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.
One thing that many military buffs overlook was possibly the biggest factor in disabling Nazi Germany was the Allies' relentless air attacks on railroad switching yards, petroleum distilling plants and apparent ball bearing factories.
RR yards: gums up the 'works' i.e. getting men and materiel to the front lines
Cracking plants: tough to operate Messerschmidt, etc. fighter/bomber planes with no gasoline
Ball bearing facilities: unlike large panels i.e. tank armor, etc. which can be made with (relatively) low skill/equipment levels----------things like ball bearings are both precision and require special steels.
But the air raids effect was only decisive after Germany was already doomed. It hastened rather than caused its defeat. The primary reason German lost was its huge losses on the Eastern Front.
But the air raids effect was only decisive after Germany was already doomed. It hastened rather than caused its defeat. The primary reason German lost was its huge losses on the Eastern Front.
Remember it was very close for the USSR----------Hitler's big mistake was not taking out Moscow when it still had the resources to do so.
Taking Moscow would only have been critical if the Russians had surrendered after it fell. If not the manpower and space of the Soviet Union would have gobbled up the Germans regardless. And given the german racial policies, surrender was not an option for the Russians. As long as the Russians refused to surrender Germany was doomed. Napoleon took Moscow and had his army destroyed.
There was no way Germany could have prevailed. They were doomed from the start. Their population was too small and our navy too powerful. We could have just kept sending the fruits of our industrial might across the Atlantic. Once we had the Japanese under control we would have turned our entire force against them.
I can relate to the 105mm Howitzer in Korea...not sure to what extent in WW11. We were on the central front in North Korea with a lot of large hills and small mountains to shoot over. The Chinese were at the far side of a mountain with our FO (forward observer) on top calling in co ordinates for us to fire upon. Our ammo was mostly WW1 powder and shells with many bad fuses.
We had a problem hitting a group of Chinese soldiers that were eating a meal with the knowledge our shells were dropping short or not exploding. We called in a 155mm battery on half tracks over night and the next day the enemy soldiers bodies were flying all over the place from direct hits. This was told to me by the FO who came down off the hill for R&R rest...a beer or two and played poker with us in our bunker.
By coincidence I met a man at the VA hospital who was in our Infantry Div on the line we supported and he told me that our firing was pretty accurate.
As to the 105mm being on a tank or half track is news to me WW11 or Korea.
Taking Moscow would only have been critical if the Russians had surrendered after it fell. If not the manpower and space of the Soviet Union would have gobbled up the Germans regardless. And given the german racial policies, surrender was not an option for the Russians. As long as the Russians refused to surrender Germany was doomed. Napoleon took Moscow and had his army destroyed.
And Russia collapsed during WW I and was under partial de facto German control till the latter surrendered.
Again: Hitler; idiot that he was, he could have taken down the USSR once he destroyed Moscow (but he backed off at the last minute)..........Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc. would have fallen in succession IMHO.
The 105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M7 was an Americanself-propelled artillery vehicle produced during World War II. It was given the official service name 105 mm Self Propelled Gun, Priest by the British service, due to the pulpit-like machine gun ring and following on from the Bishop and the contemporaneous Deacon self-propelled guns.
And Russia collapsed during WW I and was under partial de facto German control till the latter surrendered.
Again: Hitler; idiot that he was, he could have taken down the USSR once he destroyed Moscow (but he backed off at the last minute)..........Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc. would have fallen in succession IMHO.
I don't think Hitler *could* have taken Moscow. His troops took heavy loses in the summer campaign without any reinforcements. Most divisions were shadows of their former selves by the time they reached Moscow. The only way Hitler could have succeeded is if he started the invasion a month or more earlier than he did (which he could not because his troops were still in the Balkans at the time).
Also, I think it's doubtful that the loss of Moscow, a serious setback to be sure, would have lead to a Soviet collapse. WWI is different in that, first of all, most Russians didn't view that war as one of survival. Second of all, as brutal as Stalin's regime was with its total control of the propaganda machine, NKVD, the military, and the economy, it had its advantages. Stalin spent the better part of two decades prior to the war preparing the country exactly for this kind of all out, no holds barred struggle. Even to this day many Russians give him a lot of credit for this.
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.
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.
