010, 05:05 AM
Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif, "The battle of Berlin", "Crete", ...

Stephen Ambrose's "Band of Brothers" is also a very good addition to the HBO mini-series, since a lot of the book's informations did not find their way to the screen.

For a good inside look at the German army, I suggest Guy Sajers' "Le soldat oublié" (rightly translated "The forgotten soldier" in English). He was a French teenager from the Alsace region, drafted into the Wehrmacht and who later volunteered to transfer in the elite Grossdeutschland Division. Even if there is a controversy about the authenticity of everything he pretends to have witness/been part of, it is a very good inside account of the life in the Wehrmacht.

Hugh Sebag-Montefiore's "Enigma: the battle for the code" for the spy/mathematician war for the breaking of the German communications' code.

Gerard Saint-Martin's "L'arme blindée française" (two volumes, unfortunately not translated for what I know), dealing with (first volume) the birth of the French armored arm in the 1920-1930's, the debates about its strategical use and finally the way it fought the Germans in 1940 ; then (second volume) the slow rebuilding of the French armored divisions in North Africa and England in 1943-1944 and its use in the 1944-1945's campaigns.

Martin Middlebrook's "Arnhem 1944: the airborne battle". The author has interviewed a lot of witnesses, both British, German and Dutch, and gives a very detailed account of the battle.

John Keegan's "Six armies in Normandy".

The one I'm presently reading is Matthew Cobb's "The Resistance: the French fight against the nazis".

I've got many others, good or not, but I can't remember right now ...

EUGEN TEAM

Abberon
07-19-2010, 10:06 AM
Easily the most memorable WW2 book I've ever read was Iron Coffins, by Herbert A Werner. The author was a german U-boat captain and he recounts the early success of his boat up until 1941-1942 and then the absolute terror of being a u-boat captain late in the war.

Something like 80% of these subs were sunk and while the novel is written like a regular fiction novel, everything he writes about actually happened. He goes through all of his successes, over all the times he was nearly sunk and how often these guys wet their pants listening to depth charges going off nearby with corvettes and destroyers hunting them.

There's no way you can read that book and not appreciate the horror that is war and the bravery of the sailors on both sides. It was such a good book.

Pieman13
07-20-2010, 12:05 AM
Read a book called Das Reich by James Lucas

Focuses on the military role of the 2nd SS division http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

book told how during the Ardennes offensive, a group of the 2nd SS ran into some Americans. Since they were so close, they decided to just walk away from each other http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

killerofRuse
07-20-2010, 12:16 AM
http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/o/owned_by_tank-12252.jpg
Important history
http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/10/14/633595397897843751-FlyingAntiTank.jpg
Who didn't know that
http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/9/633671010333516642-Nazis.jpg
Hitler's favorite blitzkrieg machine

Pieman13
07-20-2010, 02:15 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

If Patton and Zhukov had a battle with their armies, who would win http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

MadMat20
07-20-2010, 05:12 PM
I would bet on Zhukov.

Besides, the Russian army at the surrender of Germany was much more ready to keep rolling West than the US the other way ...

EUGEN TEAM

Pieman13
07-20-2010, 07:29 PM
how good was the Soviet supply system back then?

STRONTJESBERG
07-21-2010, 12:36 AM
Do the Russians really need supply's?
They just fight with the rocks they see on the ground.

bruce57
07-21-2010, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by MadMat20:
I would bet on Zhukov.

Besides, the Russian army at the surrender of Germany was much more ready to keep rolling West than the US the other way ...

EUGEN TEAM
yeah, I think if Patton had had his way and the western allies had continued west after Germany surrendered, we would have been slaughtered http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Pieman13
07-21-2010, 12:54 PM
Well from what i've read, the Soviet supply system wasn't that great, still using horses i think.

Would air superiority play a role here?

djackman2010
07-21-2010, 01:58 PM
The soviet supply system was strained moreso than many other countries simply because of how many more mouths they had on the march.

Also, every major power in the war used horses, especially the Soviets and Germans - Horse food you could find many places - Oil for trucks didn't exactly grow on trees. Horses did more work than trucks, as far as the supply situation in WWII is concerned.

MadMat20
07-21-2010, 04:11 PM
Indeed the Russian supply system was strained to the limit in 1945, may be even more than the Western allies, but anyway there were so many tanks, men and guns on the Soviet side that they would have just rolled on them.

Besides, the estern allies, especially Europen (France & UK) were ruined and more than wary of the war. Public opinions in the West had much more weight in the balance than in USSR ...

EUGEN TEAM

SiRiDieAloT122
07-21-2010, 06:10 PM
I must say that i belive that the logistical problems faced by the red army was handed very well during the late parts of the war, but during the years 1941-1942 there was serious problems whit supplies reaching the front. The air superiotity that faced the russians early in the war was a big problem. As in germany the war machine was bombed day after day by the allies from bases in brittain, the russians did in 1941 move there hole war machinery to the Urals out of range from the german bombers such as he 111. But in the later parts of the war the russian industrial power was at it's top and were abel to supplie the biggest army in the world, the russians built many many railways and new roads to solve the transporting issues. But i must say that the did use alot of horses but only near the fronts.

irelandeb
07-21-2010, 06:17 PM
why is using horses a disadvatage? Every power used them

Pieman13
07-21-2010, 06:44 PM
Well didn't the US mostly use trucks by that time?

irelandeb
07-21-2010, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Pieman13:
Well didn't the US mostly use trucks by that time?
Both the UK and US were using only motorized logistics by then.

The UK never used horses after WWI and the US didn't really have much an army before WWII

bruce57
07-21-2010, 10:43 PM
but it comes down to the fact that a T-34 could destroy a Sherman tank any day, and the soviets had ENOUGH tank to take on the legions of cheap american tanks. they had the numbers, the experience, and the will to defeat america in a post world war II conflict. the only chance america would have would rest in its air power.

GK_
07-23-2010, 05:11 AM
Hmm you guys know some totally awesome heroes of WW2 not so "popular"?

I will give you examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major
Leo Major, canadian. A guy who alone, personally liberated a city in Holland and moreover, he was a hero in korean war too.

Also, really "badass":
As it was raining and cold, Major said to himself, "I am frozen and wet because of you so you will pay."

Days later, during his first encounter with an SS patrol, he killed four soldiers; however, one of them managed to ignite a phosphorus grenade. After the resulting explosion, Major lost one eye. The medical doctor told him, "My friend the war is over for you. You are going back to England." Major replied, "No way! Sorry, but I have a war to finish." He refused to be evacuated. He continued his service as a scout and a sniper by insisting that he needed only one eye to sight his weapon. According to him, he "looked like a pirate."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

Maybe well known finnish sniper, but if someone was excited by fake propaganda hero Zajcew from Stalingrad, read about a real king of snipers. He used only iron sights, not telescope to avoid glare and reveal). Really "pro" ;]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bastogne
fd

I would never agree that americans only took the fame of victory in europe and only Brits and Soviets was fighting - just read about 101st Airborne (and thats why they need those good stats for paras in RUSE http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ). And do not tell about "USA win only due to numbers".


You got "MOAR" of such histories, maybe not so known?

MadMat20
07-23-2010, 06:54 AM
Joan Pujol Garcia, codenamed "Garbo":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...of_fictitious_agents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pujol#Pujol.27s_network_of_fictitious_agents)

A Spanish citizen that once decided that he had to do something to fight both the Nazis & Communists, so in 1940 he offered his help as a spy both to the British (whom refused it thinking he could be a double-agent) and the Germans (to feed them with false informations) pretending to be British and located in England (while he first operated from Lisbon)...

Finally taken seriously by the British in 1942 and moved to England, where he "invented" a huge network of (false) contacts, very accurately depicted and with false documents (such as train tickets, death notices, ...) provided by the British to enforce their credibility, he provided the Germans with what they thought were invaluable informations.

