# What was the One Thing that won WWII?



## Hot Space (Feb 10, 2004)

Something different.

What was the One Thing that won WWII? It could be a Battle, a Plane, an Invention etc...

I would say Radar 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 11, 2004)

well the lanc will either say the dambusters bombing raids or something else to do with the lancaster  but i would say it was the battle of britain (clueless)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 11, 2004)

ha! shows how much you know, i would say either the battle of brittain, or Dr. Barnes Wallis


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

Both very good choices, feller's 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 11, 2004)

see what i mean? the lanc choosing something to do mainly with lancs........ how predictable


----------



## Archer (Feb 11, 2004)

I would say radar/Battle of Britain (sort of interrelated) was one of two things that won the war, the other being the IJA pissing off the Europeans/US and forcing the Navy to attack Pearl Harbour.

Without the US there would have been many more casualties, prolonged the war, more costly for countries in the war (ie GB, Commonwealth nations, etc) and if the Allies managed to win, I think it would have been due to the Soviets and not the Western Allies. This would have led to a Soviet Europe, possibly a better economic situation for the USSR (since Germany is/was the economic center of Europe) if they could restrain themselves from taking all the factories to the USSR and otherwise ruining western Europe. In turn, the Soviet Union may not have fallen, we could still be in a Cold War, or worse have had one or more other World Wars after WWII.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

Archer said:


> I would say radar/Battle of Britain (sort of interrelated) was one of two things that won the war, the other being the IJA pissing off the Europeans/US and forcing the Navy to attack Pearl Harbour.
> 
> Without the US there would have been many more casualties, prolonged the war, more costly for countries in the war (ie GB, Commonwealth nations, etc) and if the Allies managed to win, I think it would have been due to the Soviets and not the Western Allies. This would have led to a Soviet Europe, possibly a better economic situation for the USSR (since Germany is/was the economic center of Europe) if they could restrain themselves from taking all the factories to the USSR and otherwise ruining western Europe. In turn, the Soviet Union may not have fallen, we could still be in a Cold War, or worse have had one or more other World Wars after WWII.



It does make you wonder what would of happen if the American's didn't come in.

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

I would have to say the fighting men won the war. Especially in the battle of britten,640 planes against 2500german aircraft,i dont think that was the machines that won the war alone, it was the men behind the control stick.


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

But.......for the sake of conversation,i think the b-17 played a major role


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

But if the germans invaded britten the war would have probually have been lost


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

Yep, and then the Germans and Japanese then might turn her eye on the U.S   

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

probually


----------



## Archer (Feb 11, 2004)

The Japanese had hot air balloons with incendiary devices that used the jet stream to travel to the US, and IIRC they actually started a few minor fires...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 12, 2004)

actually, ive changed my mind to thinking its radar  seen a programme about recently and its convinced me

and can i just say that from a strategic point of view, pearl harbour was a failure


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 12, 2004)

I think most people would say Radar as it helped win most of the Major Battles of the War 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 13, 2004)

Two things. Battle of Britian for halting any chance of an invasion into england and going a ways to gaining air-supremecy needed for D-Day.

And cracking the Enigma. Without this, U-boats would likely have "starved" England to defeat by sinking war materials needed by that country.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

I forgot about Enigma   

But cracking the Code could be more important then Radar it's self....

Hot Space


----------



## Andrew (Feb 13, 2004)

I also think that Cracking the Enigma Code had the most effect on winning WW2 , as most of the time we knew what the Germans were upto , and not forgetting that the Americans , were decoding the Japanese Enigma Codes .

Andrew


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

I think it must of cut the war short by about 2 year's or so.

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 13, 2004)

and remember, the germans were going to get the mexicans to declair war on America, but because we cracked the code, we got them on our side 

btw, the B-17 is CRAP!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 13, 2004)

lanc, please stop slagging off the b-17, it starting to annoy me


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

Yes, can we slow down on the B-17/Lancaster thing, please  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

sorry


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 14, 2004)

You can still talk about it, it's just that it's spreading over many Threads now 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

yeah, er , sorry bout that


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 14, 2004)

8)  

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 14, 2004)

i say Churchill because of his speeches that lifted morale and enticed the BoB pilots to kick ass and i would also say that Stalin helped my having a city named after him earlier (Stalingrad) that was pretty much the turning point for germany


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 14, 2004)

NO! I change my mind! i say the a-bomb sure it was late but if it werent for einstein escaping hitler and telling us about the abomb stuff and the germans who were testing fission we would have to invade japan sure it would make awesome and dramatic action movies  it would have resulted in MANY aussie, us, brit, and russian lives


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2004)

now there's a man who knows what he wants...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 15, 2004)

what do i want? im confused. or are u saying im indecisive?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 16, 2004)

i'm jokingly saying you're indecicive


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 16, 2004)

ADOLF HITLER won World War Two.

Do I have your attention now? Hehe, Hitler took on the Russian giant before he subdued England and secured his defeat from the East. Then he declared war on America and secured his defeat from above. End of Chapter 

-- Chris


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

If only the War was that short  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2004)

1 chapter, if only...............


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 17, 2004)

Chapter 1. Got up
Chapter 2. Had Breakfest.
Chapter 3. Go to War with Germany.
Chapter 4. Play Football.
Chapter 5. We win the Match and the War.
Chapter 6. Watch T.V for a bit before going to Bed    

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 17, 2004)

smooth... but wheres stalingrad in there?


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 17, 2004)

Having a Coffee Break   

Hot Space


----------



## Birdmanwest (Feb 17, 2004)

I could say there are lot of reasons that Germans lost the war.

1.Einstein never helped the Germans to invent atomic bomb first.
2.He-100 was never in production
3.Jet plane was only for test use


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 17, 2004)

maybe because einstein was a jew?


----------



## Birdmanwest (Feb 17, 2004)

No its not because of his trauma of Jews and Aryan relationship.
He was a peace principle guy and actually never involved in any making of the atomic bombs in US. Its just that his E=mc^2 theory gave Americans a clue to make atomic bombs.


----------



## nutter (Feb 18, 2004)

i say russia won the war
had germany idvaded russia they would have had all the resources they wanted and could have turned to invading britain instead they didn't invade russia and there forces were streched because of this on 2 fronts east and west meaning they had no chance of winning
even hitler said his biggest mistake was trying to invade russia

radar also played a big part especially for the allies BoB would have been lost without it and it helped againt the u-boats and the allied bombers


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2004)

yeah i mean come on, who takes on russia and thinks they can win, seriously...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> Chapter 1. Got up
> Chapter 2. Had Breakfest.
> Chapter 3. Go to War with Germany.
> Chapter 4. Play Football.
> ...



you didn't make time to brush your teath did you? tut tut


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 18, 2004)

Haven't got any   

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2004)

must have been a big breakfast too, you didnt have any other meals


----------



## nutter (Feb 19, 2004)

a breakfast of spam and eggs can last hotspace several days


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 19, 2004)

I would agree with Viper, that the Man on the ground in the the dirt won the war. You al can have the aircraft, B-24 is the best and hardest working, but with out the dogface on the ground aircraft cannot win allone. Also your aircraft, radar, boots are all made at a factory. The real think is the manufactoring man and woman who made it all. 

Chedder Cheese said "and can i just say that from a strategic point of view, pearl harbour was a failure " I would disagree. The only way to get the empire was to take out the fleet. It was seen as best to be a year or so before the USA would be back into the war.


----------



## Viper (Feb 19, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> Haven't got any
> 
> Hot Space


u must be really old,lol


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2004)




----------



## Anonymous (Feb 20, 2004)

No, I am not old! Why would you say that?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 20, 2004)

> Einstein never helped the Germans to invent atomic bomb first.





> maybe because einstein was a jew?





> No its not because of his trauma of Jews and Aryan relationship.
> He was a peace principle guy and actually never involved in any making of the atomic bombs in US. Its just that his E=mc^2 theory gave Americans a clue to make atomic bombs.


 i said maybe because he was a jew because what did hitler hate an never believe for anything they said? JEWS what was einstein? a JEW JEW+HITLER=OH SHIT!!! DEATH CAMPS


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 22, 2004)

so


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 22, 2004)

ARGH!!! NO TOUNGE OUT SMILEY!!!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

i see no tounge?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 24, 2004)

i know i did : P that minus the space beacuse in im programs and such it makes a tounge out smiley but we dont have one here so thats what i mean


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

yes i agree, a tongue out smiley would be very handy


----------



## aussie jim (Feb 26, 2004)

How about Goering being in charge of the Luftwaffe  ..thats gotta count a fair way towards the defeat of Germany..and then Adolf taking full command of the Army..definitely the death knell...luckily for us.


