The turningpoint of WWII

[Dithyrambos]

The mention of the machine guns is what puzzles you? They're symbolic. They have nothing to do with my point. They represent the German military concept of WWII, nothing more. I'm not detaching them from the infantry, I'm embolding their existence.

[OTZ]

well i lied - i am not finished, because once again i find you trying to impart upon us a very shaky version of world war 2.

There's a difference between thinking up an idea and putting it into practice. The fact that Hitler conquered a country in 7 days proves that, even if not as fast as intended, it works. There's also the idea that Hitler may not have been practicing Blitzkreig itself, but a different kind, for which we have no name. You assume history is conclusive on this matter -- it is not.

do you even know who those theorists are? if you are so familiar with breakthrough warfare, how can you not?
i mentioned several times already that the geramsn used kampfegruppes and the concept of shcwerepunkt to conduct offesnive operations. why do you keep ignoring these terms? is it because you are unfmiliar with them?

And here's some proof that Blitzkreig did work. Also, that Hitler did break through Russia at an incredible speed, considering the terrain and size of the land.

OMG - that is not proof that blitzkrieg worked - if anything its showing that "blitzkrieg" was a complete failure. it took 7 months to advance a mere 600 miles - that is less than 100 miles per month, or 3.3 miles per day! that is a ridiculously slow rate of advance! can't you see this? it is slower than the marching rate of infantry.

though the figures are classified

since when? the OOB/TOE of every german and russian unit involved, not only in barbarossa, but throughout the entire war is well known and readily available to anyone who wants them. who told you they were calssified?

Then you figure in the logistics and psychological factors, along with the cold and long winter, and you do have a case of Blitzkreig on your hands.

lol, a case of blitzkrieg on your hands? is that a medical condition?
why would include you climatic conditions as an ingredient for blitzkrieg - when clearly terrain and climate are two elements that comepletely null any advantage armoured warfare has.

I'd like to see some figures for once. The fact that you can inflict "heavy" casualties on an army in 7 days of losing is a bit out there.

well lets see - of the 930 fighters/close air support aircraft employed by the germans over holland, 328 were destroyed. of the 430 transport planes used to land german troops on dutch airfields, 280 were destroyed. SOURCE: Robin Higham: AIR POWER, p 104.

of the ground forces involved, casualties were also high. in the first 3 days alone, of approxiamately 10000 men involved, the germans suffered over 4000 casualties, as well as over 1000 men taken as POWs. SOURCE: LT-COl E. Bauer: THE HISTORY OF WORLD WAR II, pp 30-32

furthermore, you continually claim that the dutch military crumbled - when in fact it was barely given the chance to fight before its government fled and surrendered. more than half of the dutch army had yet to see any action at all. the ones that did, inflicted far more casualties on the germans than they received. SOURCE: Pallud, BLITZKRIEG, p 150.

You completely missed the point. And here I thought I was being a bit creative with the term "wall of steel." That would be the MG-42s laying down a hail of fire and demoralizing, not to mention wounding and killing, infantrymen. That makes the tanks' job easier.

i have been trying to give you the chance over and over again to quit referring to machine guns as a primary tool used in the opening of any armoured attack. you should be saying artillery instead. it was artillery and airpower that always (this means every single time - not occasionally) opened up any major attack, not matter which nation was launching it. the germans were no exception. an artillery barrage ALWAYS preceeded their attacks, followed by a combined infantry and armoured assault.

The invasion began roughly May 12th.

it actually began on the 10th - do i need a source for this?

That's some odd 40 days. Look at what Germany did in those 40 days, and you'll see that it was fast.

that was not my point. my point was that the advance into france in 1940 was as slow as the one made in 1914. quit reading what you want to read. i never said that the collapse of france was slow. i will be the first one to admit that france capitulated quickly - but this was not a result of "blitzkrieg." france's collapse was precipitaed by its the defeat of the dutch, the belgians, and the BEF, combined with the defeatist attitude of its politicians, as well as the deisre to preserve france as a nation rather than have it ravaged by war.
furthermore, if you examine the course of events you will see that once the germans had trapped the BEF, and forced the surrender of Holland and Belgium - it still took a whole month of serious fighting before the war was finally over.

If I stated it, and it didn't happen, them I'm wrong. That's not "flip-flopping," that's just being incorrect. Now, before I admit to being incorrect, let's see some sources.

for sources see above. for more info on the dutch resistance please feel free to read 12 Days in May, by Heinrich Weiss, and Erik Roellfzema's Soldier of Orange, or any other book that is written on the war in the low countries.