From 1942 to 1944, he was considered one of the most accurate and valuable source by the Germans, and he played a vital role in persuading them that the Normandy landings were actually a diversion and that the real one was to be expected in the Pas-de-Calais, the reason why the Germans didn't moved their armored reserve in time to repel the invasion on the beaches.

Up to the end of the war he was never suspected by the Germans, whom even decorated him with the Iron Cross for his help after the war!

This guy was a RUSE all by himself! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

EUGEN TEAM

M1GarandGuy
07-23-2010, 06:25 PM
The soviets would (i hate to say this) own the americans in that time period. Although Patton was a master at armored warfare(tied with rommel) the soviets could throw anyone at the US army because they had an almost endless supply of dedicated soldiers. The United states by VE day were tired of war.

numbers win the battle most of the time. Example, the battle of Kursk, the two armies met unexpectedly met , the soviets with 500 tanks and the germans with 300. It was a hard battle because of those panthers but the soviets ended up winning.
Sorry if i offended any soviet army lover! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Velico12
07-23-2010, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by GK_:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

Maybe well known finnish sniper, but if someone was excited by fake propaganda hero Zajcew from Stalingrad, read about a real king of snipers. He used only iron sights, not telescope to avoid glare and reveal). Really "pro" ;]


Simo Hayha used iron sights more than a scope. It's well known and even says it in the link you shared. He was a true hunter. There were many good Russian snipers as well, but there's a reason Simo was named "White Death".

This is my favorite war hero, granted many know of him. Just the fact that he was the only known British soldier to have a confirmed kill with bow and arrow is enough for me to call him a badass. Guy was nuts, bar none.

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

I don't like to hypothesize on alternative histories, but if I were to put money on two things it would be that Russia would win the land campaign in Europe and USA would win the naval campaign hands down.

Pieman13
07-23-2010, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
The soviets would (i hate to say this) own the americans in that time period. Although Patton was a master at armored warfare(tied with rommel) the soviets could throw anyone at the US army because they had an almost endless supply of dedicated soldiers. The United states by VE day were tired of war.

numbers win the battle most of the time. Example, the battle of Kursk, the two armies met unexpectedly met , the soviets with 500 tanks and the germans with 300. It was a hard battle because of those panthers but the soviets ended up winning.
Sorry if i offended any soviet army lover! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Patton spirit will haunt you in your sleep http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

M1GarandGuy
07-24-2010, 07:27 AM
<Gasp>!!!!

MadMat20
07-24-2010, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Velico12:
This is my favorite war hero, granted many know of him. Just the fact that he was the only known British soldier to have a confirmed kill with bow and arrow is enough for me to call him a badass. Guy was nuts, bar none.

Going to war with a broadsword and a crossbow in 1940-45 is indeed the mark of a badass ... I didn't know about him.

Otto Kühne and his comrads-in-arms are other untold heros. They didn't fought the Nazi with medieval weapons, but regular ones or just leaflets. Yet, they were true heros, for they were antinazi Germans fighting their owns in France, as part of the French Resistance.

Kühne himself had been a reprensentative in the German Reichstag before the war, but fled Germany with the raise of the Nazis for he was communist.
Like many German lef-wingers or Jews, he fled to France prior to 1939: there were thousands of antinazis from Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain there at the outbreak of the war. Many were former fighters from the International Brigades in Spain in 1936, so when the war finally broke with Germany in 1940, they were eager to fight the Nazis.
1940 is the year were the French Foreign Legion recorded its highest ever peak of enlistment: almost ten new Legion regiments were formed in a matter of weeks: the Spaniards alone then formed almost 30% of the whole Legion, and with the Germans, Italians and Austrians, they made up half of it.
They fought well (three new regiments made up mostly of Spaniards were decimated) but were dissolved after the capitulation for many among them risked their lives should they be taken by the Germans. Many fled to neutral countries, but some stood in France and hide, forming among the first partisan groups against the Nazis. Otto Kühne did not fought in 1940, but with other fellow Germans he organized a group intended with targeting the German soldiers to make them dsert to the Resistance. It was made easier with the war going one, as many soldiers in France were on leave from the Russian front or about to be sent there, and most were not willing to go (back): so they deserted and join the Resistance.
3.000 Germans were part of the French Resistance, including 1.000 actually taking arms and fighting their own. It was very courageous, for they knew they had no pity to expect from the enemy should they be captured! Some stood inside the Wehrmacht and formed small groups that fed the Resistance with intelligence or arms and ammunitions.

Otto Kühne organized groups of foreign partisans in many places in the South of France, mostly from German, Russian or Armenian deserters from the Wehrmacht (there were many "German" soldiers in France actually pressed in the Whermacht from Soviet POW camps), or Italians that chose to stay in France and fight the Nazis when their country surrendered to the Allies.
When the 1944 landings occured and the partisans rose to slow the German reinforcement's movements to Normandy (especially that of the SS "Das Reich" Panzer-Division), he was a lieutenant-colonel in the Secret Army and had more than 2.000 men, French and foreigners, under his orders.

When the city of Nîmes was liberated, the Resistance organized a military parade of the various groups of the area. As a symbol, and to recognize their part in the Resistance, they choose three Germans to open the parade, walking ahead of the Tricolore and the whole of the Resistance ...
http://www.globalarmenianheritage-adic.fr/images_6/20_vosker293.JPG

Labeled traitors by their own and more than often enemy by those they were fighting with (and for), the antinazi Germans (and others from Axis states) deserved some recognition ...

EUGEN TEAM

Pieman13
07-24-2010, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by bruce57:
but it comes down to the fact that a T-34 could destroy a Sherman tank any day, and the soviets had ENOUGH tank to take on the legions of cheap american tanks. they had the numbers, the experience, and the will to defeat america in a post world war II conflict. the only chance america would have would rest in its air power.

I'm trying to find documents for tank battles in korea with the sherman, but i'll i find are internet forums and books online http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Pieman13
07-24-2010, 12:07 PM
http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepan...herman/su/soviet.htm (http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepanzer/us/M4_sherman/su/soviet.htm)

M4 Sherman in German service http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

M1GarandGuy
07-24-2010, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by bruce57:
but it comes down to the fact that a T-34 could destroy a Sherman tank any day, and the soviets had ENOUGH tank to take on the legions of cheap american tanks. they had the numbers, the experience, and the will to defeat america in a post world war II conflict. the only chance america would have would rest in its air power.

You forgot the M26 Pershing that completely wiped out both stocks of t-34s from both the chinese and the koreans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Pieman13
07-24-2010, 12:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M1GarandGuy
07-24-2010, 03:03 PM
90mm of explosive power compared to 76mm!!!!!

bruce57
07-24-2010, 04:27 PM
very true, and i have no doubt that in a 1 on 1 fight, an m26 would destroy a T-34. But at the end of 1945, the U.S. army only had 2,000 in service, and many of them were in the pacific. in addition, the Soviet IS-2 tank could easily pick a fight with a Pershing.

Commander672
07-24-2010, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
The soviets would (i hate to say this) own the americans in that time period. Although Patton was a master at armored warfare(tied with rommel) the soviets could throw anyone at the US army because they had an almost endless supply of dedicated soldiers. The United states by VE day were tired of war.

numbers win the battle most of the time. Example, the battle of Kursk, the two armies met unexpectedly met , the soviets with 500 tanks and the germans with 300. It was a hard battle because of those panthers but the soviets ended up winning.
Sorry if i offended any soviet army lover! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

You forgot one thing...

http://www.cix.co.uk/~dliddlea/timeguns/hiroshima_bomb.jpg

Acually what you do forget is that Facism was the extreme oppisite of communism. And the mood of Europe Throughout the 18 and 1900s was "Oh, Sh*t! Commies!." Thus if it were US vs Russia in the late 30s/40s, it would drag most of the industrialized world (and China) with it on our behalf. Then theirs Soviet Russia's POS pacific navy, inferior (to us, at the time) productivity, and the fact that their very, very poor.

