About whom are you talking? The British or the German?Varegg wrote:
Without a doubt the one that controlled the air controlled the outcome of WW2 and it`s importance haven`t grown smaller to this date !
Poll
Which One Was the Most Important in WWII?
| Infantry | 25% | 25% - 30 | ||||
| Air Force | 32% | 32% - 39 | ||||
| Navy | 4% | 4% - 5 | ||||
| Armor | 4% | 4% - 5 | ||||
| Logistics | 26% | 26% - 32 | ||||
| Other | 7% | 7% - 9 | ||||
| Total: 120 | ||||||
Both ..... Germany had a waste amount of planes and totally new tactics on how to use them in the early stages of the war with great sucess, once the Luftwaffe was decimated during the Battle of Britain and the leftovers where lost over Russia the turn of the tide for Germany began and the allies ruled the skies for the reminder of the war.Stormscythe wrote:
About whom are you talking? The British or the German?Varegg wrote:
Without a doubt the one that controlled the air controlled the outcome of WW2 and it`s importance haven`t grown smaller to this date !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Last time I checked them flyboys aren't on the ground moving the front lines.Varegg wrote:
Without a doubt the one that controlled the air controlled the outcome of WW2 and it`s importance haven`t grown smaller to this date !CameronPoe wrote:
Air force of course.
I voted for logistics, because without it, war machines fall flat on their faces.
We are talking about WW2 not present date, during WW2 the importance of logistics where in the early stages of development and hardly such a factor as it is today.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Last time I checked them flyboys aren't on the ground moving the front lines.Varegg wrote:
Without a doubt the one that controlled the air controlled the outcome of WW2 and it`s importance haven`t grown smaller to this date !CameronPoe wrote:
Air force of course.
I voted for logistics, because without it, war machines fall flat on their faces.
And you are correct about the flyboys not being on the ground, that`s why we call them flyboys
And another note concerning that, look at WW1 where the airforce wasn`t such a significant factor, how was the frontline moved ? .... by infantry ? .... no, it was hardly moved at all !
Last edited by Varegg (2007-03-24 10:07:27)
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Logistics of course. The fact that America was the only nation actively participating in the war whose factories and such were out of the enemy's reach, made them very powerful. It's not so much the American soldiers as the constant stream of supplies and material coming from America that won the war. GG allies.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
I am talking about WWII. Big example of logistics is the Battle of the Bulge. Look what happened because of over-extended supply lines.Varegg wrote:
We are talking about WW2 not present date, during WW2 the importance of logistics where in the early stages of development and hardly such a factor as it is today.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Last time I checked them flyboys aren't on the ground moving the front lines.Varegg wrote:
Without a doubt the one that controlled the air controlled the outcome of WW2 and it`s importance haven`t grown smaller to this date !
I voted for logistics, because without it, war machines fall flat on their faces.
And you are correct about the flyboys not being on the ground, that`s why we call them flyboys
And another note concerning that, look at WW1 where the airforce wasn`t such a significant factor, how was the frontline moved ? .... by infantry ? .... no, it was hardly moved at all !
A better example of over-extended supply lines would be with the AfricaKorps in North Africa. During the Battle of the Bulge, there were other deciding factors at play, such as weather and terrain. The way the Ardennes forest is landscaped, the only method of moving armor through it is using roads, and during the winter, dirt gets mixed wiht the snow, creating mud. Over-extended supply lines were not as much of a problem for the Germans.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
I am talking about WWII. Big example of logistics is the Battle of the Bulge. Look what happened because of over-extended supply lines.
During the war in North Africa, the Germans over-extended their supply lines to insanely long distances. I remember reading about German tankers just getting out of their tanks and retreating to Tunisia on foot. Not to mention, all supplies for the German military in North Africa had to be shipped through the Mediterranean Sea, which was also a deciding factor when the Allies began attacking shipping lanes.
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-03-24 12:33:24)
The RAF saved britain, simple as that.
Its always the AIR FORCE.
If you dont own the skies, you will get your ass kicked on the water, on the land and anywhere else you might hide.
If you dont own the skies, you will get your ass kicked on the water, on the land and anywhere else you might hide.
I hate threads like this.
If they didn't have an infantry, they were screwed.
If they didn't have a navy, they were screwed.
If they didn't have an airforce, they were screwed.
If they didn't have tanks, they were royally fucked.
If they didn't have logistics... how do you fight a war without logistics?
If they didn't have an infantry, they were screwed.
If they didn't have a navy, they were screwed.
If they didn't have an airforce, they were screwed.
If they didn't have tanks, they were royally fucked.
If they didn't have logistics... how do you fight a war without logistics?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yes but which one had the most impact? It's like football. You need all 11 players on the field but the quarterback carriers the most responsibility.Spark wrote:
I hate threads like this.