Alright, show me where they don't affect anything.

yet another failure of your reading abilities - i said that machine guns never dominated the opening of any battles during world war 2. i did not claim that they were ineffectual. what i am trying to tell you is that machine guns are an integral part of the infantry - not a seperate unit that operated in conjunction with armoured units. when infantry advanced so to did its regualr components - machine gun crews, mortar crews, AT crews, signal teams, recon teams, HQ units, quartermaster units, transport units, SP arty units, horse drawn arty, etc etc etc.

Here, I'll give you an example. If the Turks had lined the entire coast with machine guns at Gallipoli, the British never would have gotten off the boats. if they lined it with just infantry, the British may never have been repelled.

as rapax mentioned, you are again seperating the machine gun from the infantry, which simply was never done beacause they are one and the same. there were never ever independent units of machine guns that lead an attack along with tanks - they were always part of a larger infantry unit - or attached as an HQ asset as they were needed.

The fact that an MG-42 can take down a squad with it's opening burst proves that you can't just write it off.

i never claimed otherwise. you should also check your facts on the MG-42. its designated the "42" for a reason. it was not around during the first 3 years of the war.

Of course I will. You never posted anything to support your claims. Until you do, all your points are rendered invalid by the points I make that are based on sources.

you only posted one source - and that source has been criticised several times for its glaring innacurate depiction of the conflict.

i will do another favour for you and post my sources on the air war in france, just so i can say that because it comes from a source means it is a "Fact."

the french air army was not obsolete, nor was it outnumbered by the luftwaffee - as you previously posted. by the time war broke out, France had a very large air force comprised of modern fighters and close support aircraft. a study made by the US Air Force after the war concluded that the French Air Force numbered 4,360 MODERN aircraft, compared to the German's total of 3,270. SOURCE: LT COL Faris Kirkland, THE FRENCH AIRFORCE. his tudy is available on the web for you to browse if you don't have access to a university library.

the german's flew more sorties, but were taking far more casualties than the the french or the british. had the war continued any longer, the germans would not have been able to field any siginificant numbers of planes, as the luftwaffe had been reduced to less than 50% of its original operation strength. the french and british did not laose nearly as many aircraft, and most surivived the war and were flown either to north afirca or england.

[DougyM]

"Gentlemen, we have just won the war"

Winston Churchill upon being informed of pearl harbour.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Though i doubt we would have lost if america had not entered, we would still have bought supplies from it as we had been doing and Stalingrad would still have turned the russian front into a nightmare for the germans.

All that would have happened is probably Russia becoming the sole owner of mainland europe and god knows what after that.

[Dithyrambos]

well i lied - i am not finished, because once again i find you trying to impart upon us a very shaky version of world war 2.

Is it shaky because it's from a different point of view?

11

do you even know who those theorists are? if you are so familiar with breakthrough warfare, how can you not?
i mentioned several times already that the geramsn used kampfegruppes and the concept of shcwerepunkt to conduct offesnive operations. why do you keep ignoring these terms? is it because you are unfmiliar with them?

I ignore them because we're getting into a debate over what Blitzkreig actually is, and it's a pointless debate at that. If I didn't know what they were, I'd google it -- the same applies to almost any term you can find on a message board. I might want to mention that it's "Schwerpunkt," there's no second "e." A Kampfgruppe (Yes, that's how it's spelled) is, essentially, a task force. I don't see how a task force, or however you want to translate something closer to a paramilitary force than a conventional one, is involved with Blitzkreig. Unless you're talking about them going in in advance and taking out targets, then we're getting somewhere.

OMG - that is not proof that blitzkrieg worked - if anything its showing that "blitzkrieg" was a complete failure. it took 7 months to advance a mere 600 miles - that is less than 100 miles per month, or 3.3 miles per day! that is a ridiculously slow rate of advance! can't you see this? it is slower than the marching rate of infantry.

You're funny. When you're fighting for almost every damn inch, and the supplies don't quite reach you, and you manage to take 3.3 miles a day, that's incredible. And, yes, 3.3 miles a day is a great rate of advance. Especially through foreign land where you can be ambushed every hour.

since when? the OOB/TOE of every german and russian unit involved, not only in barbarossa, but throughout the entire war is well known and readily available to anyone who wants them. who told you they were calssified?

Some Pro-Russian source, which I had no business looking at to begin with. According to this, there were 132 Russian army divisions, against 117 German divisions. The Russians had 34 armored divisions with them, and those are included in the total count.

Even in that source, it doesn't tell you how many men the Russians employed. It does, however, tell you the exact figures of the German army.

lol, a case of blitzkrieg on your hands? is that a medical condition?
why would include you climatic conditions as an ingredient for blitzkrieg - when clearly terrain and climate are two elements that comepletely null any advantage armoured warfare has.