----------



## Rafe35 (Feb 26, 2004)

Great Britain gave Fat man Goering headache lol


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2004)

along them lines, the fact they stopped attacking the radar stations


----------



## GregP (Feb 29, 2004)

Sheer stupidity by the Nazis. I can't conceive of anyone less well suited to plan an aerial attack than Herrman Goering. Hitler was an idiot, militarily ... he DELIBERATELY attack the Soviet Union, thus creating a 2-front war ... something that is almost unwinnable. Goerbels was a war crime looking for a place to happen ... and he happened in several places.

The most capable leaders in all the third reich were Karl Doernitz, Adolph Galland, Ernst Udet, and Erwin Rommel. None of them got to run things as he saw fit except for Rommel, and the Nazi leadership wouldn't even send him sufficient supplies to run a campaign!

Lucky for us the Nazi high command were mostly idiots.


----------



## Archer (Feb 29, 2004)

Then Rommel (along with a bunch of other high ranking military officers and prominent Germans) realized what the problem was and unfortunately got killed for realizing this and trying to take action against the problem.


----------



## nutter (Mar 6, 2004)

goring can't be blamed ofor everything the reason for some many of his mistakes was he never actually knew what the operational strength of the luftwaffe was he always thought it was stronger than it actually was and when he did find out it was to late because he had become so arrogant and would have looked a fool not to boast.
also germany went to war to early the luftwaffe wasn't properly equiped and didn't have enough resevres.
i would recomened reading "the most dangerous enemy" a history of the battle of britain it expalins how porly equiped the luftwaffe was and how BoB won the war an excellent book well worth 10 pounds


----------



## Archer (Mar 6, 2004)

Meserschmitt was partially to blame too. He didn't want to change the narrow landing gear to a wider setup by having the wheels in/closer to the fuselage and have them extend outwards. I read an article that quoted (so I'll assume its relatively true) a high ranking Luftwaffe officer that said approximately 30 000 Me109s were built, and 10 000 of them were destroyed in take off/landing incidents due to the narrow gear.

Also only one high ranking Luftwaffe officer realized they needed a four engine strategic bomber and he did a while before WWII, and with his death was the death of the Luftwaffe strategic bombers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)

ha! german heavy bombers, don't make me laugh


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 8, 2004)

For me, as well as the battle of britain abnd the excellent leadership we had.....i feel that when hitler decided to have at pop at russia....in wintertime did him no favours. He should have been looking to us first.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 8, 2004)

There was no ONE reason - you know better than that JJ


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)

> ha! german heavy bombers, don't make me laugh



hey hey hey, what about the he-177? 8) one of me fave planes


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2004)

the HE-177 didn't see much service and wasn't that good, but it did look cool...................


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 8, 2004)

Yes bronzewhaler you are right. I should know better than that. However what i was trying to say is that i feel it was a major contribution to the end of the war...even if it did come later! Any way...whats your view smartarse!!! Gotta go cos i am at work and the internet policy is very strict so will probably end up with the sack if head office are monitering this! And it will all be your fault!!! 8) :fist:


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)

8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> Yes bronzewhaler you are right. I should know better than that. However what i was trying to say is that i feel it was a major contribution to the end of the war...even if it did come later! Any way...whats your view smartarse!!! Gotta go cos i am at work and the internet policy is very strict so will probably end up with the sack if head office are monitering this! And it will all be your fault!!! 8) :fist:



My opinion? The British Army/Navy/Airforce mate -i'm surprised you had to ask! 

As for you getting the sack - thats not my responsibility!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

> My opinion? The British Army/Navy/Airforce mate -i'm surprised you had to ask!



what are we talking about here again?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2004)

yes, tell us 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2004)

please do..........................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 21, 2004)

That would be: "What was the one thing that won WW2?"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

ah, victory won us ww2 8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

CC, that is a rather clever answer....i fear i must bow down to you as i really am ashamed at our petty squabbles when the answer was blatenly glaring at us in the face....you outstanding knowledge and ability to intepret the facts are just spellbounding and i think that we could all learn a lesson or two from your excellency!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

PS Did you detect the sarcasm in there!????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

yup, but it was funny


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

glad you enjoyed it....lesser men would have taken offence and no broze before you say a word that is not what i was intending....(No offence mate)!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)




----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

where are the fecking smilies!!!!!!!!!how can one be expected to respectfully spam with no sodding smiles..........i suppose that i could do it by aimlessly typing a crock of shit that will make veryone think what on earth is going on....cos i sure as hell dont know so if anyone can helo me please let me know!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> glad you enjoyed it....lesser men would have taken offence and no broze before you say a word that is not what i was intending....(No offence mate)!!!!!



Whos broze?


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

ah...it would appear that my touch typing skills are deserting me......BRONZEWHALER>>>>>>>does that make it any clearer?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

> where are the fecking smilies!!!!!!!!!how can one be expected to respectfully spam with no sodding smiles..........i suppose that i could do it by aimlessly typing a crock of s**t that will make veryone think what on earth is going on....cos i sure as hell dont know so if anyone can helo me please let me know!



you should learn the codes 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> ah...it would appear that my touch typing skills are deserting me......BRONZEWHALER>>>>>>>does that make it any clearer?



Thats really strange mate..i would've though that NVQ would've set you up for life!!   

No - sorry, that was below the belt...


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

> Thats really strange mate..i would've though that NVQ would've set you up for life!!



obviously someone elses college education failed them..... Though...i think perhaps you missed a T off the end?


----------



## Crazy (Mar 22, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

:fist: Yippee my smilies work once again!


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 23, 2004)

IMO what won the war for the allies was a little known night raid towards the end of 1944. During this infamous bomber raid tins of pressed ham were dropped on the starving German population and this they were FORCED, FORCED I SAY, to eat.

This hideous war-crime must be avenged!

As Fuhrer of the Fourth and a Half Reich I insist on the payment of reparations by the criminal UK government. I have a Cayman Islands account into which payment may be made, I accept Amex, Diners, or Platinum Visa!

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> > Thats really strange mate..i would've though that NVQ would've set you up for life!!
> 
> 
> 
> obviously someone elses college education failed them..... Though...i think perhaps you missed a T off the end?



 no! just a crap keyboard with a craper typist!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

yeah right....making excuses once again bronze...come on really you can do better than that!


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 23, 2004)

Main ebent of WW2 (IMO)  

1) Battle of Britain. 
2) Stalingrad. 
3) Kursk. 
4) D-day. 
5) 6 and 9 August 1945.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 23, 2004)

> D-day


which D-day? D-day is the specific attack day, for ANY attack, but i know what you mean (Operation Overlord) i just felt like throwing that in 

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 23, 2004)

Sorry...
I mean "Overlord"...

8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> yeah right....making excuses once again bronze...come on really you can do better than that!



'Once again' where else have I made excuses?


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

Last night, you made the excuse you were talking crap cos you had a bit to drink! Only joking mate....your pretty good. You usually jst edge around the subject and make a couple of intellegtual remarks so that it doesnt sound like an excuse!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

you notice you've also made quite a mistake.............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Hey Lanc, you and C.C should read the spam thread...it looks like your career as the lord spammers is coming to an end


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

yes...i missed th "u" out of just!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

> Hey Lanc, you and C.C should read the spam thread...it looks like your career as the lord spammers is coming to an end



i know  ive learnt quite a bit more about planes now though, and should be able to be sensible in my answers 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 25, 2004)

Vegafox said:


> Sorry...
> I mean "Overlord"...
> 
> 8)


no prob m8 i just felt like being an arse head and throwing that in!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 25, 2004)




----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 26, 2004)

dude, im telling ya his white Lavochkin(correct me if spelling is wrong) is better!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2004)

the one thing that won WWII, gotta be the Lancaster..............


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 28, 2004)

or maybe it was those flying them?????


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 28, 2004)

No, No, NO!

It was that awful pressed ham!

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> or maybe it was those flying them?????



It was both but mainly the Lancaster - as i've said before - if the Lancaster crews were flying Amiot 143's or something then they would've been dog meat against the Luftwaffe!


