PDA

View Full Version : September 15, 1940 won the war. Really



XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 12:14 AM
When asked by Goering what he needed to win the Battle of Britain, Adolph Galland replied:

"Spitfires"

***I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. That, or Duder. His Dudeness. Or El Duderino, if, you know, you're not into the whole brevity thing***

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 12:14 AM
When asked by Goering what he needed to win the Battle of Britain, Adolph Galland replied:

"Spitfires"

***I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. That, or Duder. His Dudeness. Or El Duderino, if, you know, you're not into the whole brevity thing***

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 12:22 AM
yes, but G√¬∂ring asked him if he had any wishes, and this was after he gave a totaly stupid order- to cover the Bomber with a close escort- taking away the biggest advantage of the 109 flying BaZ attacks. Thats why he answerd Spitfires, cause they would doing this job much better than any 109... in a pure dogfight Galland preferd the 109! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/pikasbanner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 12:23 AM
Truly, the failure of Germany to be able to invade Britan was a sign that there would be trouble, leaving Britan unconquered also left the perfect base for the inevitable Allied invasion. and While the Spit may have recieved the glory for BOB and from Goering, the Hurri was responsible for 2/3rds of all A/C shot down.

<center>http://www.goobage.com/pics/D_Rat.gif </center>
<center><font><font size=1 ><font color=000000>Visit RatFinks Screaming Pile of Sin and Confusion</font></font size> (http://www.goobage.com/forum.php)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 12:29 AM
This citate was only made to pi** Goering off.


The topic has been discussed here for about a million times, in every "Spitfire vs Bf109"-thread.

Boring.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 12:37 AM
<b1> WHINER </b1>

leonid05 wrote:
- This citate was only made to pi** Goering off.
-
-
- The topic has been discussed here for about a
- million times, in every "Spitfire vs Bf109"-thread.
-
- Boring.
-
-



<center> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/165583/Juggy.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 12:42 AM
LAMER.


RSL_Hellcat wrote:

- <b1> WHINER </b1>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 12:50 AM
I personally think Barbarossa, Stalingrad and Kursk won the war.







-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 12:58 AM
For the first and last time I`m expressing my opinion about this.


There were too many factors that "won the war" to count them.We will never know how many of them were there.


This discussion about winning the war has become silly long time ago.There`s absolutely no reasonable reason to create discussions like this one.


Please let the river-topic end and die with the rest of useless threads in GD crypt.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 01:10 AM
But considering there's an eleven-page thread about how 50 calibre machine guns can kill a heavily armoured tank, I think it's ok to continue with this lameness.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 01:15 AM
Hitler never wanted to invade Britain, he was just trying to scare it into peace with the air attacks and 'pretending' to get ready for an invasion.

He actually admired Britain for its empire and because it contained loads of Nazis/aristocrats/lords etc at the time. Hell we were just like the Nazis a few years before. conquering nations etc.


I think that Britain duped Hitler many, many times. Have u ever read the story of the bloke who parachuted into Britain supposedly to meet the British high command, but was taken prisoner? (I have a mental block on who it is, not Speer another high ranking Nazi)

Churchill used loads of dirty tactics on Hitler.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 01:20 AM
Rudolf Hess. Stalin made big fuss about that, as he thought Hitler and Britain would make seperate Peace.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 01:27 AM
I still believe BoB won the war /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
With the brits bugging the germans in the desert, the italians unable to defend themselves, the germans divided their military machine, giving far too low personnel to russia.
With england taken, the americans wouldn't bother to save them right away, but would bother to seizw japan and help the russians from there.
Now think what kind of destruction Erwin Rommel would have done in the Eastern Front? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 01:42 AM
MMMmm just thinking of Rommel running in the east is scary! ooooo woulda been a grand time and would still been a grand time for the fatherland!

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 01:48 AM
"but would bother to seize japan and help the russians from there."

- Wow, that's a bit far-fetched there, m8.

Just about as much as the "grand strategy" the Japanese were talking of in early 1942, where they'd force Austrailia and rest of the South-East Asia into submission, advance to India against the British forces stationed there, and join the Germans in North Africa.

I think a more plausible "what-if" scenario would be that knowing the British would start peace talks with Germany, the US would probably start one of their own with Japan, with a more lenient attitude this time.

Thus, there'd be one lump of the Axis stretching from Eastern French territories to Poland, with Spain and rest of the France as an "ally". Probably some of the rights the British had in the mediterranean would be given back to them - presumably in the Balkans and Malta, and maybe some parts of Egypt.