Another thing, military theorists (including Hitler's generals) claim Germany could've defeated Russia if they had waited excacly one year to defeat Britian completly (Translation, recover from Battle of Britian) and consoladate their hold on Europe. But Hitler DIDN'T listen to said officers, and hastily invaded the Soviets. I doubt they could conquer ALL of Russia alone, but they certainly would've takin Moscow.

Finally, if in the case of stalemate, the Nuke would've sealed the deal. Becouse for a long while only we had it, not Russia. Screw Stalingrad, We'll nuke it from several thousand feet.

Velico12
07-24-2010, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Commander672:

You forgot one thing...

Another thing, military theorists (including Hitler's generals) claim Germany could've defeated Russia if they had waited excacly one year to defeat Britian completly (Translation, recover from Battle of Britian) and consoladate their hold on Europe. But Hitler DIDN'T listen to said officers, and hastily invaded the Soviets. I doubt they could conquer ALL of Russia alone, but they certainly would've takin Moscow.

Finally, if in the case of stalemate, the Nuke would've sealed the deal. Becouse for a long while only we had it, not Russia. Screw Stalingrad, We'll nuke it from several thousand feet.

It's hard to speculate one way or another whether Germany would have won the front with Russia had they subdued Britain first. There's just too many variables. What if Japan launched a land campaign against Russia and denied the Siberian and Eastern reserves to be sent to the German front? What if Germany increased their aircraft production to deal with Britain and used everything leftover to fight Russia? What if Hitler agreed with his high command to go straight for Moscow instead of his preferred three-pronged attack?

There's just too many different scenarios to say Germany would have won. Historians, in general, do not like to theorize because it reduces their credibility and introduces idea's that are arbitrary at best. Who knows, in a thousand years maybe one of the documents available is the theories of a military historian. If so, that's a very dangerous situation as it alters the entire history of events that have shaped our world.

Pieman13
07-24-2010, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Commander672:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
The soviets would (i hate to say this) own the americans in that time period. Although Patton was a master at armored warfare(tied with rommel) the soviets could throw anyone at the US army because they had an almost endless supply of dedicated soldiers. The United states by VE day were tired of war.

numbers win the battle most of the time. Example, the battle of Kursk, the two armies met unexpectedly met , the soviets with 500 tanks and the germans with 300. It was a hard battle because of those panthers but the soviets ended up winning.
Sorry if i offended any soviet army lover! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

You forgot one thing...

http://www.cix.co.uk/~dliddlea/timeguns/hiroshima_bomb.jpg

Acually what you do forget is that Facism was the extreme oppisite of communism. And the mood of Europe Throughout the 18 and 1900s was "Oh, Sh*t! Commies!." Thus if it were US vs Russia in the late 30s/40s, it would drag most of the industrialized world (and China) with it on our behalf. Then theirs Soviet Russia's POS pacific navy, inferior (to us, at the time) productivity, and the fact that their very, very poor.

Another thing, military theorists (including Hitler's generals) claim Germany could've defeated Russia if they had waited excacly one year to defeat Britian completly (Translation, recover from Battle of Britian) and consoladate their hold on Europe. But Hitler DIDN'T listen to said officers, and hastily invaded the Soviets. I doubt they could conquer ALL of Russia alone, but they certainly would've takin Moscow.

Finally, if in the case of stalemate, the Nuke would've sealed the deal. Becouse for a long while only we had it, not Russia. Screw Stalingrad, We'll nuke it from several thousand feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



imagine if we good mass produce some of the German weaponry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

M1GarandGuy
07-24-2010, 08:05 PM
yeah the atom bomb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

anyway, lets stop fighting over who were the better country, both of us won the war, both of us have are goods and bads in our armies. no one was better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Pieman13
07-25-2010, 11:02 AM
well what if we attacked them, then retreated all the way to france, then have Patton flank them once they get in deep http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

of course we would wait a few months after WW2, so the troops can rest and we get pershings and perhaps upgraded shermans over to Europe. (from what i've heard, the M4A3E8 i think held up against the T-34/85 in Korea with its 76mm gun. but i don't know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )

M1GarandGuy
07-25-2010, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by bruce57:
very true, and i have no doubt that in a 1 on 1 fight, an m26 would destroy a T-34. But at the end of 1945, the U.S. army only had 2,000 in service, and many of them were in the pacific. in addition, the Soviet IS-2 tank could easily pick a fight with a Pershing.

ugh i hate arguing but i'll keep going.
not much of a comback, but youll have to get through our tank destroyers including the m10 76mm, m18 76mm (my favorite military vehicule)and of course the m36 90mm.

hey the us had jet planes by the end of war that didn't make it in time, right? like the shooting star. we would of destroyed the soviets air power. Actually air superiority is one of the most important parameter in the course of battle, the entire US army was backed up by the XXX army air force so goodbye IS-2 who according to wikipedia , didnt have any mounted machine gun after later improvements

bruce57
07-25-2010, 03:41 PM
okay okay, the Americans would have JACKED the Soviet airforce http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

but the Russians still had the MiG-9 which started production in 1946. If necessary, the Soviets could have produced this in large numbers.

M1GarandGuy
07-25-2010, 03:54 PM
that is way true! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif "Get to work cant you see we're trying to win a war!" (with russian accent)

bruce57
07-25-2010, 03:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif exactly.

M1GarandGuy
07-25-2010, 04:09 PM
lol.

I guess we're in a stalemate, exactly how history intended it to be.

Pieman13
07-25-2010, 06:46 PM
The Soviets need the British to help them to develop the Mig-15 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_VK-1

if the British never gave them that engine i wonder where they would be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

bruce57
07-25-2010, 09:58 PM
i guess they could have worked on improving the BMW 003 engine they used in the MiG-9, but you make a good point.... they would have been way behind in jet technology http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M1GarandGuy
07-26-2010, 08:48 AM
lets change the subject, italy or france?

AnderZEL
07-26-2010, 09:13 AM
Post more tec plz i love this tread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MadMat20
07-26-2010, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
lets change the subject, italy or france?

France! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Italy DID attack France in the last days of the Battle of France, four days before the fall of Paris, while the Germans controled already half of the country.
Although many Alpine units had been removed from the Alpine line ("Ligne Alpine"), a "natural" Maginot line made up of small bunkers defending key valleys and passes, to fight in Norway or fill the gaps against the victorious Germans, the remaining defenders stopped the Italians dry sometimes just a few kilometers from their starting positions. In one place (the Saint-Martin border station, near Menton), 8 men and 1 NCO in a small bunker prevented the Italian 5th Infantry Division from crossing the city's bridge ... for one whole week!

After twelve days, France's capitulation ceased the fightings with Italy. In this campaign opposing 170.000 French (of whom 30.000 had to be diverted to face the Germans coming from the rear) to 300.000 Italians, France lost some 300 men, Italy some 4.000.

The Italian army had all the flaws of the French army, but worsen, and none of the advantages. Both were WW1-like armies, but where the French army could anyway rely on very good tanks and a well-served artillery, Italy had nothing of that. They had elite mountains troops, whom fought well, but couldn't take passes and bunkers with their sole courage. Besides, the Italian command structure was one leaving the less initiative to NCO, everything had to come from an officers ... which couldn't always be everywhere.

The Italian army later fixed some of its weakness, usually by copying the Germans (and sometimes doing better, like the Semoventes assault guns or the 90mm dual-purpose gun), but it remains one of the most ill-commanded army among the great nations of WW2.
Italians were very good in small-units actions (they were particulary dreaded by the British for their night raids in the North African desert), but the more troops they engaged, the worse they were ...

By the way, the last sword charges in the French cavalry history occured during WW2 between French Spahis and Italian colonial infantry in Eritrea, at Umbrega (January 2nd, 1941) and Omager (January 18th, 1941).
At Umbrega, the French cavalry routed the Italians and pursued them ; at Omager forty surrounded French Spahis were able to open their way to safety with sword through a battalion of Italian infantry.

