Hitler would've won the war if. . .

[joea]

Well, here is one dissenting view (I don't his guys arguments, but it gives one something to think about) on Germany's best chance to win.

http://militera.lib.ru/h/stolfi/
Interesting read.

[Type941]

Originally Posted by ChokerSandwich

He wouldn't have made so many costly mistakes!

Do you agree?

If he wouldn't have wasted time with building mk1 and mk2 tanks, or properly equipped them, or used sloping armor from early war, or the 37mm pak guns were actually accounting for fact that other tanks had armour thicker than they could penetrate, or that war was about commanders judged on success not ability to carryout stupid orders, a lot of things would have been different,....

Had Hitler not spend tonnes of steel on armor for westwall, but for tanks, he could have had more of them as well. A lot in WW2 is about Germany actually having ****ty equipment until it got too late. Really.

[STEED]

And one more never ever wake Hitler up even if the Allies landed in Normandy, to late they landed.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Type941

A lot in WW2 is about Germany actually having ****ty equipment until it got too late. Really.

Not all of it was ****ty some was just well made junk like all those Bolt Action rifles they used. See why the US really turned the war in Europe around? With the M1 we could simply shoot way faster, also the Garand was hard to reload with half a clip so troops with them would just expend the remaining rounds so the enemy got a few “bonus� rounds shot at them. You just got to love a gun that encourages its shooter to fire more rounds than necessary to hit the target.

Plus that ‘PING’ sound the Garand makes when the spent clip is ejected is scientifically proven to hurt the ears of Fascists.

[Type941]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Not all of it was ****ty some was just well made junk like all those Bolt Action rifles they used. See why the US really turned the war in Europe around? With the M1 we could simply shoot way faster, also the Garand was hard to reload with half a clip so troops with them would just expend the remaining rounds so the enemy got a few “bonus� rounds shot at them. You just got to love a gun that encourages its shooter to fire more rounds than necessary to hit the target.

Plus that ‘PING’ sound the Garand makes when the spent clip is ejected is scientifically proven to hurt the ears of Fascists.

You still can't repute the fact that it took about 2 to 3 allied soldiers to kill a German one. Now that's embarassing. Even more so was the fact that France was military superior to Germany when the war started.

Just reading about the forts in Fermont. The coolest thing is misinterpretation of Maginot Line. IT's been built precisely to force Germany to invade through Belgium, and french would fight germans there in offensive strategy, but sadly the military thought in France took different turn. However the forts they build with defences and all were bloody impossible to breakthrough, had they been used as intended (to support troop mobilazations behind lines and hold enemy for few weeks) lots of things would have been different.

I don't think the rifle americans used was much decisive on big scale. The germans as mentioned, were much more effective in useing the equiment they had.

Also, another fact rarely mentioned in traditional history books, is that a huge majority of casulties in WW2 was NOT caused by bullets. It was caused by shellfire. And germans had their shells somewhat much beter at causing damage. In WW1, the majority of casulties on contrary, were caused by bullets.


And here's another fact. Germans Mk1 and Mk2 tanks that they had when war started, were armored WORSE than the Renault tanks french had in WW1. So much for the myth of mechanized army of the Nazis! :|\

[STEED]

True the Panzer 1 and 2 were rubbish and long out of date by 1940.

[Type941]

never mind using 100hp engines to move tanks weing 6-10 tonnes...


Than there was the whole 'let's use the czech tanks' phaze. Oh there really was a lot of things that is little told about how actually flawed the german machine was.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Type941

You still can't repute the fact that it took about 2 to 3 allied soldiers to kill a German one. Now that's embarassing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that there was a 3 to 1 kill ratio in favor of the Germans or did the Allied soldiers just gang up on a lone German. A single guy is very hard to elimnate compaired to a group.

Also, another fact rarely mentioned in traditional history books, is that a huge majority of casulties in WW2 was NOT caused by bullets. It was caused by shellfire. And germans had their shells somewhat much beter at causing damage. In WW1, the majority of casulties on contrary, were caused by bullets.

You are forgetting supression fire. A gun with a higher rate of fire allows you to pin your enemy down allowing you to take him out with indirect fire weapons (shells) or CAS.

[Type941]

obviously i mean the efficiency.

He might have won had he shaved off that ridiculous mustache. He looks like he's got a little vagina on his face! :rotfl:

[Type XXIII]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

All evil is at some point or another doomed to failure.

History shows us that good always wins eventually because it is the victorious who write history. :hmm:



Anyway, concerning my claims earlier this thread, I've done some slightly better research and found out my sources were rather thin. (Secondary online sources quoting a revisionist essay.)

Still, it is an interesting theory, and I still belive, as most of Hitler's generals, that a war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia was inevitable.

And concerning Mauser K98k vs. M1 Garand.

They are different rifles, representing different doctrines. American infantry doctrine was based around the riflemen, while the German infantry doctrine was based more around the machine gun team.

The Garand might be better than the Mauser for suppressive fire, but that doesn't matter much, when the Germans are supported by a MG42.

You can't really say which one is better, as both doctrines have their advantages and disadvantages. The American doctrine is the one that has survived, but that is because of technological improvement as well as its efficiency.

[micky1up]

oh right ok good vs evil one dictator against another here stalin was just as mad and dangerous as hitler i think the words you were looking for was nessessary good as opposed to nessesary evil

Stalin was more mad and evil than Hitler. In Hitlers words "If you want to know who is the most evil dictator, look to the North (Russia - Stalin). With 27 million of Stalins' own people murdered during his reign, he sure tops Hilter on that one.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by U-552Erich-Topp

Stalin was more mad and evil than Hitler. In Hitlers words "If you want to know who is the most evil dictator, look to the North (Russia - Stalin). With 27 million of Stalins' own people murdered during his reign, he sure tops Hilter on that one.

That's a pretty unintelligent approach I think. It's like trying to say "Who's worse - Charlie Manson or Ted Bundy", or something like that. You'd be falling into Stalin's own trap of "A million is just a statistic".

The bottom line on Stalin is that, given the choice between Hitler and him, Stalin was the far lesser evil both for the Soviet people and the wider world.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Type XXIII

History shows us that good always wins eventually because it is the victorious who write history. :hmm:

An overly repeated quote which is gibberish.