The other lump would stretch from Italy to Sicily, and in the middle parts of North Africa - probably in the form of "divided rule" between the British and the Italians.

The last lump would stretch from Manchuria to the Borneao and Sumatra,maybe parts near Burma. Australia and India would be left alone.

In this situation, I don't think the US would go into the gamble of starting an all-out fight which would probably span two oceans and one continent, just to help communist Russians fighting a very grim war.

-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:07 AM
the hurricane might have shot down 2/3rds of the enemy planes in bob but they were 80% of the fighters. so the hurri aint so good now is it?

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:25 AM
I think a more plausible "what-if" scenario would
- be that knowing the British would start peace talks
- with Germany, the US would probably start one of
- their own with Japan, with a more lenient attitude
- this time.

The Japanes HQ would neve accepte any peace.
They had the opportunity before Midway, when Churchil offered them a part of the british and dutch colonies in order to stop their offensive, but they turned off.
Before Midway, the Japs, decision to rject any peace treaty was relatively correct, because the allies didn't oposed to much resistance, thought Yamamoto said that if they don't win the war in 6 months, they will lose it...
After Midway, when the allies resusrect, the japs, could not accepte any peace, because it meant to give up all that they conqured sice then.
In my opinion, the war was won at Dunquerqe, because permited the alies to retriet atleast the human forces.
Probably if Hitler wouldn't stopped the panzers at Dunquerque, the british for sure would have atleast maked peace with Germany, and BoB wouldn't take place... not that soon.
Being sure the brithish wouldn't bother him, Hitler will Probably defeat Russia, and so on...

"The show must go on..."

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:27 AM
kweassa wrote:
-
- I think a more plausible "what-if" scenario would
- be that knowing the British would start peace talks
- with Germany, the US would probably start one of
- their own with Japan, with a more lenient attitude
- this time.
-

Umm... Are you talking pre- or post- Pearl Harbor?

The US was furious after Pearl Harbor. Public opinion wanted to destroy Japan, and leave Europe to sort its own problems out. If Britain had sign a peace with Germany, we would have been more than happy to go pummel Japan without the European front.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:30 AM
I think Mae West won the war.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:53 AM
You are not far from the truth..
Mae West was the nickname the british gaved to their chutes, wich saved them very often during WW2
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"The show must go on..."

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:56 AM
leonid05 wrote:
- This citate was only made to pi** Goering off.
-
-
- The topic has been discussed here for about a
- million times, in every "Spitfire vs Bf109"-thread.
-
- Boring.
-
-


WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

When asked what they needed to win the Battle of Britain, not one British pilot said

"109s"


***I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. That, or Duder. His Dudeness. Or El Duderino, if, you know, you're not into the whole brevity thing***

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 03:44 AM
Wow, now this is interesting!

My very first post on this board was a reply to thread about what actually won the war.

I posed that the accidental bombing of London and then the purposeful bombing of Berlin changed it all in favor of the allies.

When the Nazis started hitting civilian targets instead of taking out the RAF once and for all, they sealed their fate.

Had the RAF been destroyed its is quite possible an invasion of the island might have been successful.

The American factor would have played out quite differently had this happened.


<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 04:07 AM
This runs the risk of being as long as the "P47s with x8 M2s wonder guns can kill Tiger Tanks" debate /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

Roy Baty
III/7/JG2

"Be happy in your work!"
- Col. Saito

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 04:39 AM
I am reading a book by Len Deighton about WWII. He said that the main reason Britain did better than Germany at the Battle of Britian was because Britain's planes had used high octane fuel. Germany did dot have such a fuel and their planes did not perform as well.

This is the first time I have heard this. Is it true?

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 04:58 AM
Gentlemen..When it comes right down to it, it does not matter which Country had the better Aircraft..Who or what won the war?..The Nazi, not German, Hierarchy won the war...For the Allies..http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 05:28 AM
Close Von Zero but it was the name given to the life jacket not the chute, owing to the padding around the chest region

JG4_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 06:24 AM
It can be summed up in one word Hitler.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 08:00 AM
USAFHelos wrote:

- When the Nazis started hitting civilian targets
- instead of taking out the RAF once and for all, they
- sealed their fate.
-
- Had the RAF been destroyed its is quite possible an
- invasion of the island might have been successful.
-
- The American factor would have played out quite
- differently had this happened.
-

Absolutly true, leaving the destruction of of The RAF and trying to scare England into submision was a mistake. killing Civilians didn't work for Germany, and it didn't work for the Allies when The RAF fire bombed Dresdon.