EUGEN TEAM

M1GarandGuy
07-26-2010, 03:05 PM
lets talk about weapons shall we, history says that the m1 garand(my fav) may be one of the most famous rifles of the war. (I can agree with that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif ) But compared to other rifles especially late war german rifles like the gewher 43 and the sturmgewher sumthing, how good was the m1 garand?

bruce57
07-26-2010, 04:45 PM
the M1 Garand was damn heavy, and the clip was smaller than the 43 and the Stg 44, not too mention the Stg. could be fully auto or semi auto. another issue was the metallic "cling" sound the clip made when it was automatically ejected after expending all the rounds. this let the germans know the shooter was out of ammo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

but it was damn accurate as well, and it had good firepower and range. so overall it was a good gun.

MadMat20
07-26-2010, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
lets talk about weapons shall we, history says that the m1 garand(my fav) may be one of the most famous rifles of the war. (I can agree with that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif ) But compared to other rifles especially late war german rifles like the gewher 43 and the sturmgewher sumthing, how good was the m1 garand?

"the sturmgewher sumthing" you're refering to must be the Sturmgewehr 1944
http://s1.e-monsite.com/2009/02/07/99184483stg44-jpg.jpg
Since it is the very first assault rifle in history, it does not compete in the same league as the semi-automatic rifles like the M1 Garand or Gewehr 43.

The Garand had the great advantage on its foreign counterparts to have been first in service. When the USA entered the war in late 1941, most of the Army had been equiped with it. And since most of the USA's enemies (Japan, Germany & Italy) were still using bolt-action rifles, it gave the usually less experimented US troops a tremendous edge in infantry firepower (at least, 'til the German MGs didn't entered in action).
On the good side, the Garand was accurate, had a very powerful cartridge and could fire 8 bullets in a row without doing anything else than pulling the trigger when the enemy had to fire, action the bolt, re-aim and fire. Besides, since it used 8-ammo clips that could be loaded in a single movement, a US rifleman will still gain more precious time when a German/Japanese had to reload each round one by one.
On the lesser side, the Garand had a tremendous recoil, meaning that if you fire your whole clips in a quick succession, your first and second bullets may hit their target, but all the others will fly way above it ... Also, the Garand and its big ammos weighted more than most other rifle. The ammo clip had a few flaw too: first, once loaded, you had to fire all eight bullets before it was automatically ejected, it was very difficult (at least, while under enemy fire) to remove it when not completely spent: that means US riflemen had to move with partially spent clips when they had not fired all their bullets, or had to fire the last bullets in the sky to be able to reload. Another fault of this ammo clips, alledgely, is that it did a very specific metallic noise when spent and automatically ejected (if you've ever played any WW2 FPS like CoD 5, you must know what I mean) from the weapon: it is said that in close combat battles, like urban fightings, when enemies were very close, the Germans had learned to recognized that sound which meant that their enemy was temporaly without ammos ...

The Gewehr 43 was a much more modern weapon, having been designed some ten years after the Garand. Therefore, it weighted less, had a slightly less powerful cartridge (but on the receiving end, you could hardly be satisfied with that fact), was more accurate and had a better range. It also had two more cartridges in the magazine and the latter didn't have all the flaws of the Garand's clip.

So, the G43 was better than the M1 Garand, for it was much more modern, but it came much later in the war and in too few numbers to have anything like the impact of the Garand on the battlefield.

It is like asking which tank was the best one in WW2: of course latter ones were more efficient than earlier ones, but you have to see the general impact on the course of the war. For me, the most perfect piece of mechanic would be the German Pz. V "Panther", but despite its performance, it came too late and in too few numbers to turn the tide. While the Russian T34 was regularly outclassed, but was so reliable, well conceived and easy to modify that it always came back on top of the food chain and remained in action for the whole war with good performances.

So if asked which would be the best of the war as a whole, I would cast my vote for the M1 Garand ... and the T34!

EUGEN TEAM

M1GarandGuy
07-27-2010, 08:16 AM
umm , lets see, thompson or mp40

MadMat20
07-27-2010, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
umm , lets see, thompson or mp40

That's a tougher one ...

The M1 Thompson, well, looks very cool ... that's the first thing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Secondly, the Thompson was a very powerful weapon, firing .45 ACP bullets (same as the Colt M1911, the US Army sidearm) with good penetration and a great neutralization power. It is even said the bullet could provoke remote damage on target, thus incapaciting it more quickly: it is called hydrostatic shok. Compared to the MP40's tiny 9mm parabellum, it makes a big difference.
Despite this heavy ammunition, the Thompson's magazine carried only two bullets less than the MP40, with a rate of fire almost twice as that of the German SMG ... which can be both an advantage or a flaw, depending on the situation.

But the .45 ACP bullets have its own flaws: like the M1 Garand, the Thompson had a very serious recoil which sent most bullets spraying the sky. In the Pacific, Thompson's users learned to use that to their advantage to shoot Japanese snipers in the trees: they aimed the tree low, and with the recoil the burst would finally hit the man above in the palms ...
The weight of the .45 APC bullet also meant that for a same weight in ammunition, the Thompson user had less than the MP40's one. And since only the Americans used .45 APC on the battlefield, they couldn't hope to resupply on the enemy.

The much more controllable 9mm burst was more accurate, and the MP40's range was twice that of the Thompson.
The MP40 was easily modified, some with folding stock, you could even mount a silencer on it.

The M1 Thompson packed a lot of punch and was a terrible weapon at very close range, but its utility was very limited above 50m.
The MP40 was more feeble, but also more versatile, and the 9mm they were firing was a common caliber they could resupply on most nations' stocks.

So the M1 Thompson may be cooler and more powerful, I think the MP40 was more designed for the battlefield ...

EUGEN TEAM

peakfs_HUN
07-27-2010, 12:52 PM
Lee-Enfield rulez! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

senortoot
07-27-2010, 02:31 PM
In fairness, if a bullet hits you, you are going down. Doesnt matter if its 9mm or .45 you are still going down.

The difference is how quickly you bleed to death or if you can even survive. Either way you are out of the fight. I'd rather have an MP40 personally.

But my vote for best personal weapon of WW2 would go to the STG44.

Coolest weapon would be the PPsH because it is brutal and looks mean as hell.

Lamest weapon would be the Sten SMG because it looks stupid and was notoriously fragile.

The Thomson vs MP40 arguement sort of sets the tone for the technology debate of WW2. Where the allies embody easy of use, cheap mass production and numbers, the german technology embodies small amounts of precision engineering and precise application of firepower.

You see it in the Panzer vs Sherman arguement.
You see it in the Messerschmitt vs Spitfire arguement.

At the end of the day - in a conflict like WW2, logistics and bodies behind weapons count more than grand strategy and quality of equipment.

bruce57
07-27-2010, 05:09 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif very well said

M1GarandGuy
07-27-2010, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by bruce57:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif very well said
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif



----------------------------------------------
in that case, another change in subject, the P-51 or Spitfire?

I personally favor the P-51, after it was the fastest prop plane in WW2, 6 50.cal machine guns and made to last long in the air as a bomber escort.

MadMat20
07-27-2010, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by senortoot:
In fairness, if a bullet hits you, you are going down. Doesnt matter if its 9mm or .45 you are still going down.

That's right, but "size matter" anyway ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
A man hit in the arms or legs by a 9mm bullet could still be dangerous, or be able to walk/crawl by himself to an aid post. Someone hit by a .45 APC will be incapacited either by the damage or by the shock, and would need to be caried away by comrades.

In the 70's, most nations chose to fire lesser calibers, usually abandonning the ~7,62mm for smaller ~5,56mm (the USA when adopting the M16, the Russians with the AK-74 variant of the famous AK-47, ...) for they had realized that it was way better to maim a man than kill him: a dead man meant one man down, a badly injured one meant one man down + two others removed from the frontline to carry him way.

