|
German in the West. You likely won't be executed, and you stand a good chance at surviving if you surrender to the Allies rather than the Soviets.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Which is worse, being a German stationed in the West in the Spring of 44 constantly on the edge of sanity knowing that the moment of your execution was imminently approaching but not knowing the exact time or place or being a German stationed in the East engaged in a series of entirely expected executions. Eastern Front is obviously worse. It's much harder to put violent death out of mind when it's happening all around you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:German in the West. You likely won't be executed, and you stand a good chance at surviving if you surrender to the Allies rather than the Soviets. Obviously looking at it from above but the anticipation is the most miserable part while soldiers in the East were probably just mentally beaten down and accepting of their fate. Maybe. Never mind I’m sure Germans involved in Bagration had a worse time than those in Overlord. Being in a pillbox on the beachhead on June 6 staring at the flotilla must have been one of the biggest pants making GBS threads moments of the war though. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Feb 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:https://i.imgur.com/Ft36rJ2.mp4 In hindsight, giving young people access to weapons and explosives probably isn't the smartest thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Obviously looking at it from above but the anticipation is the most miserable part while soldiers in the East were probably just mentally beaten down and accepting of their fate. Only to have it turn into a slight confidence as the landings start beginning, because they're not going so well for the invaders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
That's only true for Omaha. All the others went pretty relatively smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
BalloonFish posted:This was definitely the broader aim. If Bismarck could break out of the Baltic/North Sea and make it to a port on the Bay of Biscay like Brest, St. Nazaire or La Rochelle then the Kriegsmarine would have a battleship with virtually unimpeded access to the Atlantic. Even if she never actually left harbour the Allies would have to devote more of their hard-pressed resources in the North Atlantic and Western Approaches to cover her. And those forces would either have to sit ready in a distant friendly port, reducing their usefulness as a counter, or have a continuous at-sea presence, off a hostile coastline and right in the prime striking area for sallying U-boats and Fw200 patrol aircraft. The Atlantic convoy routes would have to be moved further north and you'd be looking at running fewer convoys with more escorts (and more powerful escort forces) per convoy, slowing the flow of materiel to the UK. Consider that you could have Bismarck in Brest and Tirpitz in Norway and you have the UK and its major convoy routes in a 'fleet in being pincer movement'. What would have been the smart play by the allies here in that case if resources were scarce? Mine the poo poo out of those ports?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That's only true for Omaha. All the others went pretty relatively smoothly. My recollection is they were held off for hours every where
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:What would have been the smart play by the allies here in that case if resources were scarce? Mine the poo poo out of those ports? Continuous air bombardment. You cant really hide ships in port. The 2 battlecruisers S & G made the Channel dash because they were under pretty constant threat or actual air attack. You cant fix these ships faster than the RAF can bomb you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:My recollection is they were held off for hours every where At Utah the allies basically landed and immediately walked inland.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
Neptune's Inferno is good on making the point that in addition to the carriers not being available for either side during the Guadacanal campaign, neither the US nor the Japanese had the tanker capacity to sustain battleship deployments down there at that point in the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:If you look at the situation in 1941, Fleet Air Arm isn't really equipped for carrier warfare. To my knowledge, the Brits don't have any practice with mass carrier operations and mostly use them as fighter platforms. The carriers themselves have small hangars and are operating questionably modern aircraft like Fulmars and Albacores. Ironically, the best chances for the RN would have been air radar-guided night attacks. This isn't quite right; the RN had been planning for mass carrier operations since the 1930s. There were two reasons why they didn't really put this into action during the early years of the war: firstly, the sheer number of carriers lost or damaged and secondly, the vast amount of commitments the RN had to make. Even so, they did so where they could. Ark Royal, Glorious and Furious operated together off the Norwegian coast in April-May 1940, while the Taranto raid was supposed to be carried out by both Illustrious and Eagle (though the latter had to drop out due to fuel system problems). During Operation Pedestal, the RN operated four carriers together with only minimal work-up, while the USN had shortly before struggled with operating two together at Midway. The RN was well aware that it's best chances came with night air attacks, and had put considerable effort into training for and preparing for them, unlike any other navy. This is why Taranto was a night attack, while Pearl Harbor was a daylight strike. The Royal Navy's carrier tactics against the IJN were well displayed by Somerville's response to the Indian Ocean Raid - bringing his modern carriers together, stalking the IJN's carrier force, and moving into a position to launch a night strike. The only reason one wasn't launched was that the IJN CAP drove off the RN aircraft shadowing Kido Butai, meaning Somerville was not sufficiently confident of its location that he felt comfortable launching a strike.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:My recollection is they were held off for hours every where As near as I can read online, everywhere except Omaha the allies had the exits to the beaches cleared within an hour or two. Cleared meaning large lanes the engineers have had time to remove mines and obstacles from, and allow reinforcements off the beach in column. Omaha is not representative of the conditions experienced by the attackers, for instance at Juno there's a village immediately adjacent to the beach. The first waves definitely took a lot of causalities, but they were off the beach and into clearing the village. Landing had started around 7:50, and by 8:30 you have units walking straight off the beach and into town "without difficulty" and only under occasional mortar fire.   The Saving Private Ryan experience is very much an Omaha thing, rather than a general D-Day thing. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
This is one of many reasons why The Longest Day is so much better than SPR. And I love SPR.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Even at Omaha, is it really possible for the defenders at any point to see the sheer magnitude of the invasion that’s coming at them and reasonably think “this one’s in the bag, we can stop them here today”? I mean, my casual understanding is that that was hitler’s grand strategy at the time, but still As to the original question—knowing what little I know about conditions on the eastern front, there’s a very short list of WWII locations I’d rate as worse, and post-blitz, pre- d-day western front is not one of them
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
The best assignment as a German soldier was probably sitting on your rear end on one of the Channel Islands. Little threat of death, every creature comfort you could want, and you still got to partake in warcrimes as all of the Jews of the Channel Islands (4 of them IRRC) were rounded up and murdered at Auschwitz. A Nazis dream.
Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Even at Omaha, is it really possible for the defenders at any point to see the sheer magnitude of the invasion that’s coming at them and reasonably think “this one’s in the bag, we can stop them here today”? Only in the alternate scenario where D-day is the original 5th of June or even earlier. As for the question of where would be the best bet to be spending the end of the war as a Landser, Lapland should have been a safe place but then the Finns 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Thanks for the Bismark answers, thread. I guess their plan did actually come close to working, were it not for one torpedo in the wrong spot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Only in the alternate scenario where D-day is the original 5th of June or even earlier. i mean of all the places and times to get yours
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The best assignment as a German soldier was probably sitting on your rear end on one of the Channel Islands. Little threat of death, every creature comfort you could want, and you still got to partake in warcrimes as all of the Jews of the Channel Islands (4 of them IRRC) were rounded up and murdered at Auschwitz. A Nazis dream. There were more Jews than that on the Channel Islands...about 20-25? 2 committed suicide, one died in a mental hospital, three were killed in concentration camps, a few hid, and most of the rest were sent to concentration camps but survived. The SS also set up four labor camps on Alderney ...Lagers Sylt, Norderny, Helgoland, and Borkum. Sylt and Norderny were under the administration of the Neugamme camp system, and Helgoland and Borkum under Organisation Todt. The total population of the camps on Alderney was about 6000 prisoners, of which at least 700 died, but probably more. Lager Sylt held about 1000 prisoners, made up primarily of Jewish slave labor, and about 400 died there. (If you're curious, Norderney was mostly Eastern European slave labor. Borkum and Helgoland were "volunteer" camps...Helgoland was primarily Russian, and Borkum had prisoners from all over, and also German technicians and engineers. Most of the work done was fortification work...bunkers, air raid shelters, gun emplacements, and so on. Near the end of the war, the camps were destroyed, and a lot of people don't know about them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i spoke to a german dude once whose father was killed like two days before ww2 ended, in the middle of one of the nordic countries In WWI, the last soldier that we know of to die in combat was Henry Nicholas John Gunther, an American at the Meuse. He was shot at 10:59 AM on 11/11. The armistice, as you know, started at 11 am.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:There were more Jews than that on the Channel Islands...about 20-25? 2 committed suicide, one died in a mental hospital, three were killed in concentration camps, a few hid, and most of the rest were sent to concentration camps but survived. Jeez I didn’t know that it was that bad there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
so it's 1941, Barbarossa begins, and the Soviets already have a 76mm-equipped tank. And unless I'm mistaken, the other countries don't put out 75mm-equipped tanks until at least 1942. was there a particular reason that the Soviets were able to develop the T-34 ahead of everyone else? Was it more a case of "the other countries could have, they just didn't see the need to yet?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Because in 1941 the Soviets only had a total of like a thousand T-34s across the whole country and they had a poo poo ton of problems even driving around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:German in the West. You likely won't be executed, and you stand a good chance at surviving if you surrender to the Allies rather than the Soviets. You'll go on to become a successful industrialist, belong to an organization for veterans of the SS, and then be executed by leftist terrorists in the 70's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
Is the Hugh Thompson story as good as it seems? It's such a moving story of heroism and bravery that I'd hate to find out he did war crimes at other times or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:so it's 1941, Barbarossa begins, and the Soviets already have a 76mm-equipped tank. And unless I'm mistaken, the other countries don't put out 75mm-equipped tanks until at least 1942. They had a smart designer and took the right lessons away from building stuff like the T-26 and land cruisers like the T-28, and from combat in Spain and Manchuria. Both of these combined led to the Soviets building something with good mobility, good armour, and good firepower. The Germans expected that the 50mm gun on the Panzer III would be fine against Russian tanks, which they were... because they didn't know about the T-34 and KV-1 projects.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Also the M3 Lee and the Panzer IV had 75mm guns, they just weren't the kind that does very well in an anti-tank role. Well, the M3 was more because of the sponson, but yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