<center>http://www.goobage.com/pics/D_Rat.gif </center>
<center><font><font size=1 ><font color=000000>Visit RatFinks Screaming Pile of Sin and Confusion</font></font size> (http://www.goobage.com/forum.php)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 11:43 AM
Xiolablu3 wrote:
- He actually admired Britain for its empire and
- because it contained loads of
- Nazis/aristocrats/lords etc at the time. Hell we
- were just like the Nazis a few years before.


Given the radical and anti-aristocratic nature
of Nazism, it is unlikely he admired it for its
lords and ladies.

You have to remember that the final barrier
to Hitler achieving power was the attempts by
the conservative right to sideline it. The conservative
right felt that Nazism was on the wane, and that
they could use the remaining popular support
for the Nazis to bolster their battle against
the radical left (social democrats and communists).

So the conservative right were natural opponents
of Nazism, sought to control it, but were outwitted
by it.

You have to remember that Nazism was a socially
radical movement, with much grass roots working
class support that sought to sweep away much of the
old Junkers class. In that sense it shared quite
a bit with other radically social systems such
as Marxism, and also shared the authoritarian
nature of War Communism (to distinguish Soviet
Communism from other more ancient forms of
communism and communitarianism and other forms
of left-socalism). In terms of its socially
collective form of approach it was a form of
authoritarian right-socialism.

- I think that Britain duped Hitler many, many times.
- Have u ever read the story of the bloke who
- parachuted into Britain supposedly to meet the
- British high command, but was taken prisoner?

Hess.

- Churchill used loads of dirty tactics on Hitler.

It was war!

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 01:56 PM
Must agree that Hitler was Germany's own worst enemy ... should have put his effort into North Africa and the Middle East when he was wasting the LW over Britain. Striking at Britain only pis'd the English off, but cutting of the Suez and kicking the English out of Palastine may have brought them to the table by 41. Would have set him up well for operations against Russia as well.

fluke39
06-30-2003, 02:14 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Xiolablu3 wrote:
-- He actually admired Britain for its empire and
-- because it contained loads of
-- Nazis/aristocrats/lords etc at the time. Hell we
-- were just like the Nazis a few years before.
-
-
- Given the radical and anti-aristocratic nature
- of Nazism, it is unlikely he admired it for its
- lords and ladies.
-
- You have to remember that....

before you remember you have to have learnt it in the first place !

i think what he may mean is that hitler very much aspired too or aspired to develop a country such as england ei. the centre of a large empire which was run effeciently, and the general lifestyle of those in the higher positions( country pursuits etc)
i am not sure hitler never intended to invade britain, i am certain he wished to negotiate peace - not only due to his respect for the british but for the fact of who would run britains vast empire should britain fall. Invasion was planned but only due to the failure to negotiate peace.

also talking of Hess i watched 'hitlers henchmen' about him this morning - i never realised he was the last of the nazi government to remain in prison and that when he died there was suspicions of murder by the british government (perhaps he would have revealed something about his treatment whilst captive or some secrets or something)


<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/ffluke.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:21 PM
I don't think it mattered who won the BoB. Even if the Germans knocked out the RAF they didn't have the resources to invade cross channel. There was alot of talk of Rhine barges etc. being moved to the coast but I don't think there was anywhere near enough of them to actually invade. Even with air superiority the Germans would have been unable to stop The Royal Navy. Great Britain could have broken up and invasion of barges with a single squadron of destroyers. The whole battle was moot IMHO.




<p align=center>Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo

BlitzPig_MMan1066
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:28 PM
It wasn't about the occupation of Great Britain per se, it was about securing the western front for further operations in the east. Conventional wisdom was that Germany couldn't afford a two front war ... which was pretty much true.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:42 PM
Simply, Hitler wanted to make peace with Britain on the following terms -

Germany to have Europe
Britain to keep its Empire but keep its nose out of Europe.

(but no doubt be under German supervision).

Sea Lion was never a serious proposition.

Hitler was far more interested in, and ideologically driven, by his imperative to destroy Bolshevism than to destroy Britain, which latter he admired.