So differences of calibers have their part to play in global warfare ... even if, as you say, it is not the main factor in a war ...

EUGEN TEAM

MadMat20
07-27-2010, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
The spitfire itself was a pretty old plane and was obsolete after they introduced the supermarine

Isn't the Supermarine actually the Sptifire?
Actually, its full name is "Supermarine Spitfire":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

And it was produced only from 1938, seeing first combat in late 1939, so it can hadly be called "old" and "obsolete" ...

EUGEN TEAM

M1GarandGuy
07-27-2010, 06:16 PM
oops my bad i sound like an idiot on with the debate anyway as i edit that post

bruce57
07-27-2010, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bruce57:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif very well said
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif



----------------------------------------------
in that case, another change in subject, the P-51 or Spitfire?

I personally favor the P-51, after it was the fastest prop plane in WW2, 6 50.cal machine guns and made to last long in the air as a bomber escort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yeah you cant argue with the P-51, arguably the greatest fighter of all time

senortoot
07-28-2010, 07:32 AM
The strength of the spitfire was that it was incredibly easy to fly and really forgiving to rookie pilots also it was very cheap to produce - the plane itself wasn't amazing.

DNAz5646
07-28-2010, 07:47 AM
BOLT ACTION FIGHT!
WW2 era
Lee-Enfield
Mosin–Nagant
Karabiner 98 Kurz
Type 38
M1903 Springfield

Which is superior?

senortoot
07-28-2010, 07:57 AM
Mosin-Nagant.

No tools needed to align the sight, russian lubricant means the gun will keep firing in way below zero and extremely wet conditions, unlike the kar98k and springfield and probably the Lee-enfield too. Extremely accurate,balanced and tough, you could stock-whip someone and not even throw the sights off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M1GarandGuy
07-28-2010, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by bruce57:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bruce57:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif very well said
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif



----------------------------------------------
in that case, another change in subject, the P-51 or Spitfire?

I personally favor the P-51, after it was the fastest prop plane in WW2, 6 50.cal machine guns and made to last long in the air as a bomber escort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yeah you cant argue with the P-51, arguably the greatest fighter of all time </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


"try making chlorophyll in there motherf***er"
Lawl i saw that yesterday. I am not one to ask my opinion on bolt action rifles, but i'll go with the mosin nagant and the kar 98

bruce57
07-29-2010, 08:42 AM
bahahahaha yeah thats one of my favorite Colbert quotes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Pieman13
07-29-2010, 11:28 AM
hmm which one to read,

The Last Battle: The Classic History of the Battle of Berlin

or

Horse Soldiers: The extraordinary story of a band of U.S. Soldiers who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
A book about WW2 and a book about modern warfare, which one to chose http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

M1GarandGuy
07-29-2010, 12:42 PM
hmmmm....
thats a tough one. i think the last battle sounds cool but you should take a lot of notes on that. the battle of berlin was very messy!

bruce57
07-29-2010, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Pieman13:
hmm which one to read,

The Last Battle: The Classic History of the Battle of Berlin

or

Horse Soldiers: The extraordinary story of a band of U.S. Soldiers who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
A book about WW2 and a book about modern warfare, which one to chose http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
HORSE. SOLDIERS. read it, INCREDIBLE book. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M1GarandGuy
07-30-2010, 09:19 AM
new topic.

the german jagdpanther vs. SU-100!!!

bruce57
07-31-2010, 09:22 AM
new topic. What was Hitler's biggest mistake.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

M1GarandGuy
07-31-2010, 10:59 AM
Being alive?? lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

no his biggest mistake was attacking the soviets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

MadMat20
07-31-2010, 11:50 AM
I you don't take into account the fact that he should have pursued his painting career instead of starting a mad dictator's one, I would say the "Haltbefehl": while the British and French troops were trapped into the Dunkirk pocket in 1940, he could have smash them and thus finish off the last army the British had.
Instead he ordered his troops to stop and offered peace to Churchill on terms he thought generous enough (coupled with the fact that he'd spared their army) that the British couldn't refused.
It just gave the Brits time to evacuate their army to keep fighting for the rest of the war ...

EUGEN TEAM

Velico12
07-31-2010, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by MadMat20:
I you don't take into account the fact that he should have pursued his painting career instead of starting a mad dictator's one, I would say the "Haltbefehl": while the British and French troops were trapped into the Dunkirk pocket in 1940, he could have smash them and thus finish off the last army the British had.
Instead he ordered his troops to stop and offered peace to Churchill on terms he thought generous enough (coupled with the fact that he'd spared their army) that the British couldn't refused.
It just gave the Brits time to evacuate their army to keep fighting for the rest of the war ...

EUGEN TEAM

Granted that was very stupid, his decision to go against his high command and create a two front war unravelled everything done up to that point. What's worse is that even after the high command agreed to attack Russia, Hitler ignored the advice of his generals to go straight for Moscow; instead preferring the three-pronged attack. But this is a blunder.

His greatest mistake, in my opinion, was his overwhelming obsession with the Jews and Slavic peoples. Not only did it detract from military operations and resources, it would only have been a matter of time before the German people realized what he was doing. Many were in disbelief, and even most of the Eastern Germans during the Cold War had no idea it even happened. It consumed his thoughts more and more, driving him to irrational and rash decisions. And, after so long having his thought process as such, little else mattered.

Pieman13
07-31-2010, 02:31 PM
if the holocaust never couldn't that have ment more man power too?

perhaps less of a resistance too

Velico12
07-31-2010, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Pieman13:
if the holocaust never couldn't that have ment more man power too?

perhaps less of a resistance too

I don't understand your comment, it's a bit confusing.

Pieman13
08-01-2010, 12:05 AM
Ex: Lets say out of the 11 million or so people killed, some could of been fit for service? Couldn't that have ment some more man power, heck even some workers to manufacture weapons.

For the Resistance part, while there would have still been resistance, perhaps not as much would begin, which would mean more uninterrupted supply lines and more troops can be deployed to the front.

senortoot
08-01-2010, 01:08 AM
Hitler was a noob.

In Hearts of Iron 2 and 3 I always invade England, Spain and Portugal, take all of Russia's industrial base and surround China - keeping a large mechanised army incase any of the asian countries decide to invade.

Then I take Cuba and the Carribean islands and invade America from Florida, allowing Argentina to take all of South America. Italy takes Africa and Japan takes all of the Pacific Islands and starts trying to invade Australia but always fails.

I am better than Hitler at war.

M1GarandGuy
08-01-2010, 06:38 AM
yes but thats a game, and there are certain parameters in a war that cant be added into a game.

Pieman13
08-01-2010, 09:23 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

M1GarandGuy
08-01-2010, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by senortoot:
Hitler was a noob.

In Hearts of Iron 2 and 3 I always invade England, Spain and Portugal, take all of Russia's industrial base and surround China - keeping a large mechanised army incase any of the asian countries decide to invade.

Then I take Cuba and the Carribean islands and invade America from Florida, allowing Argentina to take all of South America. Italy takes Africa and Japan takes all of the Pacific Islands and starts trying to invade Australia but always fails.

I am better than Hitler at war.

BTW hows the game i hear its good!

DAFOC
08-01-2010, 02:24 PM
I tried HoI3 demo but it had to much micromanaging but I ear HOI2 is simpler and has an awsome Timeline191 mod!!

senortoot
08-01-2010, 02:30 PM
HoI2 is simpler, faster and less of a spreadsheet war.

HoI3 is more complex and fiddly, but the research, politics, espionage and naval battle systems are far better.

DAFOC
08-01-2010, 05:02 PM
Does HOI3 have a Timeline 191 mod?

bruce57
08-01-2010, 06:41 PM
HoI2=best strategy game ever.

Spacemanc
08-01-2010, 06:46 PM
Mistake 1 - Not going for the zerg rush on Great Britian in 1940.