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 30, 2004)

In a nutshell , it was the Conviction-of-the-Commonwealth that it was Right to fight this tyranny Hitler had created in Europe, and the threat to the Freedom of the Free World. After the Great War , another Generation of Young People saw a Job that had be done , and enlisted. We lost in France and consolidated back in Britain. By then, Commonwealth troops were assembling and the Atlantic and Dominion convoys reinforced the Battle of Britain. - The rest has been said ; Radar , Hitler as C-in-C and his decisions Cost Germany the War. But the Grit to Fight back that came from that Generation of The Allies , won the War. - It was Churchill that stirred 'em up too. - Do you think Today's Generation could do the same thing , if asked ???


----------



## Hugh Janus (Mar 30, 2004)

britain aint much better, the germans shuld have won the war, their planes were much better. the me-410 was in my opinion the mest heavy fighter ever


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 30, 2004)

Actually the FW-187 Falke was the best heavy fighter of WW2 but the RLM would not build the darn thing.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

speaking of the me-410, anyone got any info on it? im interested


----------



## Piaggio108 (Mar 31, 2004)

It was the E14Y. the only japanese plane to drop bombs on the US. 

(insert smilie)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

Me 410 A1 High-speed bomber, high altitude heavy fighter and night-fighter. 
Lenght 12.4 m 
Wingspan 16.38 m 
Height 4.2 m 
Max. weight 10650 kg 
Empty weight 6100 kg 
Engines 2x DB 603A (12^ 1750 hp ea.) 
Ceiling 10000 m 
Max. speed 625 km/h 
Range 2300 km 
Armament/Load 2 x MG 131 + 2 x MG 151 + 2 x MG 131 + 1000 kg bomb load 
Crew 2 



Me 210 B High-speed bomber, high altitude heavy fighter, day/night reconaissance, torpedo bomber and night-fighter. 
Lenght 12.4 m 
Wingspan 16.38 m 
Height 4.2 m 
Max. weight 10650 kg 
Empty weight 6100 kg 
Engines 2x DB 603G (12^ 1900 hp ea.) 
Ceiling 8900 m 
Max. speed 465 km/h 
Range 1800 km 
Armament/Load 2 x MG 131 + 2 x MG 151 + 2 x MG 131 + 1000 kg bomb load 
Crew 2 

The Germans had better planes? I think not. They were good but not better. The P-51, Spitfire MK. XIV, P-47 and P-38 all matched up to anything Germany threw at them in late war. 

The American Delta Force is good, not as good as the SAS but they are still good. The reason being is they don't follow the stupid American military traditions.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

On behalf of admin...Welcome to the site by the way Plan D!  you sound like a pretty well informed guy - welcome aboard! you'll soon get to know whos who around here - plenty of characters anyway! 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

Thank you. The emoticons are certainly interesting...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

yeah welcome 8) thanks for the info, shame its in metric though, i prefer to work in imperial 8) not to worry though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

hey plan D, you'll proberly be hearing allot from me..........................


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 3, 2004)

the Germans were well on their way to developing atomic fission when the USA was tipped off of their plans by one of their scientists. The USA spent untold amouts of money to beat the Germans in this goal. We had the brainpower and the manuacturing ability to get our a-bomb operational first . A German U-boat was sent to Japan with a cargo of uranium but their mission was compromised and their scientist commited suicide aboard the U-boat. There are a lot of what-ifs that we can spend years arguing about who was better at weapons. I think that if the Germans had more raw materials available to develop their atomic research the war might have ended differently.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 4, 2004)

And if the Norweigan resistance and British Commandos didn't blow up the Heavy Water plant that Germany was researching the A-bomb in.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

Yep fuck the Americans - it was the Brits and Norwiegens that won the war!!!!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

yup, we would have won it without them, it just might of taken a bit longer, you know, what with all the tea breaks...........................


----------



## nutter (Apr 4, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> Yep f**k the Americans - it was the Brits and Norwiegens that won the war!!!!!!



8) you got that one right and the russians


----------



## Crazy (Apr 4, 2004)

> bronzewhaler82 wrote:
> 
> 
> > Yep f**k the Americans - it was the Brits and Norwiegens that won the war!!!!!!
> ...



Heh... keep on dreamin', boys.


nutter, for a second there I thought you were C.C, his being communist and all


----------



## R Pope (Apr 5, 2004)

Gemhorse,you're right. The main thing was the fact that the good guys had the guts to kick the bad guy's asses. In the end, that's what it all comes down to, guts, determination, and faith in what's right.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

> nutter, for a second there I thought you were C.C, his being communist and all



 woot go communism


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yup, we would have won it without them, it just might of taken a bit longer, you know, what with all the tea breaks...........................


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 5, 2004)

I think that if the USA had not started their lend lease program with England as soon as they did the English would have run out of resources. What most people forget is that the USA had the raw materials and the factorys to produce the equipment needed for war. The citizens of the USA went to work in the Factories making the boats,airplanes, ammo,tires,tanks and what ever was needed. The women went to work in the factories and they did every job that was needed to be done. Their spirit was the reason the job got done often before deadlines and sometimes under budget. Hats off to the Ladies that traded their home life for factory work for the war effort.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

We had Women working day and night in our factories too before America even entered the war - they did a fantastic job and without them Britain would've been lost - there was no 'one thing' that won ANY war - it was always a team effort....thats one thing war is good for - encouraging people to work together for the greater good...i.e winning! :-X

oh yeah and keeping the population of the earth under control


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

good point actually bronze  8)


----------



## nutter (Apr 6, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > nutter, for a second there I thought you were C.C, his being communist and all
> 
> 
> 
> woot go communism



lol yes for the motherland


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

Da, we shall attack at night, comrade  Nyet kakashka!


----------



## Crazy (Apr 6, 2004)

:FI: 'Still Reeling From The Berlin Crisis' Crazy wonders what the Ivans are up too  


Fuhrer Kiwimac, it might be wise to find more of this Communist plot


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 7, 2004)

Oh I thought Americans were alergic to communism  ...thats why they always make such a fuss about it 8)


----------



## Crazy (Apr 7, 2004)

As a general rule, communism gives us hives


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2004)




----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 9, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> We had Women working day and night in our factories too before America even entered the war - they did a fantastic job and without them Britain would've been lost - there was no 'one thing' that won ANY war - it was always a team effort....thats one thing war is good for - encouraging people to work together for the greater good...i.e winning! :-X
> 
> oh yeah and keeping the population of the earth under control


 i like Stalingrad snipers and their role in winning


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2004)

i like the lancaster........................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 9, 2004)

I would like to agree with the fact that the woman of the world on both sides played a great part! They are now starting to get the full true reconition and praise they so truely desurve. How about the Russian ladies who flew bombers over Germany, or the ladies who ferried plans from factories in Kansas and Willow Run to New York. But one contrabution that the women made I would like to say is that of the nurses. They did so much for the young boys fighting on the line, and at times did the job under great fire!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

what was so great about this fire, was it friendly and from the americans?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2004)

just because you're a mod, it doesn't mean you can spam................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

and just because youre a close friend of a mod, doesnt mean you can spam either


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

yes it does..................

and the one thing that won WWII was RADAR.............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

No one thing won WW2, and it definately wouldn't be RADAR if there was. The RADAR was a huge contribution to BoB and later bombing campaigns, but as much as you don't like to admit it, you can't bomb someone into submission. 

I think the major contribution was the ULTRA team, and their cracking of the Enigma codes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

nope i think radar


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Without the Enigma codes we would have been in deep trouble with the Wolfpacks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

i dont think we would have won the BoB without radar


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Britain wouldn't have won the BoB without Radar. 

If I were going to pick one thing that won the war, I would have to pick the industrial capabilities of the Allies. WWII was a war of production as much as anything else and the Allies simply outproduced the Axis.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

There was a whole collection of things, and Allied production, RADAR and ULTRA were all major contributors to the victory.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

ULTRA, was really big! It let the Navy understand how better the U-boats operated. Code breaking was also big in the win over the Japs, and useing the Navajo as radio operators was just Great.