If they didn't have an infantry, they were screwed.
If they didn't have a navy, they were screwed.
If they didn't have an airforce, they were screwed.
If they didn't have tanks, they were royally fucked.
If they didn't have logistics... how do you fight a war without logistics?
Airborne to me. If it weren't for Britain's Airborne then Germany would of probably successfully invaded Britain.
I have no idea.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Yes but which one had the most impact? It's like football. You need all 11 players on the field but the quarterback carriers the most responsibility.Spark wrote:
I hate threads like this.
If they didn't have an infantry, they were screwed.
If they didn't have a navy, they were screwed.
If they didn't have an airforce, they were screwed.
If they didn't have tanks, they were royally fucked.
If they didn't have logistics... how do you fight a war without logistics?
Probably logistics. It's kinda hard to plan an army if you don't know where you're going.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Infantry/Air force/Armor.
yes well u need planes, ships and land vehicles to move things, including troops.
even without the logistics for fuel no vehicles would have been operative. then u get people saying "food"... well what gets the food to the troops guys? think before u post guys thanks
even without the logistics for fuel no vehicles would have been operative. then u get people saying "food"... well what gets the food to the troops guys? think before u post guys thanks
Last edited by tktarget (2007-03-25 03:43:21)
Learn to spot non-serious posts...tktarget wrote:
yes well genius u need planes, ships and land vehicles to move things, including troops.Spearhead wrote:
Without infantry, you can't invade a country. Without a Navy, you can't ship infantry to other continents.paranoid101 wrote:
Logistics, all the other are useless without them.
even without the logistics for fuel no vehicles would have been operative. then u get people saying "food"... well what gets the food to the troops guys? think before u post guys thanks
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I've already said this twice, it seems no one reads the other posts.tktarget wrote:
yes well u need planes, ships and land vehicles to move things, including troops.
even without the logistics for fuel no vehicles would have been operative. then u get people saying "food"... well what gets the food to the troops guys? think before u post guys thanks
Holy crap some people need to read up on their warhistory and to read the conclusions of several warhistorians that almost unified classifies the invention of air tactics and proper use of the airforce as a major factor as to who was winning the battles in WW2.
As earlier mentioned logistics as the means of having a decisive impact on WW2 it really didn`t, yes they drove fuel to the tanks and they drove food to the troops but logistics didn`t play the major role in THAT war as it has done in later conflicts, not even in Vietnam did logistics play an important role.
And if as some of you claim it was so important why was it so obviously overlooked in the Battle of the Bulge, the German campaign in Africa, the Ardennes offencive and most importantly in Operation Barbarossa ?
The failure of logistics during WW2 is obvious and thus it wasn`t even close to being the most important factor !
As earlier mentioned logistics as the means of having a decisive impact on WW2 it really didn`t, yes they drove fuel to the tanks and they drove food to the troops but logistics didn`t play the major role in THAT war as it has done in later conflicts, not even in Vietnam did logistics play an important role.
And if as some of you claim it was so important why was it so obviously overlooked in the Battle of the Bulge, the German campaign in Africa, the Ardennes offencive and most importantly in Operation Barbarossa ?
The failure of logistics during WW2 is obvious and thus it wasn`t even close to being the most important factor !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Logistics is the movement of supplies from the factories and production facilities, all the way to the front line where it is deployed and used.Varegg wrote:
Holy crap some people need to read up on their warhistory and to read the conclusions of several warhistorians that almost unified classifies the invention of air tactics and proper use of the airforce as a major factor as to who was winning the battles in WW2.
As earlier mentioned logistics as the means of having a decisive impact on WW2 it really didn`t, yes they drove fuel to the tanks and they drove food to the troops but logistics didn`t play the major role in THAT war as it has done in later conflicts, not even in Vietnam did logistics play an important role.
And if as some of you claim it was so important why was it so obviously overlooked in the Battle of the Bulge, the German campaign in Africa, the Ardennes offencive and most importantly in Operation Barbarossa ?
The failure of logistics during WW2 is obvious and thus it wasn`t even close to being the most important factor !
So, logisitcs didn't have a decisive impact on WW2 eh? Damn, you should've told the Germans that, if they had known they had tanks that could repair/rearm/refuel THEMSELVES, all those men who never needed food, water, medical supplies, or ammunition, and a fleet of ships that never needed to be refit, they would be sitting in Washington right now!!!!
In case you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.
Now, onto the next batch of foolishness. Logistics were not over looked in the battle of the bulge, hell, that entire offensive was based around the idea of severing the allied advance from their deep water ports, cutting their LOGISTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN, and forcing the armies to retreat or starve to death. The only reason the German and Italian forces lost in North Africa, was because the British and American fleets cut their LOGISTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN from mainland Europe. Same with Operation Barbarosa, the Germans advanced too far into Russia, too fast, so they're LOGISTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN didn't have time to get organized enough to move the necessary men, material, and weapons the thousands of miles from the factories in Germany, to the Russian front.
Did you just debate in favor of my previous statement or did you intend another ending for your post ?=JoD=Corithus wrote:
Now, onto the next batch of foolishness. Logistics were not over looked in the battle of the bulge, hell, that entire offensive was based around the idea of severing the allied advance from their deep water ports, cutting their LOGISTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN, and forcing the armies to retreat or starve to death. The only reason the German and Italian forces lost in North Africa, was because the British and American fleets cut their LOGISTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN from mainland Europe. Same with Operation Barbarosa, the Germans advanced too far into Russia, too fast, so they're LOGISTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN didn't have time to get organized enough to move the necessary men, material, and weapons the thousands of miles from the factories in Germany, to the Russian front.
So if logistics won battles in WW2 why did the Generals allow their armies to stretch the supply lines to the extent where they couldn`t follow their own troops ?
The allies cut the supply lines to africa by sea, the Germans could still airlift supplies couldn`t they ?
Even Saladin knew the value of water for his troops when he marched from Damaskus to Jerusalem but the logistics didn`t win the battle for him either !
I`m not saying they didn`t have logistics in WW2 and that they didn`t use it, i`m merely stating it wasn`t such an important factor as the tactical use of the airforce !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Infantry. The war was won on the Eastern front, and all the Russians had going for them was manpower.
Having said that, any one of those relied upon the support of the others.
Having said that, any one of those relied upon the support of the others.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-03-25 04:50:46)
No, the Germans could not airlift in supplies, because a ship, can, amazingly enough, I know, shoot down an aircraft!!! Not to mention the fact that a JU-52, the most common transport aircraft used by Nazi germany, couldn't carry a tank, artillery piece, truck, or any vehicle of any kind, period, and less than 20 men.Varegg wrote:
Did you just debate in favor of my previous statement or did you intend another ending for your post ?=JoD=Corithus wrote:
Now, onto the next batch of foolishness. Logistics were not over looked in the battle of the bulge, hell, that entire offensive was based around the idea of severing the allied advance from their deep water ports, cutting their LOGISTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN, and forcing the armies to retreat or starve to death. The only reason the German and Italian forces lost in North Africa, was because the British and American fleets cut their LOGISTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN from mainland Europe. Same with Operation Barbarosa, the Germans advanced too far into Russia, too fast, so they're LOGISTICAL SUPPLY CHAIN didn't have time to get organized enough to move the necessary men, material, and weapons the thousands of miles from the factories in Germany, to the Russian front.
So if logistics won battles in WW2 why did the Generals allow their armies to stretch the supply lines to the extent where they couldn`t follow their own troops ?
The allies cut the supply lines to africa by sea, the Germans could still airlift supplies couldn`t they ?
Even Saladin knew the value of water for his troops when he marched from Damaskus to Jerusalem but the logistics didn`t win the battle for him either !
I`m not saying they didn`t have logistics in WW2 and that they didn`t use it, i`m merely stating it wasn`t such an important factor as the tactical use of the airforce !
"So if logistics won battles in WW2 why did the Generals allow their armies to stretch the supply lines to the extent where they couldn`t follow their own troops ?" <---this is ridiculous, and never happened, and if it did, the force was almost immediatly annihilated, a good example being Operation Market Garden.
Last edited by =JoD=Corithus (2007-03-25 05:04:30)
The Il-2 aircraft played a crucial role on the Eastern Front, and in Soviet opinion it was the most decisive aircraft in the history of modern land warfare. Flying day and night, they could defeat the thick armour of the Panther and Tiger I tanks, and occasionally shot down Bf 109s when the German pilots got careless while attacking them. Josef Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable manner: when a factory building them fell behind on its deliveries, Stalin sent the following cable to the factory manager: "The Red Army needs the Il-2 as it needs air or bread. I demand more. This is my last warning."
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
It did happend, and it happend more than once, but dont mind me - i only have logistics as my education and prolly dont know anything about it=JoD=Corithus wrote:
"So if logistics won battles in WW2 why did the Generals allow their armies to stretch the supply lines to the extent where they couldn`t follow their own troops ?" <---this is ridiculous, and never happened, and if it did, the force was almost immediatly annihilated, a good example being Operation Market Garden.
Between Alexander the Great and the US Army today the lack of tactical use of logistics is a great one, i would go as far as to say it`s similar to reinventing the wheel !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
....Trying to explain this to you is like trying to explain it to a wall, you just don't get it.........