Mistake 2 - Attacking US merchant shipping (Though Mistake 1 would probably have stopped it being a problem)

Mistake 2 - Not going for the zerg rush on Moscow.

bruce57
08-02-2010, 02:03 PM
Spacemanc, if they had tried to invade GB in 1940 they would have been annihilated... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

and they did try to rush moscow, it just didnt work. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M1GarandGuy
08-02-2010, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by bruce57:
Spacemanc, if they had tried to invade GB in 1940 they would have been annihilated... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

and they did try to rush moscow, it just didnt work. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

yeah they were caught up when winter arrived, poor sods http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

senortoot
08-02-2010, 06:37 PM
The British army was a joke in 1940. It didnt have any heavy equipment left after Dunkirk - that means tanks, AT guns, Artillery. Well, not in any decent amount.

Why we wasn't invaded:

There is only a VERY small amount of oil underneath England. It would make more sense to invade and take Romanian and Russian oil fields which contain much more oil. You cannot sustain a mechanised, modern army without oil. This was one of the main reasons Germany actually lost the war - there wasn't enough fuel and lubricants available from 1944 onwards. Everything else that England has, Germany and it's already occupied areas combined with Swedish imports, Germany already had in much higher amounts. Mostly - Iron Ore, Coal and Rubber.

Another theory is that Hitler didn't want to subjugate another people he viewed as Aryan. He much preferred to attack the mostly Slavic and Asian people of Russia. Also, there was a very large population of Jews in western Russia around Ukraine.

Invading England wouldnt have been that difficult, there are a LOT of beaches that connect directly to main routes through Britain. It would have been impossible to fortify all of them. The Royal Navy could have stopped it, but at that time the Kriegsmarine still had the Tirpitz, Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, not to mention the pocket battleships that I can't remember the name of http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifand a large amount of submarines.
These ships far outclassed what the Royal Navy could put to sea - combined with the fact that all of the home fleet was based out of Scapa Flow, at the very northernmost point of Britain.

tl;dr -

Germany could have easily invaded Britain, but chose not to for some strange reason and I am glad Hitler was ******ed enough not to invade because I can't speak German http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Velico12
08-02-2010, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by bruce57:
Spacemanc, if they had tried to invade GB in 1940 they would have been annihilated... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

and they did try to rush moscow, it just didnt work. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

They only concentrated army group center for the push to Moscow. Hitler's generals wanted to send everything straight to Moscow and then spread out but Hitler wanted to have the three pronged attack to secure oil in the Caucuses, capture Moscow, and capture Leningrad since Leningrad was a bastion of Communism and a "political center". Hitler was obsessed with Leningrad for absolutely no reason. Other than Russia's Baltic fleet stationed there, taking the city meant nothing except to Hitler.

MadMat20
08-03-2010, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by senortoot:
Germany could have easily invaded Britain, but chose not to for some strange reason and I am glad Hitler was ******ed enough not to invade because I can't speak German http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The "strange reason" was called the Royal Air Force (RAF).

Like Napoleon needed to secure the Channel against Nelson's fleet before getting his troops across it in 1805 (which ultimately ended at Trafalgar), Hitler needed to have full air superiority before sending his own naval troop transports. Or they would have been blown from above ...
The German troops were ready and drilling for a landing while the Luftwaffe was busy destroying RAF's airfield. But the outnumbered British and Allied (Czech, Polish, Dutch, Belgian, French, ... mostly survivors from defeated nations' armies) pilots were able to keep them at bay, thus preventing any landing.

Like Churchill said: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few", for England then owed its freedom to a handful of pilots ...

EUGEN TEAM

senortoot
08-03-2010, 03:36 AM
England was losing the Battle of Britain. The Luftwaffe would have eventually won if they just kept the pressure on. There was absolutely no way Britain could produce interceptors at the rate they were losing them - or match Germany's ability to replace downed aircraft.

On paper the RAF performed spectacularly, but battles in WW2 weren't determined by skill and tenacity, it was all logistics, numbers and firepower.

Skill and tenacity just made the battles last longer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MadMat20
08-03-2010, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by senortoot:
England was losing the Battle of Britain. The Luftwaffe would have eventually won if they just kept the pressure on.

That's true: had the Germans kept the pressure on the RAF bases and airfields a little longer (may be just one week or two), the RAF would have been completely spent. Pilots were more than worn out, some falling asleep in their cockpit by lack of sleep and too much missions.
Pounded runway were slow to be rebuild, and it was even more true for the replacement planes. The shot-down pilots were almost impossible to train & replace on such a short time, that's why the RAF allowed the use of foreign pilots despite their lack of training on British planes & tactics, and the difference of language (they also feared that on the radio, British pilots would mistake Czech or Polish pilots for Germans).

Then, when the RAF was on the verge of collapsing, the Germans thought that they had already achieve its destruction and shift their targets from RAF airfields to industrial center and major cities, trying to break the civilans' morale with terror bombings.
It gave the RAF the much-needed time to recover and retaliate (for the bombers attacking London couldn't be covered by fighter escorts all the way) ... and certainly saved Breat-Britain.

One more of Hitler's blunders that may have turn the tide of the war ...

EUGEN TEAM

Spacemanc
08-03-2010, 06:48 AM
One of the reasons Hitler didnt plan to invade Britain, is that he thought she would make peace - a kind of "we have Europe - make peace and you can keep your Empire" He didn't expect Britain to keep on fighting to liberate Europe.

Imo even without the full destruction of the RAF, he could have still invaded in 1940, and been successful.

Britain was very unprepared, with most of the ground equipment lost in Dunkirk. Most of the RAF airfields were in South East England, and could have been quickly overran. If Britain had fallen, then the US would not have had a supply point in Europe, and if you think an English Channel invasion crossing is hard, then imaging an Atlantic invasion crossing! Im pretty sure that if Britain had fallen, then the US would not have entered the war (Though I think eventually 10 years later, Hitler would have attacked the US using superior technology.)


With regard to not attacking Moscow, Hitler ordered his troops to stop 40 miles outside, despite the Russians crumbling before them. This allowed Siberian forces to be moved West, who then held back the Germans until Winter came - and thats when their problems really began

senortoot
08-03-2010, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Spacemanc:
Though I think eventually 10 years later, Hitler would have attacked the US using superior technology

There was plans for a jet powered strategic bomber, made for deploying a nuclear device to New York. 10 years before the Americans had them as a nuclear deterrent in the cold war - the Luftwaffe was already in prototype stages.

The Horten H18 - it looks like a modern stealth bomber, but it could reach from Germany to the US and back. How crazy is that? This is 1944 level technology.

They had the plans and prototypes but it was deemed too expensive by Hermann Goering who wanted numbers of planes in the air. In fairness, Germany would have been crazy to do this - do they take engines and resources away from 262 development and go for a last roll of the dice nuclear strike against America and call for peace? Or do they try and save the home front.... You know what happened http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That was the plan, but Germany never did develop a nuclear weapon anyway so....

bruce57
08-03-2010, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Spacemanc:
One of the reasons Hitler didnt plan to invade Britain, is that he thought she would make peace - a kind of "we have Europe - make peace and you can keep your Empire" He didn't expect Britain to keep on fighting to liberate Europe.

Imo even without the full destruction of the RAF, he could have still invaded in 1940, and been successful.

Britain was very unprepared, with most of the ground equipment lost in Dunkirk. Most of the RAF airfields were in South East England, and could have been quickly overran. If Britain had fallen, then the US would not have had a supply point in Europe, and if you think an English Channel invasion crossing is hard, then imaging an Atlantic invasion crossing! Im pretty sure that if Britain had fallen, then the US would not have entered the war (Though I think eventually 10 years later, Hitler would have attacked the US using superior technology.)


With regard to not attacking Moscow, Hitler ordered his troops to stop 40 miles outside, despite the Russians crumbling before them. This allowed Siberian forces to be moved West, who then held back the Germans until Winter came - and thats when their problems really began
The British Navy never would have let the German Invasion force cross the channel. it would have just been impossible.