But the thing that won the war, who really can say. Why not say poor choices by the Germans.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Because it was the Allies that capitulated on the few mistakes by the Germans. Plus a lot of our victories were of our own making, not German mistakes.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

We capitalized on their mistakes. The French capitulated.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

Thank you, I was tired. And it was more than the French that capitulated, like most of Europe capitulated.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

Yes, but Frace was the only one of those contries considered to be a military power. I mean, no one thought the Belgians would turn the Germans back. France, on the other hand, was supposed to make a stand.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 18, 2004)

But they did not. Only the British and commonwelth Nations stood up, and kept on going. But they were nice to let those who wanted to fight come and help, even the Free French


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

I think the Allies when out of their way to accomidate the French later in the war. Like allowing De Gaulle to "liberate" Paris.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

It still would have been nice to have some help off Belgium, we had a big argument about Belgium in 1940 before. Some of the individuals in the Free French were brave, like the few that flew for the RAF, and the ones in the VVS. 

De Gaulle should have been shot for cowardice, the BEF were the smallest portion of the Allied Army in 1940 and it was the only one that could fight because it wasn't full of cowards.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

The Belgians did the best they could, but they were horribly outmatched. The Allied plans basically called for Belgium to be a speed bump to buy France and Great Britain time to establish a proper defense or even counter attack.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

but the belgiums put up a fight, unlike france............


----------



## MP-Willow (May 19, 2004)

Are we back to saying bad things about the French in 1940? I know it seems like a fun pastime, but we have no French supporter. So we pick on them and there is no voice to counter. 8)

As for Belgium being a "Speed bump" that is just poor disrespect. But I think that the Allied planning and war preparations were all very bad. We tried to play nice and talk while we were very slow to bring the full war machine on line. 

I should say the BEF did a very good job with the cards it was delt.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

but there was nothing we could do to stop blitzkreig, we just weren't expecting it.............


----------



## MP-Willow (May 19, 2004)

I will agree. I am just thinking that while every one was talking why were we not taking over more production for war? Then again Rosevelt was doing almost all he could to help with out breaking anymore laws, or turning the anti-war side out.  

I just think that we could have tried to do more, but that is being able to look back at history. Just like people complain about the 11 September 2001 investigation that the CIA and FBI could not put all the little bits and some big bits all toghether in a timely maner.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Calling Belgium a speed bump was disrespectful and I apologize but it was an accurate description of the Allies' plans. They were only expecting Belgium to delay the Germans for a couple weeks.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

The Allies didn't want Belgium as a speed bump, the Allies thought the Germans were going to attack through Belgium, and offered to set up defensive lines on the Belgium-Germany border, this, Belgium turned down. 
It was Germany that only attacked Belgium as a diversionary strike, and attacked through Luxembourg, and the Ardennes into French and British held lines, the weakest part of the line though as the British were already moving north to counter the attack on Belgium. 

Neither the BEF, France or Belgium were used in Plan D as a stalling component, its just thats the way the Germans played it. And Belgium never even felt the full force of the Blitzkrieg. I've already explained it all before.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

it's ironic really that the only country germany declared war on was america.............


----------



## MP-Willow (May 24, 2004)

Why they were already fighting everybody elts why have to declair war after you already are in it? Maybe they thought that the Americans needed to be treated differently.


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

Germany declared war on America on the 9th December 1941, two days after America declared war on Japan (German Ally) for the attack on Pearl Harbour. 

Britain and France declared war on Germany 3rd September 1939, and Soviet Union declared war on June 22nd 1941 (Within the hour of invasion). 

The Germans were not in a war with America, and war had already been declared on Germany by everyone else. In the Geneva Convention it states you must declare war before aggresive acts. They didn't want to commit a war crime, a bit silly really as they already had done, several times.
It was actually more of a propaganda thing, saying to the SU, Britain and France 'look America won't even help you, we declared war on them'


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

I heard a guy present a paper on how Germany declaring war on America was its biggest mistake. I'm not sure I buy into that notion has America would have ended up declaring war on the Germans anyway.


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

That's a stupid idea, it sounds like a 'America won the war' idea. America probably would have done, but it didn't really want to. And with good reason, it probably would have met with a senior British official before thinking about it. The reason being you think about things before you do them, and as Britain was already in America would have been thinking how Britain would aid them if they got involved.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 26, 2004)

So if Germany was declairing war only on America, how was that propaganda, or not a warcrime? I am a little confused with it. Interesting that the soviets were to declare war while the invasion was going on. It makes me think that Stalin really was just waiting for the war as they were, but Hitler came early.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

i take it belgium and poland didn't have time to declair war??


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

It's not Germany only declaring war on America, it's Germany declaring war on America before America declaring war on them which is the propaganda stunt. 
If you declare war before you attack, your attack is not a war crime. 

Stalin was looking for war, he knew it was coming and was gearing up for it and would be ready by 1942 that's why I always say Hitler was much smarter doing it when he did than leaving it later. 

In the Geneva Convention an aggressive act is a declaration of war, so for the attacked state there is no need for a declaration of war. That's why I never see the point in Stalins declaration, maybe he just wanted to give Churchill the message that he is against Hitler, loud and clear.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

actually Germany made an undeclared statement of war on the US due to the shipping support of arms and equipment to Great Britain as the U-boots were unleashed to their maximum efforts to bring the shipping lanes under the subs control. A very seldom looked at part of the war but where the aspects of sea-borne aviation unfold during mid and late war.

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Possible. As you mentioned, Germany's decleration against America was predominately a propoganda move. Stalin's may well have been as well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2004)

but what does it achive...............


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

That's like saying 'what does propaganda achieve?'. It's a stunt to gain support for you, or lower support for your enemy. 
In Germanys case with the declaration against America before America declared war on them, I think it was a way to say that America wasn't Britains real ally they were just using Britain. 
This obviously didn't work, but it didn't take much to take the chance. In their opinion it might have worked. 

That is just what I think, I don't actually know why they did it apart from the obvious that America declared war on Japan, Germanys ally. And Germany had a pact with Japan, so it declared war on America. Maybe that's the only reason, to keep up its side of the bargain with Japan.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

did they declair war on america before their involvement in europe??


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

Germany declared war on America on the 9th December 1941, two days after Pearl Harbour. 
And since the American forces never really got involved in Europe until 1943 (Not including the air force who were there in late 1942), that's almost a year before America in Europe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

ok, the americans declaired war on japan, not the other way round, right??


----------



## MP-Willow (May 29, 2004)

America on Japan, then a few days later on Germany. With one vote against war, a Sanetor from Mantana 

Erich, are you talking about the fast light Jeep carriers that the USN used to sail with the convoys? They were a good idea. As much as I like the Liberators in the Coastal Comand U-boat hunters, the Wildcats and Hellcats on the Jeep carriers were very effective. I will agree that they are overlooked, so why nbot talk aboput them? I have read alittle about it while looking at the Cats.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

just a question, how much were carriers used in the battle of the atlantic, it's just i've never really heard much of their involvement??


----------



## MP-Willow (May 31, 2004)

I am reading about that or starting, but I am away from my normal computer and resurch so I can say that it was a strong presence from 1943 on. They were fast and carried fighters and torpeado bombers. 

The Jeep carriers are unsung. I will try to look up more info.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

The Jeep carriers were unsung, thought your description of them as being 'fast' is a bit misplaced. The Jeeps were quick conversions of merchant ships and most of them could not make 20kts. I don't believe the Hellcat was deployed on the Jeep carriers. The Navy wanted all of them it could get to defend the big fleet carriers. That being said, the role of the jeep carriers were huge. Even with the Lib, Cat, and Sunderland on the job, there was still a hole in the aircover until the jeeps came along.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

There are many weapons of the war that are never recognised, the torpedo boats for instance. 

And may I point out that Germany declared war on American (How many times have I pointed this out?). And technically Japan declared war on America (I know America did it officially) because an aggressive act towards another nation is a declaration of war....


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 4, 2004)

LG- I could have been thinking of the smaller Escourt carriers that worked in the Pacific, or I could just be getting them confused as the same two names. One of the things that gets me when reading history. I do think the F6F was on the jeeps, but I might have miss read. i know the F4F did fly from these little flattops. 