The troubles the Germans had with the KVs and T-34s in the early days of Barbarossa are vastly overstated, there were few tank on tank engagements so it really didn’t matter that the Panzer 3 couldn’t pierce the front armor of the KV at range. The German infantry took care of them pretty easily because the Soviets left their tanks out on islands without supporting infantry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The troubles the Germans had with the KVs and T-34s in the early days of Barbarossa are vastly overstated, there were few tank on tank engagements so it really didn’t matter that the Panzer 3 couldn’t pierce the front armor of the KV at range. The German infantry took care of them pretty easily because the Soviets left their tanks out on islands without supporting infantry. True, and stories like the KV-1 that held a town against a German column are impressive, but unique cases rather than the norm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:so it's 1941, Barbarossa begins, and the Soviets already have a 76mm-equipped tank. And unless I'm mistaken, the other countries don't put out 75mm-equipped tanks until at least 1942. The Sherman design was mostly finished by 1940, and the prototypes were delayed by rushing the M3 Medium, but were entering the final stages in 1941. Meanwhile, while the T-34 was conceptualized in 1934, the first two prototypes were only built in 1940. In other words, the Soviets didn't have that much of a head start on the US. It was mostly Britain and Germany that lagged behind - the former because of Dunkirk, and the latter because of overconfidence. The big thing that pushed the Soviets was how poorly Soviet armor performed during the Winter War. Meanwhile, the German strategy of reckless insanity had paid off big time in France, and the deficiencies of the then-current Panzer III and IV tanks went largely unrevealed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:so it's 1941, Barbarossa begins, and the Soviets already have a 76mm-equipped tank. And unless I'm mistaken, the other countries don't put out 75mm-equipped tanks until at least 1942. The requirement to have a 76 mm gun on a tank came up after the Spanish Civil War, where the 45 mm gun didn't have enough punch to destroy fortifications. In the same war, it was made clear that having armour piercing rounds is a very good idea, so emphasis was put on developing a high velocity 76 mm gun while everyone else stuck short 75-76 mm guns on their tanks (Medium Tank T5E2, Panzer IV, British CS tanks) to fling HE only and called it a day. The Americans got a high velocity 75 mm gun going pretty quick once they realized it was necessary, though. Shimrra Jamaane posted:Because in 1941 the Soviets only had a total of like a thousand T-34s across the whole country and they had a poo poo ton of problems even driving around. The problem wasn't that they couldn't drive around, you could squeeze about 100 hours from the engine, which is more than a Panther gave you in 1944. The problem was that out of 892 tanks that have been issued to the army as of June 1st, 1941, 842 of them immediately went under a tarp upon arrival to their new unit and weren't started up until the war began. Gnoman posted:The Sherman design was mostly finished by 1940, and the prototypes were delayed by rushing the M3 Medium, but were entering the final stages in 1941. Meanwhile, while the T-34 was conceptualized in 1934, the first two prototypes were only built in 1940. The T-34 that was conceptualized in 1934 shared literally nothing with the T-34 that was accepted into service in 1939. Not even in a ship of Theseus way, they were different designs entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:
That's sort of what I was trying to get across, but I didn't do so very well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The troubles the Germans had with the KVs and T-34s in the early days of Barbarossa are vastly overstated, there were few tank on tank engagements so it really didn’t matter that the Panzer 3 couldn’t pierce the front armor of the KV at range. The German infantry took care of them pretty easily because the Soviets left their tanks out on islands without supporting infantry. What's this about islands then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:What's this about islands then? Autocorrect of isolated I'd assume.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Thanks for the Bismark answers, thread. I guess their plan did actually come close to working, were it not for one torpedo in the wrong spot. The Prince of Wales managed to start a fuel oil leak, which really didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:The Prince of Wales managed to start a fuel oil leak, which really didn't help. In hindsight, the best move for Lutjens to make would have been to finish off the POW and immediately head back to Germany the way he came. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Autocorrect of isolated I'd assume. Or, you know, a metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Autocorrect of isolated I'd assume. That's a d'oh
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Jeez I didn’t know that it was that bad there. It wasn't. Conditions were a lot better in the Channel Islands than in a lot of places under German occupation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:59
|
|