One side benefit of Hitler's possible destruction of USSR was that defeat of USSR in 1941 would likely have forced the British to the table. And as has been said, Hitler was the main reason the Germans failed in Barbarossa. BUt it is not widely known that ip until Hitler's diversion of Army Group Centre to Ukraine, the Germans were on course to take Moscow by August/September 41.

Really, come July/August 1941, the USSR was broken militarily and Moscow was there for the taking in 1941. The Germans were within a few kms of Moscow when they finally started the drive to Moscow in Autumn 41. If that offensive had started in the summer, and it could have done, they would have taken Moscow and split the Red Army into 3 and destroyed remanants at leisure. Whether that indicates the end to resistance is another matter, but politically the USSR would have been finished.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 02:56 PM
- also talking of Hess i watched 'hitlers henchmen'
- about him this morning - i never realised he was the
- last of the nazi government to remain in prison

The other senior Nazis were either executed or committed suicide. Hess was the most senior to have survived.

It was actually the USSR that insisted he remain in prison. Britain and the US tried to get the Russians to agree to his release in 1970, and on several occasions after that.


- that when he died there was suspicions of murder by
- the british government (perhaps he would have
- revealed something about his treatment whilst
- captive or some secrets or something)

Hess had recieved visits from his family and solicitors throughout his imprisonment. Any story he had to tell could have been told by them.

The guards for Spandau rotated between Britain, France, USA and the USSR. So for a quarter of his imprisonment, Hess was gaurded by Soviet troops. If he had any information that could embarrass Britain, the Soviets would have revealed it during the cold war, or even pressed for his release themselves.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 03:06 PM
sukebeboy wrote:
- I am reading a book by Len Deighton about WWII. He
- said that the main reason Britain did better than
- Germany at the Battle of Britian was because
- Britain's planes had used high octane fuel. Germany
- did dot have such a fuel and their planes did not
- perform as well.
-
- This is the first time I have heard this. Is it
- true?
-
-

By 3/40, Fighter Command was beginning to convert its Merlin powered Hurris and Spits to accept 100 octane. Hurricanes in France during the French campaign were using 87, and it came as a considerable shock to Me109 pilots who witnessed the startling improvement in the Spit"s and Hurri's performance.

Galland confessed to being puzzled by the improved performance of the enemy untill late August, when the fuel from a crashed RAF fighter was analysed.


"It had the effect of raising the combat rating of the Merlin from 3,000rpm at 6-1/2lb or 9lb boost to 3,000rpm at 12lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon climb rate,particulary as the constant speed propeller ensured that 3,000rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards. It also had an effect on maximum speed, though not as significant as the climb rate." Jeffrey Quill, Spitfire test pilot.

From The Battle of Britain, The Greatest Air Battle of WW2. By Richard Hough and Denis Richards.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 03:09 PM
Moscow was merely a symbol - if they captured oil-fields in `42 and Egypt the same year Operation Orient might take place + Japan to be wise enough to attack USSR rather than USA - that PERHAPS could win the war with USSR for Germans.

Also, the Blitzkrieg concept did not fit the war in East at all so I`m not sure if Barbarossa was not a lost cause from the beginning

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 03:57 PM
sukebeboy wrote:
- I am reading a book by Len Deighton about WWII. He
- said that the main reason Britain did better than
- Germany at the Battle of Britian was because
- Britain's planes had used high octane fuel. Germany
- did dot have such a fuel and their planes did not
- perform as well.

The problem with this theory being that the Hurricane
peformed less well than the 109 in terms of speed
and altitude performance where you'd expect this
improved fuel to make the difference...

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 03:58 PM
Moscow was a lot more than a symbol - it was the communciations hub of the USSR. Thus, losing Moscow would effectively mean that the Soviets would be unable to resupply armies, for instance, and that they would consequently be unable to offer one coherent front resisting German advance. Entire reserve was situated between Moscow and Gorki as well. Losing Moscow in summer 41 would have been an unmitigated military and political disaster for Soviets.

If you check the numbers you will see that Blitzkrieg was working just fine in the USSR in summer 1941, though it became progressively harder as the Germans lost strategic impetus thereafter and began to fight more on a tactical basis rather than a strategic one as the Russian clawed their way back into it.

The war was lost once they had failed to take Moscow when they had the opportunity to do so. After initial failure of Barbarossa by December 41, the war was lost for Germany. But it is important to bear in mind that the Germans did not fail because of the Soviets, but because of Hitler.