As far as Moscow goes, the German armies were already over extended, only half the tanks were in perfect repair. if they had kept going they would have been embroiled in a city battle bigger than the likes of Stalingrad a year later. it would have been a bloodbath for the already tired Germans (especially since they lacked proper winter clothing).

MadMat20
08-03-2010, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by bruce57:
The British Navy never would have let the German Invasion force cross the channel. it would have just been impossible.


In 1940, most people considered impossible for a naval fleet to operate a landing without full air superiority. But the British themselves proved that point wrong, when they were able to remove most of the Commonwealth troops from Crete the following year.

The Luftwaffe had full air superiority then, but it was not able to prevent the Royal Navy from securing Sfakia Bay and proceed with the evacuation. There were heavy losses among the Allied navy and ground troops, but the evacuation succeeded.
So, if it worked that way, it may have worked the other way for the Germans in 1940. Like it was said before, the Brits had almost nothing to stop the German ground troops should they get ashore: had it succeeded in landing, the Wehrmacht would have virtually won.
The Home Guard was not trained to face experience troops or to repel an invasion, and the regular army was too small and had lost most of its equipment in France.

In 1940 like in 1805, had the invader been able to set foot in England, Great-Britain would have fell ...
Nelson's fleet and Villeneuve's failure save her in 1805, the RAF's & Hitler's did it again in 1940.

EUGEN TEAM

M1GarandGuy
08-03-2010, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by senortoot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Spacemanc:
Though I think eventually 10 years later, Hitler would have attacked the US using superior technology

There was plans for a jet powered strategic bomber, made for deploying a nuclear device to New York. 10 years before the Americans had them as a nuclear deterrent in the cold war - the Luftwaffe was already in prototype stages.

The Horten H18 - it looks like a modern stealth bomber, but it could reach from Germany to the US and back. How crazy is that? This is 1944 level technology.

They had the plans and prototypes but it was deemed too expensive by Hermann Goering who wanted numbers of planes in the air. In fairness, Germany would have been crazy to do this - do they take engines and resources away from 262 development and go for a last roll of the dice nuclear strike against America and call for peace? Or do they try and save the home front.... You know what happened http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That was the plan, but Germany never did develop a nuclear weapon anyway so.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the bomber couldn't even fly by then,the first prototype failed and by the timem they made a second one the british captured the airfield.

senortoot
08-03-2010, 09:05 AM
If the Royal Navy could be lured out of scapa flow to protect coastal cities in the south, that would have been a victory in its self for Germany, because they would have lost a large amount of BB's and CA's to bombers. British BBs and BCs were notoriously under armoured in the deck area, protected only by belt and bulge.

This is how the Hood was sunk by the Bismarck, a single shell on a plunging angle, through the deck into the aft magazine. The reason why there was never a large decisive naval engagement, is that Germany only had 4 big gun capital ships. (not counting the CAs and pocket BBs) Raeder and Doenitz both wanted to avoid open conflict and instead slip the capitals into the Atlantic - German ships were faster than all the Royal Navies capitals, and anything fast enough to catch them would be outgunned and massively outranged.

If the Royal Navy capitals could be lured into range of the Luftwaffe, then they could sink capitals without risking their own ships.


Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:

the bomber couldn't even fly by then,the first prototype failed and by the timem they made a second one the british captured the airfield.



Yeah, the point was that they had the prototypes years before anyone else. Even the superfortresses of the 50's were prop driven.

Spacemanc
08-03-2010, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by bruce57:
The British Navy never would have let the German Invasion force cross the channel. it would have just been impossible.

As far as Moscow goes, the German armies were already over extended, only half the tanks were in perfect repair. if they had kept going they would have been embroiled in a city battle bigger than the likes of Stalingrad a year later. it would have been a bloodbath for the already tired Germans (especially since they lacked proper winter clothing).

The English channel is only 21 miles across - land based artillery could easily have kept the Royal Navy at bay to allow a crossing point - together with the Luftwaffe attacking them, whilst having AA support from friendly AA. The Germans wanted to invade along a whole section of coast, which would have been much harder to attack. Imo if they had landed as many forces as possible in Dover quickly in 1940, then London would soon have fallen, and the RAF and Royal Navy would have quickly lost their bases.

Regarding the Soviet Union - the Germans were attacking in 3 points which diluted the forces, and allowed the Russians to resupply the attack points - if they had just hit them one at a time - Moscow first, then I believe they would have won.

When the Germans held back, the Russians had time to move pretty much their entire industrial base Eastwards (Literately dismantling the factories and moving them). After the initial German advance, the Russian forces was pretty much left with just men - the Airforce and armour forces were totally noob stomped. But then the Russians regrouped and basically outproduced the Germans.

Its like RUSE - if you rush you cant stop half way - its all or nothing.

senortoot
08-03-2010, 09:42 AM
....and like RUSE, war is decided by economy and supply lines!

Pieman13
08-03-2010, 12:53 PM
Bruce got owned in history http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Pieman13
08-03-2010, 12:56 PM
interesting program on Secret Russian Aircraft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...aHJA&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZWXvdVaHJA&feature=related)

Where did my signature go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

DAFOC
08-04-2010, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by senortoot:
The British army was a joke in 1940. It didnt have any heavy equipment left after Dunkirk - that means tanks, AT guns, Artillery. Well, not in any decent amount.

Why we wasn't invaded:

There is only a VERY small amount of oil underneath England. It would make more sense to invade and take Romanian and Russian oil fields which contain much more oil. You cannot sustain a mechanised, modern army without oil. This was one of the main reasons Germany actually lost the war - there wasn't enough fuel and lubricants available from 1944 onwards. Everything else that England has, Germany and it's already occupied areas combined with Swedish imports, Germany already had in much higher amounts. Mostly - Iron Ore, Coal and Rubber.

Another theory is that Hitler didn't want to subjugate another people he viewed as Aryan. He much preferred to attack the mostly Slavic and Asian people of Russia. Also, there was a very large population of Jews in western Russia around Ukraine.

Invading England wouldnt have been that difficult, there are a LOT of beaches that connect directly to main routes through Britain. It would have been impossible to fortify all of them. The Royal Navy could have stopped it, but at that time the Kriegsmarine still had the Tirpitz, Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, not to mention the pocket battleships that I can't remember the name of http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifand a large amount of submarines.
These ships far outclassed what the Royal Navy could put to sea - combined with the fact that all of the home fleet was based out of Scapa Flow, at the very northernmost point of Britain.

tl;dr -

Germany could have easily invaded Britain, but chose not to for some strange reason and I am glad Hitler was ******ed enough not to invade because I can't speak German http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



I can link you to an alternate history site were you can post your reasoning and the members there will mock you and explain to you how Sealion isnt feasiable

Spacemanc
08-04-2010, 12:15 PM
I don't think that Sealion as it was planned, was feasible either, but if they had established a beachhead just in Dover, and moved from there, then I think that would have been very feasible. What would have stopped them?

Anyway regarding senortoot post that you quoted (Dont know when its from - Ive only recently noticed this thread)......

England didnt have Oil - but we did kind of "own" the Middle East, where theres a fair bit of Oil. Also Germany was low on all raw materials even at that point, and Russia was exporting massive quantities of raw materials to Germany (In the hope that they wouldn't be attacked)

senortoot
08-04-2010, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Spacemanc:

Anyway regarding senortoot post that you quoted (Dont know when its from - Ive only recently noticed this thread)......

England didnt have Oil - but we did kind of "own" the Middle East, where theres a fair bit of Oil. Also Germany was low on all raw materials even at that point, and Russia was exporting massive quantities of raw materials to Germany (In the hope that they wouldn't be attacked)

That is true, but where is the middle east oil going to go to if England was occupied? Since it would be private companies buying and importing the oil, if they co-operated with the occupying provisional government in order to stay in business (BP would do this for sure haha) then England would be great to occupy for the materials.