As for a whole, I am not shure a whole as much as that the jeeps let you have greater flexibility and sustained hunting of the pray. 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

I've not seen anything about F6F's serving on the jeeps. For the most part in ended up being a mix of F4Fs and TBMs (more fighters used in the Pacific, more bombers in the Atlantic). Initially SBDs were used on the escort carriers but the lack of folding wings made for an even tighter fit so they went to the F4F/TBM mix.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 5, 2004)

ok I might have miss read. As I was reading about the Hurricanes I read they were lanched from merchant ships, but the plane had to be diched after they flew.  Seems a little waste of the airfram. This was before the jeep carriers in the dark days of convoys.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

It could be considered a waste of an airframe. But when you consider that each Fw-200 not shot down or driven away by those Hurricanes could have meant an attack on that convoy by a Wolfpack leading to the lose of ships, material, and lives it isn't that bad of a trade. I think of greater concern is the risk to the pilot. Rescuing someone out of the North Atlantic is far from easy.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 7, 2004)

Stalingrad won us the war....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

Stalingrad was a very important battle. But I wouldn't point to it was the 'one thing' that won the war in Europe.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)

lots of things did, but i think radar in the BoB was probably the most imporant.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 7, 2004)

LG-Thanks for the thoughts. I would agree that the North Atlantic can be a very hostle place. I grew up in Maine and seeing the see as a good storm was comming in is just power. Also the water is only 55 degrees F in summer 

AS for what won the war think on this quote:
“No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of the free men and woman.” –Ronald Reagan 40th President USA.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

If still say if I was going to pick one thing, it was the industrial capacity of the Allied powers. For the most part, the war was one of attrition and we simply out-produced the Axis.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

well it depends, the most important for saving us when we were in trouble was RADAR, the most important thing for our offensives was the production capacity of the Allies..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

yeah, ill drink to that


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

you'll drink to anything................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

fair point  ill drink to that


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 8, 2004)

Hehe have any of you heard of Oswald Mosley???


----------



## brad (Jun 8, 2004)

no


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 8, 2004)

God you lot are missing somethings out li:
101st Airborne division
SAS
Midway
El Alamein
Stalingrad
D-Day
Etc.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

what did he fly?


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 8, 2004)

Oswald was in Inteligance yes?

Here is a bit to crew on, we all like to talk BoB so why not say it but because the British and Comonwelth pilots were falling over friendly fields and could get back into the air. 

Lancaster what happened to the nice piture on your sig?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

Everything being mentioned was a key to victory, but none of them can truly be said to have been the one thing that won WWII (except perhaps the signing of the peace treaties).


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 9, 2004)

so true!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2004)

> Lancaster what happened to the nice piture on your sig?



allot of people were copmlaining so i thought i better change it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2004)

ah, i see youve made it to 3000 posts (at last)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 11, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Everything being mentioned was a key to victory, but none of them can truly be said to have been the one thing that won WWII (except perhaps the signing of the peace treaties).



I *STRONGLY* disagree!!!!!!!!!

The one the that one WWII was The Few. Who they are should be known by ALL Britons! They contributed more to your freedom than anyone else in the history of your country. If they had not succeeded, the Allies wouldn't have a base, the U.S.S.R. would have fallen, and there would be no more freedom (the Germans would have somehow taken the U.S.) and the "Inferior Races" would cease to exist.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 11, 2004)

Yeah uh I reckon what won us the war was the german tactics really....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

both very true, ironically, it's partly because of the german tactics that the few prevailed......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Lightning Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Everything being mentioned was a key to victory, but none of them can truly be said to have been the one thing that won WWII (except perhaps the signing of the peace treaties).
> ...



Too bloody right mate!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 12, 2004)

A matter of massive speculation. I agree that the war would have been far more difficult without Great Britain in the fight. But America already had the B-36 in the works with which to bomb Germany from America and I imagine with the war being protracted the A-bomb would have been used against Germany. Granted that is speculation as well, but the BoB was one was much by German error as RAF success (no disrespect AT ALL intended towards Great Britain or the Few whom I hold in the highest regard).


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2004)

The Germans would have had the A-Bomb as well without Britain in the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

> I agree that the war would have been far more difficult without Great Britain in the fight.



you make it sound like you did all the work and we just bought you some time, if it wasn't for us WWII would have been one hell of allot worse.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

And that is what I said. But the fact is, America had a better chance of defeating Germany without Britain than Britain had of doing it without America if for no other reason than because of America's military muscle. 

Anyway, the BoB only impacted a part of the war, namely the war in Europe. Britain surviving was in no way related to the victory in the Pacific and cannot, therefore, be called the ONE thing that won WWII. There was no ONE thing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 14, 2004)

apart from america in your eyes it would seem..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

I'm not claiming that America won the war single-handed. And I could also observe that in your eyes we did nothing at all. But if you are going to try and select ONE thing that won WWII it has to be something that directly effected both the war in Europe and the Pacific. For that reason alone the vast majority of things that have been mentioned (Stalingrad, BoB, 101st Airborne, Midway, etc.) must be discounted since they only impacted one side or the other. The more I think about it, I think it is silly to argue that there was ONE thing. Somethings may have been more important than others, but nothing on its own made the difference. Cracking Enigma was huge, but it was nothing without planes and ships to hunt down the discovered U-boats. The BoB was important, but would have been relatively meaningless if Britain hadn't had the offensive power to strike back at Germany. I don't think you can simply point to one thing and say 'that was it.'


----------



## plan_D (Jun 14, 2004)

I can, it was me. I won the war. And that's the end of it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2004)

no, 'twas lancatser...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

It couldn't have been the Lancaster than won the war for the simple reason that the Lanc had ZERO impact on the Pacific. You could argue that it won the war in Europe. You would be wrong, but you could argue it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2004)

sorry LG, it was a joke carrying on from Plan_D's post............


----------



## Dan (Jul 1, 2004)

i honestly think that what won the war for the allies was sheer numbers 
i mean think about it: there were about 35,000 shermans produced in world war 2 alone (i think) and there were only about (i think Agian) 1300 German tigers built and aside from fire power the sherman was better than the tiger with many things like turret rotation time (which could mean the difference between life and death)


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2004)

Mind while I laugh for the next half a hour while someone tries to state that the Sherman was even mildly better than the Tiger. 

Three most important things on a battlefield tank. Manuverability, firepower and armour. 2 to 1 advantage on Tiger. 

The things the Sherman holds over the Tiger are, reliability, ease of build, speed and turret rotation speed. That's good, saving lots of lives while having to get within 75 yards of the Tigers rear to destroy it. Meanwhile a Tiger can blow you to pieces (literally) from 3km away.


----------



## Dan (Jul 1, 2004)

well i guess i didn't know about the range thing but what the heck


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 1, 2004)

But the numbers thing is crucial. The Tiger was the better tank 1 on 1, but 5 on 1, or 10 on 1, that's where the Sherman came through. And the point about Allied production capacity was well made.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 2, 2004)

The thing about the Tiger's slow turret speed is easily resolved. Rotate the tank, not the turret. That eliminates one problem as the Tiger rotated faster than any tank of the war if my facts are correct.

Also, what is practically "sniping" compared to what other tanks had to do is a great advantage. Seeing as how the other tanks MOST LIKELY, not certainly, doesn't know where you are, you can rotate the turret or the tank with less haste, as well as less noise. 


Winner: Tiger.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2004)

Your facts are correct GrG. The Tigers size was 1:1 (Length:Width) it could rotate the whole body very quickly, which also brought it's frontal armour to bear. 
The Tiger had the optics for up to 5km which gave it good sniping ability, especially in the hedgerows. A Tiger had to truly be swamped to be destroyed, even on a 5 : 1 battle against the Tiger, the Tiger would most likely come out on top. In 1944 the kill ratio was 3:1 in the Tigers favour against the Sherman. 

Tigers were reported to hold off whole columns. I have read that one managed to destroy 18 Shermans and 13 trucks during the Normandy campaign, in one day. There were such things as Panzer Aces.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2004)

have you heard the story of Micheal Wittmann?? of not i suggest you try and find it, from what i've heard there's nothing he couln't do with a tiger....................


----------



## MichaelHenley (Jul 26, 2004)

I'd say the B-17- apart from the Liberator, it was the most produced plane during WWII. Also, it was able to take a huge ton of flak...


----------



## MichaelHenley (Jul 26, 2004)

I'd say the B-17- apart from the Liberator, it was the most produced plane during WWII. Also, it was able to take a huge ton of flak...


----------



## Schrage Muzik (Jul 26, 2004)

To think that any one thing won the war is ignorant.

No one plane, gun, tank, ship, riveter, prime minister, president, G.I., Tommy, or Kilt-wearing highlander could have won the war alone. The Lancs could not have won the war alone, nor could our massive industrial capacity. Many hundreds of factors all came together simultaneously and built upon each other to attain victory.