The big difference between opening of Barbarossa and Case Blue in 1942 is that the US was in the war by then. Was Case Blue ever a war winning operation by itself?

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 04:04 PM
Hi guys!

Leaving aside for the moment the question of how serious or how 'feasible' operation Sealion was.......

The Luftwaffe's failure to subdue the RAF in BoB was a significant 'turning point' of the war. Of course, it was far from being the only one.

While we should be careful about this, it did have far reaching consequences.

Britain staying 'in the fight', rather than 'going under' (whether by invasion or not), made Hitler's timetable for defeating Russia even more critical. He needed to knock Russia out BEFORE there was any real chance for the US to intervene via Britain.

Due in no small part to mismanagement, after two years the German effort in the East had turned from near victory to crisis, then almost to victory again, then to deadlock followed by disaster. A partial recovery in early-mid 1943 could not conceal the German loss of strategic initiative.

Thanks to continued British determination and the availability of a 'springboard', the enormous potential of US military and industrial resources could be brought to bear in the West.

In this way, the Germans were now doomed to a war on at least two fronts, against an overwhelmingly powerful alliance.

Best regards to all,
panther3485.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 05:02 PM
baazaah2, of course losing Moscow would have been a huge blow to the USSR - economically, politically and in terms of morale. They would also have lost a vital commuinications centre, for sure.

I very much doubt, however, it would win the war for Germans. The way to do it would be to destroy Soviet industrial potential, but Germans did not have tools to do that (strategic bombers etc.).

I`m not sure if Air Force itself could win this war - 8th AF `43 and `44 strategic bombing raids into the Reich certainly hindered german war effort but by far would not win the war alone. The same might be true for Germans vs Soviets IF the former had a capable strategic bomber.

Hitler was very suspicious about concept of racing for Moscow at all costs, because Napoleon`s story of 1812 was haunting him. He was pretty much aware that capturing the city did not mean anything. That`s why he focussed on encircling and destroying Soviet armies in Ukraine for example. That was correct strategy but soviets were faster in replacing the destroyed armies than he could destroy them.

Soviet industrial sites have been moved to behind the Urals - beyond reach of German LW and that`s what cost the Germans losing the war on the East - I think /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Anybody with some coherent "what if" guide to winning in the East ?

fluke39
06-30-2003, 05:04 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- also talking of Hess i watched 'hitlers henchmen'
-- about him this morning - i never realised he was the
-- last of the nazi government to remain in prison
-
- The other senior Nazis were either executed or
- committed suicide. Hess was the most senior to have
- survived.


Nevertheless i was only remarking on the fact that i hadn't previously known he was the last nazi to remain in prison, which he was.

- It was actually the USSR that insisted he remain in
- prison. Britain and the US tried to get the Russians
- to agree to his release in 1970, and on several
- occasions after that.

i never said it wasn't - and was only relaying the story of what was said on the program ( apparently the people who suspect something ( note: i am not saying i do) claimed the only reason britain okayed the release was that they knew russia wouldn't at that time.

-- that when he died there was suspicions of murder by
-- the british government (perhaps he would have
-- revealed something about his treatment whilst
-- captive or some secrets or something)
-
- Hess had recieved visits from his family and
- solicitors throughout his imprisonment. Any story he
- had to tell could have been told by them.

yep your probably right

- The guards for Spandau rotated between Britain,
- France, USA and the USSR. So for a quarter of his
- imprisonment, Hess was gaurded by Soviet troops. If
- he had any information that could embarrass Britain,
- the Soviets would have revealed it during the cold
- war, or even pressed for his release themselves.

possibly but would hess have told the russians? - or would he even want to talk while he was still imprisioned and and easy target for anyone wanting to kill him (as he was).
- again not saying i believe this as i don't really know anything about it, but am just saying what was on the program i watched /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
thank you


<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/ffluke.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 05:12 PM
Von_Zero wrote:
- You are not far from the truth..
- Mae West was the nickname the british gaved to their
- chutes, wich saved them very often during WW2
-

Nope is was the inflatable life vest. Mae had BIG hooters.



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 06:33 PM
fluke39 wrote:
- i think what he may mean is that hitler very much
- aspired too or aspired to develop a country such as
- england ei. the centre of a large empire which was
- run effeciently,

Yes, Hitler did seem to be impressed by this, and
aspire to it.

He may also had admired individual aristocrats
for their positions, rather than the aristocracy
per se.