Originally posted by DAFOC:
I can link you to an alternate history site were you can post your reasoning and the members there will mock you and explain to you how Sealion isnt feasiable

Go on then. I'm sure they are a lot more of an authority on the matter than the people who wrote all the books i've read and all the documentaries i've seen.

DAFOC
08-04-2010, 02:19 PM
Ok want to join we need some people in the map games
(Kinda like that diplomcy game that person tried to set up)
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/index.php



Also what would win between a Panther and a Tiger. And I mean the tanks the Panther had slopping armor but was known to be very unreliable. So essientially on a one versus one and say the Panther doesnt break down. Who wins.

Also what was the best submarine class in WWII. I know the GATO class was good. But the Uboats almost starved Britian so.?/?

senortoot
08-04-2010, 02:38 PM
I'd say the Tiger.

The slow turret traverse was worked around by swinging the body in the same direction, a famous Tiger ace Micheal Wittmann found this technique and used it to defeat faster Shermans trying to flank him. That was really the only problem the Tiger faced.

On the subject of subs, I would agree with the GATO class, the Atlantic submarines of Germany were only facing convoys for the most part. The American subs were years ahead technologically and did engage other subs of the IJN quite often. I dont think there was any sub to sub engagements in the atlantic.

Pieman13
08-04-2010, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by senortoot:


(BP would do this for sure haha)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

M1GarandGuy
08-09-2010, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by DAFOC:
Ok want to join we need some people in the map games
(Kinda like that diplomcy game that person tried to set up)
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/index.php



Also what would win between a Panther and a Tiger. And I mean the tanks the Panther had slopping armor but was known to be very unreliable. So essientially on a one versus one and say the Panther doesnt break down. Who wins.

Also what was the best submarine class in WWII. I know the GATO class was good. But the Uboats almost starved Britian so.?/?

The Pather was reliable in fact it is regarded as one of the best german tanks. with the combination of its 75mm high velocity cannon, 51mm (i think) of armor, and good offroad driving. It was reliable in all fronts.

senortoot
08-10-2010, 03:59 AM
It was deployed too early, before testing had even finished. It developed a reputation for being prone to breakdown because...it was deployed to one of the harshest environments a war has been fought on. After a month or so and a few modifications it was fine and proved to be a great tank. In fact it was the basis for tank designs for the next 50 years - quite funny that the design for the Panther was based on the T34.


Here is a nice comparison -

Dive bombers.

Stuka (any bomb variant) vs Val vs Dauntless.

Torpedo bombers.

Swordfish vs Avenger vs Kate vs Fi 167

M1GarandGuy
08-10-2010, 06:14 PM
Meh the dive bombers are hard to compare considering that the stuka was used for a different purpose rather than the dauntless and the val. But i'll put my bets on the dauntless as not only was it used by the navy but with the army air corps.

Swordfish without a doubt, give them credit for taking down the bismark!

senortoot
08-10-2010, 06:47 PM
An interesting point about the swordfish, and probably the reason it was so effective, it was so slow but so stable at the slow speeds, it could be safely flown so close to the water that the Bismarck's AA guns couldnt get low enough to even shoot at them.

The main gunners even tried firing into the sea in front of the swordfish, so that they had to fly through walls of water, but even this didnt work!

The fact that it was crap and outdated effectively made it really good, how wierd is that!

worma
08-10-2010, 09:08 PM
Differences between "Suomi KP31" and the later copy "PPSH41" anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

koolhandluke777
08-10-2010, 09:53 PM
Looks like Russia copied Finland.

senortoot
08-10-2010, 10:46 PM
Private business does not involve governments.

The US army was close to using the LUGER during ww2, but opted for the higher stopping power.

M1GarandGuy
08-11-2010, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by senortoot:
An interesting point about the swordfish, and probably the reason it was so effective, it was so slow but so stable at the slow speeds, it could be safely flown so close to the water that the Bismarck's AA guns couldnt get low enough to even shoot at them.

The main gunners even tried firing into the sea in front of the swordfish, so that they had to fly through walls of water, but even this didnt work!

The fact that it was crap and outdated effectively made it really good, how wierd is that!


the bismark itself was very outnumbered, it picked up a fight with three or more ships(Im not a naval historian , it showshttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif) and plenty of torpedo bombers, not even the worlds greatest ship will escape from that!

STRONTJESBERG
08-11-2010, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by senortoot:
An interesting point about the swordfish, and probably the reason it was so effective, it was so slow but so stable at the slow speeds, it could be safely flown so close to the water that the Bismarck's AA guns couldnt get low enough to even shoot at them.

The main gunners even tried firing into the sea in front of the swordfish, so that they had to fly through walls of water, but even this didnt work!

The fact that it was crap and outdated effectively made it really good, how wierd is that!


the bismark itself was very outnumbered, it picked up a fight with three or more ships(Im not a naval historian , it showshttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif) and plenty of torpedo bombers, not even the worlds greatest ship will escape from that! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Rheinuebung_Karte2.png

In all, 2,876 shells of various calibres were fired by the British ships; approximately 300-400 hit. Of the total fired, 714 were heavy-calibre 14-inch (360 mm) and 16-inch (410 mm) shells from two battleships, about 80 of which hit Bismarck, but only a few shells penetrated its armour.


I don't know a lot about it either (though I watched a documentary about it once or twice)
But the Bismarck was greatly outnumbered. And it couldn't be sinked by ship cannons, only torpedo's, why? Torpedo's got under the ship and once the hull is breached there it can make water and sink. Normal shells couldn't go through it's armor and if they could it wouldn't make a lot of difference anyways.

senortoot
08-11-2010, 11:38 PM
Does anyone else agree that the Rodney class looks stupid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also, the Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz was only sunk by a bomb that was so big it caused earthquakes and was built to take out concrete bunker systems.

The Royal Navy even tried to send in midget submarines with huge explosive devices strapped to them to sneak into it's port and drop them under it's hull.

This didnt work....

Business6
08-12-2010, 12:02 AM
Heck yeah, the 22,000lb Grand Slam bombs from the Lancasters. My dad told me about those as a kid and I thought it was the coolest thing ever, haha

Here's the once-mighty Tirpitz:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Tirpitz-1.jpg

M1GarandGuy
08-12-2010, 11:55 AM
Yeah shes a beaute! Wait till you see the USS missouri!

STRONTJESBERG
08-12-2010, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by M1GarandGuy:
Yeah shes a beaute! Wait till you see the USS missouri!

I'm waiting...

M1GarandGuy
08-12-2010, 06:23 PM
http://www.mo-na-ko.net/images4/LodMIssouri_01.jpg

here you go

senortoot
08-12-2010, 06:38 PM
It's just a shame that BB's were outdated by ww2.

Nothing is more awesome than cramming the biggest artillery you can onto a giant steel fortress and blowing stuff up.

Curse you air power!

M1GarandGuy
08-12-2010, 07:17 PM
BB's? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

senortoot
08-12-2010, 07:50 PM
sorry, BB is the naval classification for Battleship.

see on the picture of the Tirpitz above it says BB4 in the top right corner?

BB (battleship) 4 (4th of the size built)

BB1 - Scharnhorst
BB2 - Gneisenau both 1936

BB3 - Bismarck
BB4 - Tirpitz both 1939

M1GarandGuy
08-12-2010, 08:21 PM
Battleship, yeah that was my first guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pieman13
08-13-2010, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by senortoot:
It's just a shame that BB's were outdated by ww2.

Nothing is more awesome than cramming the biggest artillery you can onto a giant steel fortress and blowing stuff up.

Curse you air power!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M1GarandGuy
08-13-2010, 06:53 PM
ok i got one

B17 or Lancaster

I go with B17 because it had addequate defense from fighters, a large payload, and was excellent in all fields from europe to the pacific