----------



## toffi (Jul 26, 2004)

I would say, that the man who have won the war in Europe was Adolf Hitler himself. Why? When he had opened second front in Russia, he made the biggest mistake. It was the first nail to his coffin.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2004)

Great, another one. I hope realise that Germany could have beaten Russia if Britain and America weren't supplying them. Weren't holding 350,000 people in Africa. Counter-Attacked in the Balkans in May 1941 when Barbarossa was supposed to happen. Blockaded the North Sea. 

Also, even with that, if the OKW and OKH weren't drunk on victory they could have been a bit wiser in 1941 and pulled off a descisive victory.


----------



## Andrew (Jul 26, 2004)

> The Tiger had the optics for up to 5km which gave it good sniping ability, especially in the hedgerows. A Tiger had to truly be swamped to be destroyed, even on a 5 : 1 battle against the Tiger, the Tiger would most likely come out on top. In 1944 the kill ratio was 3:1 in the Tigers favour against the Sherman.



Don't forget the Sherman Firefly, which was fitted with the British 17Pdr Anti-Tank Gun, the 17Pdr was capable of penetrating 137mm of Armour at 2,000M range, and was able to Kill any Tiger Tank within Range. in fact when the Germans realised how good the Firefly was, they were singled out to be destroyed first.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2004)

You'll find although the 17 pdr cannon on the Firefly states a 137mm penertration at 2km, it was actually much lower in true combat tests. The Germans didn't really need to struggle to pick the Firefly out in the group. The smoke generated by the 17 pdr was enough to give the German tank crews an indication which one was the Firefly, on top of reducing the rate of fire on the Firefly itself. 

It was a much better tank than the original Sherman, of course. But the Tiger and Panther were both superior tanks. Luckily by that time we had A34 Comets coming into service.


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 16, 2004)

I think one of the most decisive matters in winning the war was the cracking of the Enigma code.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 19, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> Something different.
> 
> What was the One Thing that won WWII? It could be a Battle, a Plane, an Invention etc...
> 
> ...


well technolagy got us far. but il say the lives of the people there died on the battlefields. and personaly im very greatful for thet.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 20, 2004)

Touching words and an interesting viewpoint


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 20, 2004)

The Atomic Bomb won the War in the Pacific...

Could we have dropped a couple on Nazi Germany if the Battle of the Bulge went differently???

Hmmmmmm....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

well we already know the lancaster could have done it....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

probably wouldnt have....but could have


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

we're never gonna resolve this.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

not with me around anyway


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

although it could have done it...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda...

But didnt...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

a fact we must be thankful for.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

Amen...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

you weren't here for the big argument we had a while back about this, it was funny


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

I would assume so...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

i can't relly remember what the sides where, i think i was the only one fighting for the lancaster.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

probably, i hope so, i will have to shoot anyone else that was on your side


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 23, 2004)

with what, you couldn't hit that glass bottle with my air rifle, i managed to hit it forst time, and i can hit a table at around 1000yds................


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 13, 2004)

You weren't the only one fighting for the Lancaster, Lanc.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 13, 2004)

Well I was the one arguing that the Lanc not only wouldn't have done it, but it couldn't have done it. At least it couldn't have done it and survived.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 13, 2004)

but we all agreed it could have done it, but the B-29 would have been the first choice................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 13, 2004)

I suppose a Lanc could have dropped the bomb . . . it just would have been destroyed in the resultant explosion. Ever the higher-flying and faster B-29 had to initiate a diving turn to escape the blast radius.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 13, 2004)

And there was a very high chance that the -29 was going to be destroyed, even with the diving turn, or irradiated to the point of death for all the occupants...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 13, 2004)

So what chance did the Lanc have? As I've mentioned before, the RAF had serious doubts about trying to use the Lincoln as a nuclear bomber. Certainly the Lancaster would have been even more suspect.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

I agree 100%.... There is no way the Lanc could have dropped an atomic and live to tell about it...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2004)

we all agrred it could, i believe using it in the form of a earthquake bomb was proposed......................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

And dont forget the most very important fact about this whole hypothetical situation...

Britian didnt have an A-Bomb....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2004)

that's not a factor in the discussion.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

LOL it should be... Wasnt there a better Brit bomber that could carry it, drop it accuratly, and survive??


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2004)

the lancaster was our best bomber, MAYBE if there was a griffon engined mossie it may be able to carry 9,000lbs over a very short range, but i doubt it....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 14, 2004)

I would think that even if the Mossie could be modified to handle the weight of an atomic weapon the physical sized of the bomb would cause serious difficulty. It was tough enough getting a 4000lb bomb into the Mossie's bomb bay.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 14, 2004)

Disagree there LG - The Mossie bomber-variant was adapted as early as possible to take the 4,000 lb. 'cookie', hence the bulged-bomb bays....And les, we wrangled this bit about 'Britain and the A-bomb' earlier on...British scientists were involved from the beginning with the A-bomb, it was decided to build it the US, partly because of better facilities, and also security...there is quite alot of historical reading to get the full picture, but that's the facts of it....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 14, 2004)

I think you may have misunderstood my point Gemhorse. I know the modifications to the allow the Mossie to carry the 'cookie' was done rather early. My point was that the bomb bay had to be buldged considerably to fit a 4,000lb weapon. Where would a 9,000-10,000lb bomb go?


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 15, 2004)

Yeah, I guess I did miss that point...my original argument was and still is that the Lancaster could've, not the Mossie....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 15, 2004)

I don't doubt that Lancaster could have carried the bomb, I just down that it could survive the explosion.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 15, 2004)

I agree...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 15, 2004)

that's why using it as a earthquake bomb was suggested.........................


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 15, 2004)

Ireckon it would've survived, they were real manoevrable and faster once the weight was gone....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 16, 2004)

An earthquake nuke would have been even heavier . . . possibly even larger than the 22,000lb Grand Slam. With the Grand Slam, the ceiling of the Lanc was fairly low. Even clean it was still considerably slower than the B-29 and the Superfort had to push it to clear the blast radius.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 16, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's why using it as a earthquake bomb was suggested.........................



Can somebody clarify the term "earthquake bomb" to a newbie like me, please ? I always thought there were only two types of bombs : the "normal bombs" and the A-bombs.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 16, 2004)

> Can somebody clarify the term "earthquake bomb" to a newbie like me, please ? I always thought there were only two types of bombs : the "normal bombs" and the A-bombs.



The Earthquake bomb was so called because it weighed in at 22,000lbs, and when it was dropped it penetrated into the gound before expolding, and created a local earthquake, which was enough to cause Railway Viaducts to shake themselves to pieces, or even colapse railway tunnels with trains in them.

Tha Lancaster was the only Allied Bomber used in the European Theatre that was capable of carrying it, although the B25 was more than capable of Carrying the Earthquake Bomb, I don't think it did until just after the war.

It was one of three bombs developed by Barnes Wallis
The Bouncing Bomb
The 12,000lb Tallboy
And The 22,0000lb Earthquake or Sometimes Known as the Grand Slam


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 16, 2004)

I believe you mean the B-29, but yes it was tested post-war carrying a Grand Slam under each wing. 

But there is another thing I've been thinking about. I'm not sure an "earth-quake nuke" would be all that effective. Much of the damage caused by an atomic weapon is caused by the massive presure waves it produces. It seems to be that denonating it below ground would degrade its effectiveness considerably.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 16, 2004)

> but yes it was tested post-war carrying a Grand Slam under each wing



not even the B-29 could carry that, it could carry 1xgrand slam, or 2xtallboys, one under each wing................

and the tallboy was also a earthquake bomb, earthquake bomb wasn't a name for the grand slam, it was the type of bomb...............


----------



## Maestro (Sep 16, 2004)

Thank you all for the info on the "earthquake bomb".

And I agree with LG concerning the A-bomb. I saw a few movies of nuclear tests. Most of the damages were made by the pressure of the explosion.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 16, 2004)

Lanc,

"Early summer 1945, three Boeing B-29s were modified to carry a 22,000 lb Grand Slam on external bomb racks under each wing between the inboard engine and fuselage. After experiments at Eglin AAF in Florida, an order for fifty modified aircraft was placed. If the war hadn’t ended with the dropping of the atom bombs, dual Grand Slam B-29s might have been available to see action over Japan by the first week of September. Postwar publicity photographs never show more than three of the dual bomb modified B-29s flying in a formation. That may have been all that were built. Another B-29 was modified so that the lower part of the double bomb bay section would permit the semi external carriage of one large bomb (Tallboy, Grand Slam or T-12)."


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 17, 2004)

Awwww, I dunno ???!! - Tallboys and Grand Slams LOOK the same, just differ in weight n' dimension....Whadda you reckon, Lanc ?.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 18, 2004)

he's right, the bombs on the pic are tallboys, but that's an all up weight of 44,000lbs, are you sure??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 18, 2004)

It was tested post-war with a 42,000lb 'earthquake bomb' known as the T-12. I think it's possible.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 19, 2004)

The T-12 was just an absolutly insane weapon...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 19, 2004)

how much modification did it need for this??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 19, 2004)

Not an accessive amount. The main modification was to remove the bomb bay doors as well as a section of fuselage between the two bays allowing the bomb to be carried in a semi-recessed position. I imagine some weight saving measures were required but I'm not sure how extensive they were.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 20, 2004)

it would require huge weight saving measures................


----------



## hundy (Sep 25, 2004)

I would have to say that allied resources won the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 26, 2004)

or their weight in numbers................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

Radar won un the BoB, and Victory in the BoB was crucial.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 26, 2004)

but it only stoped the german advance, it was several years before we could counter attack..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

But if they'd taken Britain, we wouldnt have been able to counter attack at all. And Japan might not have attacked Pearl Harbour.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

There are 2 factors i think that won the war in the ETO... Strength in numbers, and the bombing of Germanys industrial might..... No oil, no ball bearings ect ect ect....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

It was a combination of lots of things to be honest


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

I would agree with u.. Hitler was a military moron... Kinda like having LBJ run the Vietnam war for us.....

But the 2 that made the biggest impact attrition-wise, were the ones I listed....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

I agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 26, 2004)

well partly their lack of fuel aswell................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

> No oil, no ball bearings ect ect ect....



I said that earlier....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

He knows, he just likes finding tacky excuses to post


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 27, 2004)

Trouble is, they didn't get on to those two target-types until much later in the War...Bomber Command didn't go for 'particular targets', preferring to lay waste to many different industries, wearing them down, city by city....But you are correct, they did get onto these 'panacea' targets, there were just an awful lot of other industries that had to be dealt with first, such as aircraft industries so that they could gain Air Superiority over Germany and the Occupied Countries....


----------



## johnny (Sep 27, 2004)

The Allies learnt well from the Germans.They had Fighter Command on her knees early September 1940 , then threw it away when they changed their attacks from airfields to London.That seemed to be Hitlers problem throughout the war.He always wanted more attacks on London , even when they brought out the Me262 fighter , he insisted on putting bombs on it and ruining the aircraft.Then there is his wasteful V1 and V2 programme.It just used up valuable resources and manpower that could have gone to fighters to defend Germany.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 27, 2004)

but what an amazing way to "waste" their resorces, the V2 was amazing..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

If the Germans had managed to develop the intended nuclear warhead for the V-2 we wouldn't be calling it a waste.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 27, 2004)

Could u have imagined the destruction.... You Brits would be speakin German right now.....


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 27, 2004)

I don't think there would've been much left to say at all.....Fortunately, Britain was in the loop about Germany's Nuclear program and Hitler's Dream was sunk by sinking a ship called the 'Hydro' on Lake Tunnsjo in Norway, in Feb. 1944. - They knew as far back as 1940 what was being developed, and because it was 'unbombable', it became a Commando job with some very courageous Norwegian and Swedish Underground help...
- It goes to show just how futuristic Hitler was thinking, the V2 being the world's first ICBM [Inter-continental ballistic missile], which became the terror of the later 'Cold War'....and that came about in the 'lolly-scramble by Russia and the Allies for Hitler's Scientists, as both Forces converged on central Germany leading up to VE Day....
- We've ALL been lucky so far, that no other nut has been allowed to develop Weaponry to that extent........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

The V-2 wasn't a true ICBM in that it lacked the range to strike another continent. It was, however, the first IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missle) and the forerunner of modern ICBMs.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 27, 2004)

Yeah, but the rudimentary idea was there, the V1 just chortled along at a lowish altitude, the V2 actually went right up into the whatsitsphere, which puts it into an entirely new-weapon catagory...we are splitting hairs here LG, it was essentially the first ICBM......


----------



## plan_D (Sep 27, 2004)

The Germans did actually have the worlds first ICBM on the drawing boards. It was designated the A10 and was capable of reaching New York. It was basically a collection of A4 (V2) which would fall away as they ran out of fuel. This being the same system used on space rockets to this day.


----------



## johnny (Sep 28, 2004)

Thank goodness for Lancasters and B-17s for blasting the nazis before they did do away with all civilization.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

It was a lot more than Lancasters and B-17s but I know what you're saying. The problem with World War 2 is that a lot of Germans were not out for what we believe they were. 
German General Staff did not even know what Hitler was planning. They were fighting for their Prussia. 

I doubt they would have destroyed the world. Plus the fact that even Hitler was trying to discover a compromise with the Western Allies in 1943 but because of Churchill and Roosevelt going for no other than total destruction of Germany. Germany had nothing to lose so they carried on.


----------



## johnny (Sep 28, 2004)

You got a point.I dont think many of the germans actually supported the nazis when the war started anyway.Am busy reading a book on german U-boats and 99% of the Kapitans hated hitler.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

I've just finished reading Panzer Leader by Heinz Guderian and Panzer Battles by Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin. They both were fighting for their country and were often ashamed of actions their country commited. The Panzer Leader is especially interesting because there's a lot about how the German General Staff were trying to convince Hitler not to go to Poland. 

Hitler didn't trust the German Army so he wasn't going to listen. I'm sure you know that's why the SS was getting more and more power as the war went on.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 28, 2004)

I do believe many in the German military (especially those on the Eastern Front) were fighting for their homeland. I would like to offer a word of caution, however, when reading these accounts of German officers. How many of them can honestly be expected to come out and say, "I loved Hitler! I was an ardent Nazi! I was fine with murdering the Jews!" In short, I think many of these people may be distancing themselves from Hitler not because of how they felt about him but because of how the world feels about him now.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

I do believe the words of Guderian because his attacks on Hitler were about the actual war not the genocide. Guderian was on the Eastern Front, and argued with Hitler on many occasions. One of those instances was about setting up formations for the 400,000 ex-Soviets that wanted to join the German army. Guderian would have much rather had them in the German army, than slaves. 

Guderian did not know about the 'Final Solution' until after the war when in an American PoW camp. Being from Prussia Guderian was fighting solely for his country. If you read Panzer Leader you can see that's all he was fighting for. "I'm doing what's best for Germany!" is something that Guderian shouted in Hitlers face when 'discussing' the Eastern front 1944. As you can imagine, that annoyed Hitler somewhat. 

PLus the fact, a lot of praise goes to Hitler. There's a whole section describing Hitlers perks and traits.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 28, 2004)

LG brings up a very valid point... And I dont believe for a second that ANY German General Officer didnt know about the Holocost atrocities as they were going on... Thats just plain Bullshizit....


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

How can you come to that conclusion? Hitler made sure the German General Staff only knew what they needed to know to complete their task. Hitler didn't trust the German Army and was therefore bitter towards them. 

The German Army was mostly fighting for Germany.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

> The German Army was mostly fighting for Germany.


I agree 100%....



> How can you come to that conclusion?


There such a thing called rumors.... Murmurs from High Command... Whispering on the phone... Many of the General staff were friendly, and kept in touch... Word Spread....

U cannot, and couldnt keep that a secret... The Allies knew about the death camps from prisioners and spys and photo recon.... They choose to keep their mouths shut till it became common knowledge...


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 29, 2004)

It was the SS Einsatzgruppen that came behind the advancing forces that commited the atrocities.....some Wehrmacht Generals were in the dark, and if they did catch-on, it was in their own self-preservation to keep shut about it. The SS was an autonomous force answerable only to Himmler and his staff...
As for the Kreigsmarine/Navy, they were of the 'old school' militarily, and didn't like Nazis from the word go......