- i am not sure hitler never intended to invade
- britain,

Plans were laid for the invasion, but then it's
hard to know if this represents contingency planning,
plus the detailed plans being the devil making work
for idle hands, plus the usual ways to ingratiate
oneself with Hitler by having the most extensive list
of people due for concentration camps.

The Nazi regime seems to have been a rather haphazard
affair - a combination of some bits of long term planning
and a lot of making it up as they went along. For that
I am glad - if it had been well thought out it could
have been worse. Or maybe they wouldn't have tried to
start a war in the first place and would have had more
sense?

- also talking of Hess i watched 'hitlers henchmen'
- about him this morning - i never realised he was the
- last of the nazi government to remain in prison and
- that when he died there was suspicions of murder by
- the british government (perhaps he would have
- revealed something about his treatment whilst
- captive or some secrets or something)

And there are, of course, those persistent (but
not especially well-founded) rumours that it wasn't Hess
at all!

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 09:29 PM
AaronGT wrote:
--
-- i am not sure hitler never intended to invade
-- britain,
-
- Plans were laid for the invasion, but then it's
- hard to know if this represents contingency
- planning,


It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that yes, the plans were discussed, and considered, but Goering conviced Hitler that the LW could do the job and that no invasion was needed.

<center>http://www.goobage.com/pics/D_Rat.gif </center>
<center><font><font size=1 ><font color=000000>Visit RatFinks Screaming Pile of Sin and Confusion</font></font size> (http://www.goobage.com/forum.php)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 09:57 PM
Not quite accurate.
The Mae West was the name give to a life vest (prevent drowning). Both for the navy and airforce. When you wore it it looked like you had big boobs.



Von_Zero wrote:
- You are not far from the truth..
- Mae West was the nickname the british gaved to their
- chutes, wich saved them very often during WW2
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- "The show must go on..."

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 10:02 PM
do somebody know why Hitler was occupate Poland ?

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2003, 10:07 PM
very simple and rather tragic.

Hitler hated Poland and the Poles and did not want it or them to have an independent existence. Hitler saw the Poles (and all Slavic peoples) as an economic resource, a vast pool of slave labour to be exploited and moulded as the Nazis saw fit.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 01:59 AM
Reddeth - The hurricane did not make up 80% of the fighters you plank. If it had done the RAF would have outnumbered the Luftwaffe by at least 8 to 2. It didn't even make up 80% of the RAF fighters (21st August 1940 the RAF had 615 Hurricanes and 326 Spitfires, 8th September 530 Hurricanes 275 Spitfires 18th October 512 Hurricanes 285 Spitfires), now I'm not exactly Carol frigging Vorderman, but that's not 80%



Message Edited on 07/01/03‚ 01:00AM by leadbaloon

Message Edited on 07/01/0301:02AM by leadbaloon

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:04 AM
Tiger27 wrote:
- Close Von Zero but it was the name given to the life
- jacket not the chute, owing to the padding around
- the chest region
-

Sorry, mea culpa, but the point is still good
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"The show must go on..."

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 03:41 AM
TurboCrotch wrote:
- Truly, the failure of Germany to be able to invade
- Britan was a sign that there would be trouble,
- leaving Britan unconquered also left the perfect
- base for the inevitable Allied invasion. and While
- the Spit may have recieved the glory for BOB and
- from Goering, the Hurri was responsible for 2/3rds
- of all A/C shot down.
-

The cane served in much greater numbers, also the spitfire is resonable for about 60% of the fighter kills, the hurricane was mosty used against the bombers.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 03:50 AM
Hurry were supposed to be used only against, bombers, but this rule was oftenly broken
The main ideea was to use Spits to engage the 109, while some of the hurry were dealing with the 110, leaving the bombers withowt any escort, so that a second group of hurry's were attaking the bombers.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"The show must go on..."

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 05:47 AM
http://www.usflag.org/historical/48star.gif
</img>

We won the war.

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence




Message Edited on 07/01/0312:47AM by ElAurens

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:04 AM
Aaron GT-
I like your linking of Hitlerian National Socialism with other left-wing movements of the day. Have you read Friedrich Hayak's "The Road to Serfdom" or any other of his excellent works?

