Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol. Almost the whole Europe was overrun in no time. Soviet Union lost millions and something like 20k tanks just in Barbarossa, before finally making the stop.
Because the Germans had better guns. Which is what the OP is refering to.
That is not the case. It was not a matter of calibers and firepower, it was one of doctrine. BEF Matilda tanks and French Char B1s were more than a match for anything that the Wehrmacht fielded, and deployed in higher numbers. But, as it turns out, the wrong way.
The strategy wasn't good. They were also outgunned when they fighting began. Avoiding losses was in Germanys strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but reality in 1940 proved you wrong.
lol No it didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
You have stumbled onto something as close to the truth as anything you've posted, here. It's called tactics, and people have dedicated entire careers to studying and developing those. The Wehrmacht had implemented an entirely new doctrine for mobile warfare, and the Allies were outmaneuvered. In a very real sense, yes - the Wehrmacht ran much faster than anyone thought possible.
Yes they were out manuvered but it wasn't new. It has been done before, getting to a point first and establishing a strong position has to do with being more mobile at times. If you are saying Germany did a very long end run and that length of a manuever wasn't done before I can see that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
It's what happened. The French and the BEF were out-generaled, not outgunned. The Germans seized the initiative, made the Allies fight on German terms, and the Allies found their bigger guns and heavier tanks counted for nothing, because they weren't in the right place at the right time.
But the German big guns were. That's the point. When the fur started to fly they were out gunned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
The side with the biggest guns doesn't invariably win, and history is replete with empires who crumbled due to just that way of thinking.
Empires crumble when they expand beyond their means. Germany was a prime example.
No ones making the argument that if the a Jew had a tank that person could have staved off Germans. What the point is, at a minimum, many would have escaped harm and escaped using guns as self defense.
The strategy wasn't good. They were also outgunned when they fighting began. Avoiding losses was in Germanys strategy.
lol No it didn't.
Yes they were out manuvered but it wasn't new. It has been done before, getting to a point first and establishing a strong position has to do with being more mobile at times. If you are saying Germany did a very long end run and that length of a manuever wasn't done before I can see that point.
But the German big guns were. That's the point. When the fur started to fly they were out gunned.
Empires crumble when they expand beyond their means. Germany was a prime example.
No ones making the argument that if the a Jew had a tank that person could have staved off Germans. What the point is, at a minimum, many would have escaped harm and escaped using guns as self defense.
'Murica or Switzerland or Spain or Sweden or Turkey.
Why would you think they had no place to go? lol
Actually, I'm thinking about how they would get there. It's not like many Jews didn't try to escape. A lucky few managed. But shooting their way out wasn't how they did it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.