BF2S Forums What could have been done better in WWII?

Hmm. . .so which is it? Germans or French win in your opinion?

Germans, if you would be interested with my opinion. Mostly because Wehrmacht had already a lot of battle experience and better morale.

Last edited by AndrewKF (2007-03-29 13:29:34)

Ok, and who is that directed to?  You say "you" so I thought I'd ask.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

In WWII If your were winning your tanks weren't slugging it out with other tanks.

Uh, yes they were.  In fact, many attribute the Russian victory to the fact that whilst German tanks were considered superior the Russians had three times as many, meaning that they could just swarm the Germans.

Yes they could " Swarm " the Germans and often did. The USSR tactics were never thrifty with the soldiers lives. Their numbers were their asset. Would they have rather found a week spot and punch through into rear areas?  They did it often especially with fast moving armor units supported by highly mobile Cavalry which did well in rugged terrain and could easily keep up. The Soviet Army loved to encircle when it could. Slugging it out head to head may give you a win when you lack the ability or mobility to maneuver, which incidentally became their doctrine later. 

Bubbalo wrote:

When the Germans went through France they didn't fight much, but that's because France was in the middle of a depression and had a barely functioning military, which the Germans walked around rather than facing in combat.

My point exactly they didn't slug it out. France had a pretty big good professional army and good armor but.. they did have a very long frontier to protect and some weak kneed neighbors who refused to grasp the big picture and possible long range results despite the fact that a petty tyrant on the rise had put all his thoughts down on paper for his faithful and anyone else to read...sound familiar. The German armor was exactly what could exploit that. The didn't Find the French tanks or even try and go looking for them, they bypassed them. Many men were captured still on parade grounds.   
You are correct, in your point too. it was not the only reason they achieved victory.
The French were and are Deadly efficient soldiers they just lacked a cohesive political will in their leadership. In the end Some sold them out just for a chance to hold a little power, shit never ends really...

But even when the Soviet army encircled the Germans it was tanks that killed other tanks.  That was the job of a tank.  The only time that a victorious army's tanks didn't fight other tanks in large amounts was when the Germans took France and that was because there was little fighting.

Yes, but even when encircling they had to destroy tanks to break through lines.  In fact, the only major instance of an encircled German force was Stalingrad.

Ryan wrote:

Tried to find something like this, but couldn't.

What do you guys think could have been done better in WWII?
Things that could have increased the overall casualty loss, increased the number of battles won, etc.

I guess you could post things from any war as well.

Chemical weapons can really turn the tide in a loosing battle, and they were far better at that time then in WWI. Zyklon-B, for example, was already mass produced in Germany. They should have been used more extensively by both sides, that would sure increase the overall casualty loss.

Last edited by EVieira (2007-03-30 09:41:41)

Spearhead wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

That's what we are doing in Iraq right now, Rebuilding,

We never left Germany after W.W.II despite guerilla attacks.

The last Japanese soldier finally gave up in 1974, some people never catch on though, good post !

World War Two and the Iraq war are two completely different situations.  Its funny when people compare the two as if they're anywhere close to being similar.

I never said they were close to being similar what I said was

" what we are doing in Iraq right now, [is] Rebuilding," I also stated

" we never left Germany after W.W.II despite guerilla attacks."

I did not mention that during both Japan and Germanys occupation we had to constantly deal with the subterfuge of an ally who turned hostile towards us. The Berlin airlift was considered a great triumph would it be reported as such if it needed and executed in Iraq?

Spearhead wrote:

1. Iraq was a colony.  Germany wasn't.  That may not seem like a big deal, but it is.  Iraqis borders aren't what trhey should be.  Iraq "should" be many smaller territories, and that means Iran should probably have some of it, maybe the same with turkey and Syria.  Again, don't compare European countries which are for the most part have well-developed borders with former colonies which have pretty bad borders.

bare with my spelling attempts but ...good stable european borders ?

Are you aware of "Alsace Lorraine" or "the Sudatan Land ", "The Franco Prussian War" or "The Polish Corridor"

More to the point is the land there ( Iraq had been ) colonized back when they were mostly tribes as local government and communication between factions was limited how far you could ride in a day. Times change. It may take a generation or to but these people are embracing there freedom and have exponentially more information available to them then they did under Sadam, when you needed permission to own a TV. Those crucial days are lost to the people who needed to keep the Iraqis dumbed down and they will never return. The naive sucker expecting to receive 72 virgin is no longer being breed in Iraq. thank God

Spearhead wrote:

2. Germanys society was relatively stable after WW2, during the rebuilding, while Iraqis is anything but that.

in my opinion you could not honestly call German Society stable much before 1938 or after 1944. it was the most rubbled city in history with The USSR occupying 1/2 sponsoring a rape fest daily, But we will have to have the word of some old German to give the last word on that

Spearhead wrote:

The violence in Iraq may not be big enough or organized enough to call it a civil war, but one thing is certain: Iraq is much worse off after invasion than Germany was.  Rebuilding won't be quite the same.

I contest this point also. The bombing of Iraq was nothing compared to what Germany suffered, During "shock and Awe " Even the Iraqis knew that military installations only were being struck. You could see cars driving and even waiting at red lights during the height of the bombing I am told that Berlin (built on a flat plain) is now ringed with three huge hills made of cleared rubble, is this true? My old GF told me about it. Bombs are still being found at construction sites. Besides the struggle to secure power in the new government I think it takes quite a bit of license to state "Iraq is much worse off after invasion than Germany was," and I would never say it with certainty as I am not there nor have I been, My friends have. Perhaps we can get a Veteran to weigh in. I believe their are many in this forum. In my opinion if we turned Iraq into the moonscape that German cities had become we could win the Surviving population over with a Hershey bar and a bottle of water. Our entire effort was designed to spare life and target only combatants. everyone knows this. If it were not true the insurgents would wear uniforms, They know they are safe when disguised as civilians

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-03-30 12:52:09)

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Patton and Hanz Gurdien [sp]  allways looked for the strong point and avoided it use the tanks mobility to race through a weak point before it could be renforced. I would rather starve my enemy to death than fight him fairly, Stalingrad was a good example of an Army defeated with starvation. you make all good piont

It's Heinz Guderian.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Patton and Hanz Gurdien [sp]  allways looked for the strong point and avoided it use the tanks mobility to race through a weak point before it could be renforced. I would rather starve my enemy to death than fight him fairly, Stalingrad was a good example of an Army defeated with starvation. you make all good piont

It's Heinz Guderian.

ty for the [sp] didn't feel like a google

No problem. I just know how to spell it since he's my best general in a game I'm playing.

i think we could have completely avoided WWII if we had just given everything to Hitler

Or France. Or Russia. Or the UK.

Shall I go on?

thats goig to be our strategy if the democracts have their way