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 07:28 AM
Oh wait a second,
If the Germans had won BoB they would never have been able to invade UK most likely resulting in an Allied victory anyway.

http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/films/fmj/images/fmj.gif


When you get to hell, tell 'em SnowsFoot sent you

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:04 PM
bazzaah2 wrote:
- very simple and rather tragic.
-
- Hitler hated Poland and the Poles and did not want
- it or them to have an independent existence. Hitler
- saw the Poles (and all Slavic peoples) as an
- economic resource, a vast pool of slave labour to be
- exploited and moulded as the Nazis saw fit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i dont think u can see taht so easy i m sure it have a lot to do with politics too.
the Slavic people was not the enemy of the 3rd reich.
why was rommanien for example in the Axis they also slaves. I dont think u can see this is such a "1 line view" like Germans want kill all that are not german.
i know so far that the BoB was realy just made to reach a
armistice with England and not to occupate them.
The Russians was attacked becouse the politics (communism)
Germany belived if they dont attack Russia it would be just a mater of time when russia will attack germany and it would be impossible then to defeat the russians.
And they was known also very well that the winner of WWI
never would come to help.
And on the other hand for sure the winner of wwi (England French) dont liked what they saw happening in germany and taht germany is trying to come back to his old might befor WWI so they want crush em too. (thats why BoB)
Stalin self said 1940 all what we need is a bit more time about a few years must be enuff to get the nesseccery military power for an attack agains Hitler Germany.
i quess the reason to occupate Poland was taht a very big part of Poland was german country befor wwi also with german people inside. the Poles got this part of germany after wwi from the winners and Hitler tryed to get back the old border of germany befor WWI.
Poland said for sure no also becouse they was know very well that french and england are behind them. And England and French just couldnt wait for the war agains Poland so they can say we dont started the war we are again the good guys. The Pols even helped the germans to make it easyer for them to start the war in taht, in taht they started to terrories and kill thousands of in Poland living germans.

michapma
07-01-2003, 03:21 PM
Churchill's account of WW2 might provide some insight into the political point of view of England. That account would clear up some of the uninformed statements in this thread. I'm not criticizing, just recommending the book. (I am reading the abridged version.)


Mike

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center"><font color="#">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project</font> (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%"><font color="#">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</font></td><td align="center">

<font color="#">SKULLS_Chap

<a href="http://www.skulls98.netfirms.com/il2/index.html" target="_blank" style="color: #191970; font-size: medium">The
SKULLS</a></font></p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"><font color="#">Hardware issues:
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 04:19 PM
Janacek wrote:
- Aaron GT-
- I like your linking of Hitlerian National Socialism
- with other left-wing movements of the day.

I wasn't suggesting that Nazism was in any way
left wing. It was very much opposed to the Social
Democrats, Communist, Maxsists, and Bolsheviks.
Some aspects of Nazism (social collectivism) it shared
aspects with socialism, in terms of eugenics,
it shared aspects with the right wing, and the left
(e.g. Fabians such as H.G. Wells) and in terms of
its authoritarianism it shared things with both
pure fascists (Mussolini and Franco) and Stalin.

Basically I was suggesting that Nazism was a strange
mix of all sorts of things (plus all sorts of German
creation myths, even elements of the occult).

I think it basically says that the distinction into
left-right, or even the two dimensional left-right,
liberal-authoritarian distinctions lack descriptive
power. (I mean liberal as in laissier-faire).

- Have you
- read Friedrich Hayak's "The Road to Serfdom" or any
- other of his excellent works?

No. I did recently read Michael Burleigh's book, which
was very good and very readable.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 04:23 PM
Pipgig

The circumstances by which the war came into being are obviously highly politcial, but the basis for the actions that led to that set of circumstances were strongly influenced by Nazi views on race and the rights they consequently accorded themselves over the Slavs.

One could certainly make a case for saying that Hitler invaded Poland as he expected Britain and France to acquiesce as they had with Czechoslovakia. Britain and France did not want a resurgent Germany, and for good reason, as it happened.

But are you really suggesting that the Nazis were justified in invading Poland???? Where did you read that, Volkischer Beobachter? Hitler's grievance with Poland was manufactured and wholly illegitimate; he wanted Poland for Germany and the Polish population as slaves. You will see that Poland effecively ceased to exist once invaded and was subsumed into the Reich and some of it given away to USSR. Hitler's invasion of Poland had nothing to do with restoration of pre WWI borders.

The Slavs occupied space that the Nazis wanted for themselves. Whilst something of an oversimplification, there is truth in arguing that Nazi interests in the east were driven by the quest, through gaining lebensraum, for German autarky, self-sufficiency. The human, agricultural and industrial resources were all there and were all expolited ruthlessly by the Nazis.