Yes, and it burns like you wouldn't believe.

When you throw those two effects in, you change the purpose of Blitzkreig. Even if the weather slows them down, and they still advance at a decent rate, the enemy suffers a huge blow to his morale.

furthermore, you continually claim that the dutch military crumbled - when in fact it was barely given the chance to fight before its government fled and surrendered. more than half of the dutch army had yet to see any action at all. the ones that did, inflicted far more casualties on the germans than they received. SOURCE: Pallud, BLITZKRIEG, p 150.

They're the defending army, defending their homes, who know the terrain. If they didn't inflict more casualties, they'd be pathetic.

While we're on who lost what, the Dutch lost 62 of their 125 aircraft. And they lost 30,000 civilians to the Germans in Rotterdam, which is what put the Dutch government in submission. The rest, including the stalwart defense of Ypenburg and Ockenburg airbases were in vain. Like the defense of Waalhaven.

i have been trying to give you the chance over and over again to quit referring to machine guns as a primary tool used in the opening of any armoured attack. you should be saying artillery instead. it was artillery and airpower that always (this means every single time - not occasionally) opened up any major attack, not matter which nation was launching it. the germans were no exception. an artillery barrage ALWAYS preceeded their attacks, followed by a combined infantry and armoured assault.

Artillery has a habit of not doing it's job. More often than not, the shots would miss and go horribly wide, with a risk of taking out friendlies. Granted, they demoralize the opponent, but they aren't good for hitting anything that moves at a moderate rate.

On the Blitzkreig note, here's a few excerpts from a Frenchman's diary:

"When the dive-bombers come down, they (the French) stood it for two hours and then ran with their hands over their ears."
"Sedan fell as a result of a bombardment……….it was a superb example of military surprise."
"The pace is too fast……it’s the co-operation between the dive-bombers and the tanks that is winning the war for Germany."
"News that the Germans are in Amiens………this is like some ridiculous nightmare."
"When the dive-bombers come down, they (the French) stood it for two hours and then ran with their hands over their ears."
"Sedan fell as a result of a bombardment……….it was a superb example of military surprise."
"The pace is too fast……it’s the co-operation between the dive-bombers and the tanks that is winning the war for Germany."
"News that the Germans are in Amiens………this is like some ridiculous nightmare."
(All the above were written in a period of just 5 days : May 15th 1940 to May 19th 1940.)

furthermore, if you examine the course of events you will see that once the germans had trapped the BEF, and forced the surrender of Holland and Belgium - it still took a whole month of serious fighting before the war was finally over.

Right... The BEF arrives the day before Hitler attacks France. They are backed into Dunkirk, with, seemingly, no way to escape. A total of 330,000 men are in Dunkirk, and they use the legendary "little ships" to escape on the 26th. 26-10 = 16... +1(day for being there) = 17.

17 days in France constitutes a month?

I always knew they were backwards...

yet another failure of your reading abilities - i said that machine guns never dominated the opening of any battles during world war 2. i did not claim that they were ineffectual. what i am trying to tell you is that machine guns are an integral part of the infantry - not a seperate unit that operated in conjunction with armoured units. when infantry advanced so to did its regualr components - machine gun crews, mortar crews, AT crews, signal teams, recon teams, HQ units, quartermaster units, transport units, SP arty units, horse drawn arty, etc etc etc.

Unless you're talking about Hollywood's WWII movies, where you have a bunch of Americans walking down a road, an MG-42 fires, and they all run like hell. If you'll notice in that scene, it never shows anyone but the two or three MG-42s and their teams. =\

Of course they advance with the army. If they don't, they're abandoning their duty. You can't say that one force or another dominated an entire operation, as it's almost always a co-ordinated assault. Iraq, for example. Planes drop bombs, battleships fire their cannons, and all this is done from the sea. Then land-based artillery comes into play later, with infantry and armored divisions.

i never claimed otherwise. you should also check your facts on the MG-42. its designated the "42" for a reason. it was not around during the first 3 years of the war.

No, it wasn't. It was a great gun nonetheless. It was a step up from the one before it, MG-34. The MG-42 had an easy-to-change barrel, usually came with 3 or 4 extra barrels, and was sometimes water cooled.

the french air army was not obsolete, nor was it outnumbered by the luftwaffee - as you previously posted. by the time war broke out, France had a very large air force comprised of modern fighters and close support aircraft. a study made by the US Air Force after the war concluded that the French Air Force numbered 4,360 MODERN aircraft, compared to the German's total of 3,270. SOURCE: LT COL Faris Kirkland, THE FRENCH AIRFORCE. his tudy is available on the web for you to browse if you don't have access to a university library.

The best-known French fighter, the D.520 was superbly maneuverable but not as fast as its main adversary - the German Bf109E.

Generally, "modern" aircraft are faster than aircraft that aren't considered modern.

the german's flew more sorties, but were taking far more casualties than the the french or the british. had the war continued any longer, the germans would not have been able to field any siginificant numbers of planes, as the luftwaffe had been reduced to less than 50% of its original operation strength. the french and british did not laose nearly as many aircraft, and most surivived the war and were flown either to north afirca or england.

Right, and if the French/British were clearly having victory after victory against the Luftwaffe, why were they losing battle after battle until Rommel reached Egypt? And if the British had such better aircraft, or even the French, how did Germany manage to bomb London so much? Too many of your points don't make any sense.

[OTZ]

I ignore them because we're getting into a debate over what Blitzkreig actually is, and it's a pointless debate at that.

huh? you ignore the main theorists behind blitzkrieg because thats what the debate is about? that makes no sense, thats akin to discussing the invention of the radio without talking about marconi.

(Yes, that's how it's spelled)

thanks for the spelling lesson! if you only you were as keen to point out spelling mistakes as you were in actually researching the topics you discuss.

I don't see how a task force, or however you want to translate something closer to a paramilitary force than a conventional one, is involved with Blitzkreig

you don't see how, beacause you do not understand how they were used. you have a complete lack of understanding when it comes to german military doctrine. i am stunned - and i can't beleive i will continue to reply to the nonsense you post. perhaps i am the bigger fool...

You're funny. When you're fighting for almost every damn inch, and the supplies don't quite reach you, and you manage to take 3.3 miles a day, that's incredible. And, yes, 3.3 miles a day is a great rate of advance. Especially through foreign land where you can be ambushed every hour.

all i can say is no, 3.3 miles per day is not a "great rate of advance." how do you define the american advance after operation cobra? or the british advance after falaise? or the russian advance after bagration, or citadel? 3.3 miles a day (avg) is pathetic. it is extremely slow and it definitely does not reflect "lighting warfare."

When you throw those two effects in, you change the purpose of Blitzkreig. Even if the weather slows them down, and they still advance at a decent rate, the enemy suffers a huge blow to his morale.

how do you change the purpose of blitzkrieg - you've lost me on this one. you'll have to explain what you mean.
how is the enemy's morale after 700 miles of retreating? what does it take to break the enemy's morale?

They're the defending army, defending their homes, who know the terrain. If they didn't inflict more casualties, they'd be pathetic.

isn't this contrary to what you've previously said about the dutch army?

While we're on who lost what, the Dutch lost 62 of their 125 aircraft. And they lost 30,000 civilians to the Germans in Rotterdam, which is what put the Dutch government in submission

the dutch most certainly did not lose 30,000 civilians during the bombing of rotterdam. the generally accepted number of civilian deaths ranges from 900 - 2200, definitley not 30,000. i am glad you finally used google to find some information - thats one step in the right direction. next, i suggest some follow up reading of books on the subject beacause, as we all know, the internet is 75% porn, 24% crap and misinformation, and 1% truth.

Artillery has a habit of not doing it's job. More often than not, the shots would miss and go horribly wide, with a risk of taking out friendlies. Granted, they demoralize the opponent, but they aren't good for hitting anything that moves at a moderate rate.

please for the love of god - read anything on artillery and you will see it was responsible for 60% of battlefield casualties during the war. more than your precious "MG-42s."
if it is not good at hitting anything moving at a "moderate rate," what are you suggesting? if ther germans had only known this they cuold have outran the ruskies arty. well, hindsight is 20-20 i suppose. *wink*

The BEF arrives the day before Hitler attacks France

since when? the BEF was in place long before the invasion was launched.

They are backed into Dunkirk

they were not backed into dunkirk - they fled there.

26-10 = 16... +1(day for being there) = 17.

what type of equation is this? please explain it to me? from the time that holland and belgium capitulated, and the time that the BEF was scurrying for the channel to the date on which the war in france actually ended was a full month.

No, it wasn't.

yes it was. thats why it is designated the MG-42! it was introduced in 1942! not in 1939, or 1940, or 1941.

It was a step up from the one before it, MG-34. The MG-42 had an easy-to-change barrel, usually came with 3 or 4 extra barrels, and was sometimes water cooled

brought to you by google.

Generally, "modern" aircraft are faster than aircraft that aren't considered modern.

what in tarnation does this mean?
man, you're killing me. i know you aren't entirely familiar with the war, and that's ok - i admire your initiative and eagerness to debate.