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

The Germany Army only saw light with Hitler because he promised an expansion. The Allies did not know about half of the Death Camps until after the war. 
The few Generals that did know were executed, or relieved of service if they spoke up.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

The Allies may have only known about half of em, but they knew what was going on.... And I'm sure, any General in his right mind didnt say anything publicly about the Holocost... But most/some of them knew what was going on....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

Several higher-ups in the German authorities knew. There are some fairly credible conspiracy theories that Molders He-111 'accident' was because he knew the truth of, and opposed, several of Hitler's more atrocious practices. And even the German military commited plenty of atrocities. Does the Eastern front sound familiar to anyone? Maybe Malmedy?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

The Eastern Front is an excellent example to my point. In 1941 and 1942 the German Army with the German General Staff were cheered in by the Soviet states, and even some Russian towns and villages. They saw them as saviours to the Communist regime. 
400,000 Soviets were willing to join the German Army against Stalin. This was, of course, until the Allgemeine-SS with the Einzatscommando got involved and made them slaves, and executed thousands. The German Army being miles in front, and fighting had no time to care what was going on behind them. They were kept in the dark because Hitler made sure of it. 

Even then 38th SS-Division was Russian.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

I don't think that proves anything necessarily though. The moral odds on the Eastern Front were something like 6-5 and pick 'em. Both sides were guilty of plenty barbaric actions.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

The point is, the German Army didn't commit those acts nor did they know about them.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

Dude u can sit there and say that the Army had no knowledge of the killing and gassing and burning of hundreds of thousands and millions upon millions of Jews....

But u'd be wrong... Thats a secret no leader can hide, no matter how many people he executed to keep it a secret....


----------



## johnny (Sep 29, 2004)

It could be a secret if it were only a few people, but come on thousands of people being killed daily . Those in command , be it army , airforce or navy, must have had an idea.They just chose to ignore it.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

I think you'll find it is. The Germany Army was not at home, it did not come into contact with the Death Camps. They were miles away from home fighting, too busy to care what was going on at home. 

Most of them probably didn't even want to know what was going on at home. When on the Eastern Front, do you think that the German soldiers cared that their leader was so anti-Jew? No because they were too busy killing the Soviet soldiers up ahead. 

The communication between front and home was not to talk about the home front but to request permission to do jobs. Contact was with the OKH or OKW both of whom had no control or knowledge of the actions of the SS which was a branch in itself. 

There's no way of you proving that these men knew. Logically it's more believeable that a man in the middle of the Asian steppes fighting hordes of Soviet troops had no knowledge of what was going on behind him, than him knowing everything.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

We are talking about General officers here, not the average foot soldier.... Generals frequently made trips back to Berlin.... Conversations happen...

And yes, there is no way to verify this, because no General in his right mind would admit that he knew what was going on, cause it would condemn him along with Hitler and his movement....

"Jews??? Ovens??? Death Camps??? BAH! Absurd..."


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

The German Generals were mostly on the Front. Those trips back to Berlin were often brief (just a few hours) of which 90% of the time was spent in the presence of Hitler. As Hitler did not respect or even trust the Army he kept them in the dark about everything except what was required. 

Obviously some knew but I don't think many of them survived the war. Maybe those part of 20th July plot knew, that's why they planned it. We will never know but I personally believe that most of the German officers were telling the truth when they said they didn't know. 

Nuremberg judges seemed to have believed them too.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

How about the rape and torture of Russian women? I suppose the German staff officers ran around doing that? Obviously German foot soldiers were responsible for their fair share of such actions.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

A few German soldiers may have raped civilian women, but I dare say a few Americans did it too. The Soviets were cheering them in, in places so its pretty obvious the German soldiers weren't too bad. Especially when 400,000 Soviets offer to join the German army. 

The Russians were much worse than the Germans. Since they won, they will not be judged. In fact even the Einzatskommando were ed by the actions of the Ukrainians they sent in to put down the Warsaw uprising.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 29, 2004)

is it true that some SS officers went to a hide out and were planning to go to south america and continue natzism.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

Several theories about the exist. Several U-Boats did set sail with the intention of reaching South America but most (if not all of them) ended up surrendering. The name I have heard mentioned most often is Martin Borman.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

Actually a lot of SS and German officers reached South America. There was/is a German hotel in the Andies Mountains which many went to. Some say Hitler went there...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2004)

I would have to say that the Battle of Atlantic, Stalingrad, and the fact that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. If the Germans had been able to control the north atlantic then much needed supplies would never have gotten to England. If HItler had not made the mistake to turn away from Moscow and head to Stalingrad either out of pride or the fact that it was named after Stalin Russia would have fallen and then it would have been a 1 front war again. And if the Japs had not pissed off the US it would have just been Germany versus England, and lets face it at the time it would have taken a miracle for England to stop the Germany wehrmacht. I think everything happened the way it was supposed to and turned out for the best.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 16, 2004)

Not everything though; some things just werent needed, like the holocaust


----------



## johnny (Nov 17, 2004)

The only thing in my mind that cost the krauts the war was the cancellation of Operation Sealion.Had Britain been invaded there would have been no Battle of the Atlantic and a lot more troops available for the ilfated Operation Barberossa.What might have helped was if the Japs had not taken on the yanks but had rather attacked the commies.I almost doubt that the end result of WW2 would have been changed though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 17, 2004)

> lets face it at the time it would have taken a miracle for England to stop the Germany wehrmacht



most say it would have been a miracle for the RAF to beat the luftwaffe in 1940, but we did, and after nearly a thousand years without being successfully invaded, we've taken something of a disliking towards being invaded, we wouldn't sit back and let it happen in the same way the japs were sitting in their huts sharpening bamboo to fight off the yanks....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

If the entire German army invaded us in 1940 we would have been buggered...Britain werent - and arent invincible, lanc.


----------



## johnny (Nov 18, 2004)

As Winston said "we will fight on the beaches , landing grounds and in the air , we will never surrender". Gotta love him.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 18, 2004)

Yeah but that was the drink talking


----------



## johnny (Nov 19, 2004)

I gotta me some of that!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2004)

The other day our history teacher openly admitted she was gasping for some vodka


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2004)

and amazingy there were no Russain conspiricy theories.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2004)

Apart from ours...


----------



## johnny (Nov 20, 2004)

He didnt drink vodka! Me thinks he wea a whiskey drinker.What ever it was he did tend to slur and slobber a lot . Have listened to many of his speeches and even though he sounds plastered most of the time , his words are inspiring.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Being British I think he probably drank brandy


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

or a nice single malt wiskey.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

I dont believe the Brits won the BoB as so much the Germans lost it..... If the Luftwaffe had kept on bombing ur airfeilds and aircraft on the ground instead of bombing London and Industrials, u guys over there on that small island would be speaking fluent German and eating Weinerschnitzel....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Yup, luckily Hitler was moronic


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Yup.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Speaking of famous leaders, lastnights episode of father ted was hilarious...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

PFFFFFftttttt.... Farther who???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Father Ted - A British sitcom set on "Craggy Island" which is a small island off the coast of Ireland. Its about a bunch of corrupt priests and vicars...most hilarious  Lastnights episode was particularly hilarious though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

but les you can't say that the determination, bravery and skill of the RAF pilots had nothing to do with it...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

No i cannot.. They were unbelievable in the face of overwhelming odds... Brave men everyone of them, knowing that when that siren goes off and they scramble, that some will not be landing, and it might likely be u not returning, and still strapping in and goin up....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2004)

As for the discussion on the German army not knowing about the autrocities that were going on in Germany, I have to agree for the most part. My Grandfather was a Major in Wehrmacht. He served most of the war on the EAstern Front and fought in Stallingrad. He did not learn of the concentration camps until he went home in 1948. He is dead now but I will always remember how he told me what it felt like to learn of them. A big misconception is that all Germans were Nazis. That is not true. It is hard to live under a dictator as ruthless as Hitler was.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2004)

i hate it when people say they hate the germans, everytime they say that i'll ask them why, they either can't give me a reason or they say because of the war, what a bunce of wankers.....................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

I dont think you can hate people because of the past or because of there herritage. You have to look into them and know them before you judge them. Yes Hitler was one of the most terrible men in the history of the entire world but can you condemn a nation of people for what he did. If you spoke out against him you were killed along with your family. I am over here fighting in Iraq, did I like Saddam, no I hated him but do I hate the Iraqi people? No, I have no malice towards them and I hope they too can overcome this dark period in there history.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

It wasnt even the Germans that were bad in the war - just the Nazi's. Most Germans hated the Nazis but they were too scared to do anything about it so they just sat it out. Its not fair to dislike Germans for something they couldnt really help - they were tricked.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

The sad thing is that Hitler was not even German he was Austrian.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

Was he? I didnt know that...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Yeap sure was, he wanted to be a painter but all the art professors said he was not talented eneogh.


----------