Certainly, Hitler ideally wanted Britain out of the way before he attacked USSR. But at the time it was a preference not a political necessity since USA had not joined the war at that time.

Neither Hungary nor Romania is a slavic nation. The political alliances that led to their being 'allied' wuith the Nazis are wholly different in nature to those between say UK and Australia or US.

But there is a good case for suggeting that Stalin was gearing up for an attack; the Germans just did it first.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:26 PM
USAFHelos wrote:
-
- I posed that the accidental bombing of London and
- then the purposeful bombing of Berlin changed it all
- in favor of the allies.
-
- When the Nazis started hitting civilian targets
- instead of taking out the RAF once and for all, they
- sealed their fate.
-
- Had the RAF been destroyed its is quite possible an
- invasion of the island might have been successful.
-


Why does everyone think the bombing of London was an accident? Churchill and the RAF would never have retaliated for one bomber accidently droping its bombs on London.
From what I've heard the bombing was too extensive for one bomber, so several bombed London "accidentally"? I don't think so.
The Germans had no problems in bombing civilian areas, just look at Gurnica, Warsaw & Rotterdam to name a few.
The German bombing was deliberate and so was the reply.

'It is right to be taught, even by an enemy' OVID

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:35 PM
Whats this whole BoB thing I keep hearing about? How many Americans died there? Was this one of those 'pre-p51' skirmishes?


<font face="Courier New">
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ &nbspBaldieJr
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ _____ | _____
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ _\__(o)__/_
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ./ \.
Whiners don't play vulchers
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ (er, winners)
</font>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:42 PM
helos is right - BoB was being won by Germans on attritional basis until that change in strategy. Fighter command was near collapse and change in strategy was a real gift to RAF. Had the airfield strikes carried on, it would only have been a matter of time till Fighter Command collapsed, much as it pains me to say that.

I doubt the success of an invasion though. Royal Navy was way too strong and Germans so-called landing craft were extemporised canal barges. Never something they took seriously.

I dunno re bombing - there did seem to be a change in strategy, but that was only after the retaliatory raid by RAF in Berlin. I think it was an accident and blind arrogance that led to a change in strategy as Hitler couldn't stand the thought that Berlin had been hit (there's that famous speech where Hitler goes on about if they bomb us with 10,000kg we'll bomb them with 50,000kg or something like that). Wasn't the only time Hitler changed a winning strategy in the war in favour of secondary tactical goals.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 09:05 PM
- helos is right - BoB was being won by Germans on
- attritional basis until that change in strategy.

The RAF were winning the battle of attrition throughout the BoB.

Even at the worst period of the battle for the RAF, the last week of August and the first week of Sept, the RAF were still ahead in the battle of attrition.

Germany was losing fewer fighters, but producing far fewer new ones, meaning the RAF kept increasing fighter strength relative to the Luftwaffe.

The RAF was losing slightly more fighter pilots, but again replacing them much faster than the Luftwaffe.

By late September, the Luftwaffe had only 712 109s serviceable, and only 676 pilots fit for operations. In comparison, the RAF had over 900 serviceable Spits and Hurris, and over 1200 fighter pilots fit for operations.

You can get an idea of the state the Luftwaffe was in by looking at the sortie rate during that critical period. During the last week of August, the Luftwaffe flew 3900 fighter sorties. During the first week of September, that dropped to 3100. The RAF flew around 5000 in each of those weeks.

Also during that first week of Sept, the serviceability rate for the 109s fell by 8%. As the fighter force was around 900 109s in total, that makes another 70 or so planes not fit for duty. And that's on top of their combat losses.

Unlike the RAF, which rotated squadrons to quiet sectors, the Luftwaffe fighters flew missions throughout the battle. That took it's toll on both the planes and the pilots.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:32 PM
For the gentleman who asked about Poland.

If you look on a WWI map of Europe you will find that Poland did not exist. It was reformed after WWI by the Allies at the territorial expense of Germany. Furthermore, to give Poland acces to the sea, they formed the 'Danzig corridor'. This strip of land gave Danzig, which was a German city to Poland. It also physically seperated Germany from East Prussia. That is, to get from East Prussia to the rest of Germany, you had to travel through Poland. Needless to say the Germans were not happy with this part of the Treaty of Versailles and as soon as Hitler thought he could get away with it he 're-claimed' it. There you go.




<p align=center>Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo

BlitzPig_MMan1066
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif