• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Military sizes during World War 2?

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm pretty sure the 88mm was originally an anti aircraft gun but I'm unsure when they worked out to point them more vertically. I have had the privilege of chatting with a couple of Aussie Vets from the Africa campaign and they told me the 88 was by far the most feared weapon and miles better than anything we had.

Heh...my grandfather was an AA gunner from the Africa campaign. And you're right on both counts. It was one of the more versatile artillery pieces that existed, and had great armour penetration.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Heh...my grandfather was an AA gunner from the Africa campaign. And you're right on both counts. It was one of the more versatile artillery pieces that existed, and had great armour penetration.

I meant to put horizontally rather than vertically.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
The Germans were the first to grasp the fact the tanks weren't 'like cavalry', and that using them in combined operations, and with speed of movement was vital.
Hate to well akshually you... but well akshually...

Sir John Monash was using what we now call "combined arms" tactics (what the Germans called "Blitzkrieg") by 1918. Sadly, his advanced techniques weren't more widely adopted at the time for a variety of parochial reasons, but if you want to discuss the first to use those sorts of tactics Australians were doing it before the Germans.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
They put most of their effort into the Maginot Line and Germany went around it.
That was actually the plan from the beginning, and it worked.

What didn't work, at all, was that German mobile forces didn't advance through Belgium, as the Allies expected, but broke through the Ardennes (a terrain considered unsuitable for tanks at the time) and cut off the Allied forces that had been waiting for a German advance in Belgium.

French war planning 1920–1940 - Wikipedia

Manstein Plan - Wikipedia

775px-10May_16May_Battle_of_Belgium.PNG


My impression is that the Allied failure (it wasn't just on the French, but on British command as well!) wasn't in the Maginot line, but in insufficient scouting, intelligence & communication on part of the Allied forces, while relying on a centralized command structure that would have required unbroken communication between their main fighting force and central command.

By the time the German had broken through, Allied command couldn't respond in time, couldn't communicate with their main force, and didn't even have a reserve ready that could have responded on its own.

Another major factor was a serious disconnect between the French (left-wing) government, and the French (right-wing) army, with the army rather surrendering to Germany and removing a hated left-wing government from power than falling back and re-fighting 1870.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Hate to well akshually you... but well akshually...

Sir John Monash was using what we now call "combined arms" tactics (what the Germans called "Blitzkrieg") by 1918. Sadly, his advanced techniques weren't more widely adopted at the time for a variety of parochial reasons, but if you want to discuss the first to use those sorts of tactics Australians were doing it before the Germans.

Ha! Good point and great reference.
To cut myself a little slack, I meant the first nation of the key protagonists to adopt these type of tactics holistically and as their coherent national tactical approach.

It always surprised me that the Wermacht were able to see just how important radios were to their offensive tactics, but never seemed to grasp the British use of radars and code-breaking to strengthen their defence.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It was very good, not least because it was used as it was designed, and also because there were so many of them. 1:1 comparable German tanks were arguably (and that's very arguably) better, but given the Sovs were producing something like 10 t-34s to every German Panther, the Germans were gunna lose. As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all of its own".

The Germans made some very nice tanks that in a "spherical tank in a vacuum" sense, were better than the Russian equivalents. However, the German tanks were complex, highly engineered, temperamental beasts that had a very long logistic tail. Russian tanks, in contrast, tended to be much simpler, more reliable, with parts that could be repaired and replaced in field with pretty much whatever was to hand.

On a perfect day, a brand new, just out of the factory Tiger II was probably the best tank of the war. But after months of campaigning and supply shortages and mud and snow and all sorts of other conditions it wasn't really built to operate in, I'd take a JS-1, or if I had to have a medium, the t-34/85.

Also, I feel I must mention that Australia built her very own, very good tank when isolated from Allied logistics, the Cruiser AC-1. She never saw combat, but by all available metrics and field trials she was at least as good as comparable tanks of the Brits and Sepps at the time. Compared with the homemade "tank" New Zealand produced, the Bob Semple, which is an abomination unto man and God and, frankly, the reason New Zealand gets left off maps to this day.

It seems that the Germans were really into souped-up designs which weren't really practical for an all-out conflict. Plus, the fuel crunch really crippled them. Trying to send their tanks across Russia, I heard that there were multiple stoppages because they had to sit and wait for fuel.

As for the Bob Semple, perhaps on the battlefield, it might have the same effect as the "killer joke" sketch from Monty Python. The enemy would see it and immediately burst into laughter.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I disagree. So far, I have not read every post yet, everyone forgot that Russia was originally one of the "bad guys". They did not attack other countries, except for perhaps Poland, I will get back to that. They had an agreement of non-aggression with Nazi Germany. The deal was that they would not attack each other and split Poland:

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia

And that worked well for both countries But in 1941 with Hitler's amazing success he turned on Russia. That was probably his biggest mistake in the war.

I've read some speculation that Stalin, after the Munich agreement, might have considered Britain and France to be too weak, so perhaps he didn't think they would be effective allies against Germany. On the other hand, the non-aggression pact worked to Russia's advantage in that it would keep Germany's attentions on France and Britain, and away from Russia. In the meantime, he took a third of Poland, the Baltics, and made a play for Finland, but the Finns gave him a bloody nose. Stalin also took Bessarabia, which Hitler saw as a threat to his oil supplies in Romania.

Stalin may have also been expecting the war in the West to go similarly as it did in WW1. From that standpoint, the non-aggression pact makes sense for Russia, if one assumes that Germany, France, and Britain would fight a long, drawn-out war. No matter who wins, they would all be exhausted and spent afterwards - and no immediate threat to Russia.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I've read some speculation that Stalin, after the Munich agreement, might have considered Britain and France to be too weak, so perhaps he didn't think they would be effective allies against Germany. On the other hand, the non-aggression pact worked to Russia's advantage in that it would keep Germany's attentions on France and Britain, and away from Russia. In the meantime, he took a third of Poland, the Baltics, and made a play for Finland, but the Finns gave him a bloody nose. Stalin also took Bessarabia, which Hitler saw as a threat to his oil supplies in Romania.

Stalin may have also been expecting the war in the West to go similarly as it did in WW1. From that standpoint, the non-aggression pact makes sense for Russia, if one assumes that Germany, France, and Britain would fight a long, drawn-out war. No matter who wins, they would all be exhausted and spent afterwards - and no immediate threat to Russia.
Splitting Poland was part of the pact. And in the pact Germany declared no interest in Bessarabia. There were other factors that led to its end.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
It seems that the Germans were really into souped-up designs which weren't really practical for an all-out conflict. Plus, the fuel crunch really crippled them. Trying to send their tanks across Russia, I heard that there were multiple stoppages because they had to sit and wait for fuel.
Yes, that was a recurring issue for the Germans late in the war. Also, as allied bombing took its toll on infrastructure, necessary parts became unobtainable. For example, The Komet 163, arguably the most advanced fighter of the war, had it's cockpit canopy held on with furniture hinges because the technically advanced super alloy ones designed for it simply weren't available. You can have the most hyper advanced equipment, crewed by the most excellent professionals available, but it's worth it's weight in scrap if it's missing either fuel or a vital component. There's a million "well things would have been different if things had been different" arguments and discussions to be had, but the tl;dr version of the entire Second World War is "the Axis lost because they were out produced and out supplied by the wider manufacturing and resource base of the allies."
As for the Bob Semple, perhaps on the battlefield, it might have the same effect as the "killer joke" sketch from Monty Python. The enemy would see it and immediately burst into laughter.
I think that's New Zealand's strategy in most things.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Splitting Poland was part of the pact. And in the pact Germany declared no interest in Bessarabia. There were other factors that led to its end.

Yes. Hitler might have been impulsive and changeable in his decision making. However, my point was that there may have been practical reasons for Stalin to make the pact with Hitler at that particular juncture.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes. Hitler might have been impulsive and changeable in his decision making. However, my point was that there may have been practical reasons for Stalin to make the pact with Hitler at that particular juncture.
i am sure they seemed that way to him. But the Soviet Union tried to coverup the pact after the war. It was not a public pact.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, that was a recurring issue for the Germans late in the war. Also, as allied bombing took its toll on infrastructure, necessary parts became unobtainable. For example, The Komet 163, arguably the most advanced fighter of the war, had it's cockpit canopy held on with furniture hinges because the technically advanced super alloy ones designed for it simply weren't available. You can have the most hyper advanced equipment, crewed by the most excellent professionals available, but it's worth it's weight in scrap if it's missing either fuel or a vital component. There's a million "well things would have been different if things had been different" arguments and discussions to be had, but the tl;dr version of the entire Second World War is "the Axis lost because they were out produced and out supplied by the wider manufacturing and resource base of the allies."

I agree completely. The Axis was definitely at a disadvantage from the very beginning. Perhaps their early successes went to their heads and they thought they could do anything. (That seems to be a common malady among Americans these days.) It may have been a case of their "overconfidence was their weakness."

In the Allied countries, I'm not sure if we were less confident or what, but from those I've known who were alive during WW2, they say "we didn't know we were going to win." (I had a relative who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and another who was a Marine who fought in Tarawa and Saipan, among other islands.) There was some doubt and plenty of fear at the beginning. I've heard it said that Stalin had some kind of nervous breakdown and was out of contact for several days as the Germans were pouring in.

Perhaps it's the hubris and bravado of ultra-nationalism, which pervaded the leadership of both Germany and Japan. They may have thought they were invincible and that their determination was enough to defeat the Allies. While they did have some reasonable and rational leaders among the military, they didn't seem to have as much pull or influence as the hardhead nationalists.

Another problem was that, partly due to the same problem of nationalism (and partly due to geography), the Axis powers were never really a unified, coordinated alliance, not like the Allies were, particularly between the English-speaking nations which were all on the same side. We didn't always see eye to eye with the British, but there was a good, cooperative working relationship nonetheless. It was even more difficult with the Russians, but even they were able to set differences aside in favor of (at least temporary) cooperation. In contrast, Germany, Japan, and Italy were all really fighting their own separate wars, who just happened to have a few enemies in common enough to call it an "alliance."

I think that's New Zealand's strategy in most things.

Laughter might help. I think the lessons of both World Wars is that ultra-nationalism and blind, arrogant patriotism should be avoided. However, I fear that we're going in the wrong direction.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I agree completely. The Axis was definitely at a disadvantage from the very beginning. Perhaps their early successes went to their heads and they thought they could do anything. (That seems to be a common malady among Americans these days.) It may have been a case of their "overconfidence was their weakness."

In the Allied countries, I'm not sure if we were less confident or what, but from those I've known who were alive during WW2, they say "we didn't know we were going to win." (I had a relative who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and another who was a Marine who fought in Tarawa and Saipan, among other islands.) There was some doubt and plenty of fear at the beginning. I've heard it said that Stalin had some kind of nervous breakdown and was out of contact for several days as the Germans were pouring in.

Perhaps it's the hubris and bravado of ultra-nationalism, which pervaded the leadership of both Germany and Japan. They may have thought they were invincible and that their determination was enough to defeat the Allies. While they did have some reasonable and rational leaders among the military, they didn't seem to have as much pull or influence as the hardhead nationalists.

Another problem was that, partly due to the same problem of nationalism (and partly due to geography), the Axis powers were never really a unified, coordinated alliance, not like the Allies were, particularly between the English-speaking nations which were all on the same side. We didn't always see eye to eye with the British, but there was a good, cooperative working relationship nonetheless. It was even more difficult with the Russians, but even they were able to set differences aside in favor of (at least temporary) cooperation. In contrast, Germany, Japan, and Italy were all really fighting their own separate wars, who just happened to have a few enemies in common enough to call it an "alliance."
I agree with this as a general assessment, too.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
i am sure they seemed that way to him. But the Soviet Union tried to coverup the pact after the war. It was not a public pact.

I don't think they could cover it up entirely. Of course, the Soviet version of events would be very slanted in their favor, although in the final analysis, their heroic performance and contributions towards the destruction of the Nazi state speak for themselves.

All of the Allied governments made pre-war mistakes and bad judgments.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree. Except when discussing Australia > New Zealand, then ultra-nationalism and blind, arrogant patriotism all the way, baybee!

I was just doing some looking around, as I wanted to refresh my knowledge of the ANZUS Pact (ANZUS - Wikipedia), but then came across information about a new agreement called "AUKUS" (Australia, UK, and US). New Zealand was left out due to their opposition to nukes.

Pact with U.S., Britain, will see Australia scrap French sub deal-media | Reuters

AUKUS - Wikipedia

Then there's also this, which is a mouthful: AUSCANNZUKUS - Wikipedia
 
Top