pretzeljager
Private
You have the right to remain stupid.
Posts: 60
|
Post by pretzeljager on Mar 4, 2009 21:29:10 GMT -5
Wow. Never know the Italians did so much.
Spitfire740, you are a knowledgeable man.
|
|
Medic
Sergeant
I'm 12 not 25!
Posts: 1,539
|
Post by Medic on Mar 4, 2009 22:15:02 GMT -5
Wow, good job. It would mean a lot more if you calmed down a little.
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Mar 4, 2009 23:43:04 GMT -5
Best action ever fought by the Italians in North Africa Operation Lightfoot launched on October 24, 1942, was designed to break through the supposed "weak" Italian-held southern sector of the Alamein line where the Bologna, Brescia, Folgore and Pavia Divisions anchored the right flank. The British attack began with a devastating artillery barrage, followed by an all out assault by the 7th Armored and 44th Infantry divisions. However, all that was achieved by the Commonwealth at a high cost of life and equipment was a small lodgment, which was soon to be regained. In the following assaults between October 25 and November 4, 1942 units such as the 50th, 7th, 44th divisions, 1st and 2nd Free French and the Royal Hellenic Brigades, supported by artillery and armor, had not broken nor would they break through the southern sector. The Folgore used all the means at their disposal including the tactic of letting the enemy advance into a "cul-de-sac" and then counterattacking from all sides. They also used their 47mm AT guns from enfilade positions and Molotov cocktails to knock out even Matildas and Grants. In the initial British assault alone the Folgore had managed to destroy over 120 armored vehicles, inflicting over 600 casualties. To commemorate this battle the Italian government ordered this badge made Also several squadrons of the Regia Aeronautica based in Belgium took part in 150 bombing raids over England during the Battle of Britain beginning in October 1940. July and August of 1941 saw units of the Regia Aeronautica flying in Russia in support of 60,000 Italian ground troops fighting in Operation Barbarossa. By far the major role played by the RA was against the RAF and the USAAF in the Mediterranean area. Malta, North Africa, Sicily and Italy were the sites of frequent encounters between the RA and the Allies. Italy played a major part in the war , don't make fun of the Italian troops who fought and died in WWII , they did so even tough some of them had inferior and outdated weapons.
|
|
|
Post by kilroy9thss on Mar 5, 2009 0:06:04 GMT -5
hey u can get carcano rifles cheap, not fired dropped once some still with the white flag on them lol j/k
|
|
|
Post by zzs8mm on Mar 5, 2009 0:25:35 GMT -5
The Japanese attacked the Chinese as early as 1931 ( Correct me if I'm wrong ). The Japanese used the Chinese resources because the literally didn't have any. After they attacked Pearl Harbor, they concentrated on the U.S. Does that answer your question? oops, I didn't put the sarcastic tags... Most historians put the date of invasion as 1937 at the Marco Polo Bridge battle (close to modern day Beijing), a few put it at 1931, at the Manchuria Incident. Yes, Manchuria was full of iron ore, good for making weapons. They didn't really concentrate on the US, although the Americans were the biggest threat to the Japanese. They simultaneously attacked the British colonies in Southeast Asia. Japan still devoted a lot of their resources to China, but by early 1940s they were at a stalemate. China still lacked the training and equipment to kick the Japanese out. The Japanese were already weakened in China. Like the Germans, the Japanese didn't finish their first objective and attacked the US and GB. It helped the US that the Japanese were bogged down in China. If not, the war would have probably extended for a longer time, unless the bombs were dropped around the same time. I know that only part of china was occupied because we had air bases there very Early on I think there may have been something about some Chinese being enemies other Friends but I may be wrong, try googling it. I don't think the Americans had airfields early on in 1937. There were detachments of Marines to protect American interests, such as Shanghai. There was an US patrol boat, USS Panay, that was attacked by the Japanese on purpose in 1937, 4 years before Pearl Harbor!! The Chinese and Americans were on the same side and China joined the Allies, although the US government would betray China a couple of times (some of it was cause by the Chinese Nationalist govt itself). You may be thinking of the AVG, American Volunteer Group, aka Flying Tigers. They used Chinese Airfields to attack the Japanese before Pearl Harbor. I think later on the US Army Air Force would use airfields to attack the Japanese, but still using Chinese airfields later on. Many Chinese pilots were trained in the US and were sent back to China to fight. --------------------------------------- Actually I "reenact" the Chinese (German trained) divisions that were at Shanghai in 1937. So I should know these things already. I made a thread here under the allies section if you want to see what the Chinese equipment and uniform looked like at 1937. I say this because, when Americans think WW2, they know the major players: US, GB, Germans, Japanese, Russians. Some may know the "minor" players: Franch, Italian, Polish, Canadians. And the few others that are forgotten. The Chinese battles were some of the largest and fiercest battles ever in WW2. Most involved hundreds of thousands of troops on both sides. If I remember correctly, the Chinese had the second largest casualties of military and civilians after the Russians. Only a few Americans (those who study military history) know about the Chinese involvement in WW2. There are only a few sources in English, and they are very simple and do not go in depth.
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Mar 5, 2009 1:15:18 GMT -5
hey u can get carcano rifles cheap, not fired dropped once some still with the white flag on them lol j/k oldest joke around , at least get better material next time.
|
|
|
Post by zzs8mm on Mar 5, 2009 1:38:15 GMT -5
I have seen that with French rifles, but they are getting expensive these days. I got mine (made around late 1945 or early 1946) at a very good deal, but somewhat poorish condition.
|
|
click
Sergeant
Company G, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, 1st Marine Division
Posts: 1,764
|
Post by click on Mar 5, 2009 3:16:19 GMT -5
Who voted for Italy? They really didn't do anything. Dude, stop posting flame bait. Click
|
|
|
Post by kilroy9thss on Mar 5, 2009 9:44:21 GMT -5
i know its an old joke that y i posted it
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan117 on Mar 5, 2009 22:18:38 GMT -5
I went with the Americans. Their gear, from what I've read, was mass produced and was better than decent for their military at the time. Oh yeah. They also had the atom bomb.
|
|
|
Post by kilroy9thss on Mar 5, 2009 22:57:23 GMT -5
germans would have had a nuke before us but British trained Norwegian commandos destroyed the Vemork power station in 1943, thats was producing heavy water, and a fairy boat loaded with train cars filled with 239Pu enriched water was destroyed also
|
|
|
Post by m1a1airbourne on Mar 9, 2009 15:26:01 GMT -5
poor Hermann Goering
|
|
|
Post by Obergefreiter Raimund on Mar 9, 2009 15:43:13 GMT -5
I really have to go with the Germans. They had some of the most beautiful weaponry and uniforms. My all time favorite riffle is the Karabiner 98. Next, the Germans developed the first true assault riffle. The STG-44 or MP-44.
Then onto the German U-boats. Another weapon of War that should not be forgotten. Then onto the real feat of the German military of the time. The German Panzer Divisions. Seriously! Need I go on?
|
|
Karl
Private 1st Class
Posts: 405
|
Post by Karl on Mar 9, 2009 19:56:16 GMT -5
That broke down and/or was destroyed by superior numbers.
Is there anyplace to look up information on the Chinese in WWII and did the Russians ever fight the Japanese in a full scale battle.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Mar 9, 2009 20:51:21 GMT -5
In the summer of 1939 the Russians and the Japanese went at it after the Japanese crossed the border from Manchuria. The Russian commander was none other than Zhukov. The Japanese got their lunches eaten. www.orbit6.com/crisf/text/halh_gol.htmIf you want an interesting book on America and China in WWII, try Barbara Tuchman's "Stilwell: The American Experience in China."
|
|
|
Post by Obergefreiter Raimund on Mar 10, 2009 8:15:03 GMT -5
That broke down and/or was destroyed by superior numbers. Is there anyplace to look up information on the Chinese in WWII and did the Russians ever fight the Japanese in a full scale battle. True, if only because of the multiple fronts the Germans were fighting on.
|
|
Karl
Private 1st Class
Posts: 405
|
Post by Karl on Mar 10, 2009 16:00:08 GMT -5
Nazi Germany wasn't out to make many friends. The M26 Pershing might have been a match for the Panther and Tigers.
The K98 was a great rifle, but the M1 Garand is better. If the MP44 came a lot earlier and in more numbers it could have changed the tide. This may be a stupid question but did Germany have aircraft carriers in WWII?
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Mar 10, 2009 17:21:22 GMT -5
That broke down and/or was destroyed by superior numbers. Is there anyplace to look up information on the Chinese in WWII and did the Russians ever fight the Japanese in a full scale battle. True, if only because of the multiple fronts the Germans were fighting on. The Germans had some major problems with their armor, some just because of their situation regarding resources. As the war dragged on the Germans had problems getting some metals they needed for alloys. This resulted, among other things, in gearboxes that were more prone to breakdown than American gearboxes. And the German penchant for sophisticated engineering solutions sometimes worked against them, with mechanical reliabilty and ease of repair taking a back seat. They also kinda forgot that masses of adequate equipment trumps small amounts of excellent equipment. I've got abook around here about German aircraft of WWII. It's totally mind boggling how many different designs their engineers produced, when they should have settled on a few good designs and cranked them out in huge numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Canning on May 10, 2009 16:21:26 GMT -5
Gotta go with the Brits. Im the first one but as a patriotic Britishman i gotta go with them. Plus i love the fighter pilots, my Grandpa was one before he got shot down.
|
|
CptJericho
Private 1st Class
"We got to stop the Germans from getting the secret weapons!"
Posts: 495
|
Post by CptJericho on Sept 2, 2009 15:30:45 GMT -5
I dont know who to go for, Americans or Germans. back in the post in like mid page 2 (too lazy to quote it) someone said the americans had the nukes, thats acually false, we got the tech because we stole the poor german scientists (who where really close to producing an atomic bomb) amazingly if 1 out of many things happened the war would of been way different. if germany never attacked the ussr then they would of eventually conquered the uk and would of been able to save italy from invasion. then the war would be eventually be on our turf.
|
|
gadge
Corporal
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by gadge on Sept 15, 2009 12:28:25 GMT -5
I'm biased but i'd plump for Britain & the commonwealth.
We held off the entire Nazi empire alone between 40 and 41 and destroyed their capacity to launch a seaborne invasion (with no luftwaffe and the Royal Navies total dominance of the seas there was no way on earth the German plan to use Dutch river boats to sail across the channel was doomed to failure). Winning the Battle of Britain meant a German invasion of the Uk simply wasnt going to happen.
While pretty much besieged and carpet bombed during those years we still launched myriad successful commando raids on NWE
At the same time we sent in operatives and materiel to fund, arm, train and supply the French resistance.
We annihilated Italy as a military power and knocked them out in the first round and pretty much smashed the Afrika Korps
We sent lend lease of British manufactured kit and convoys to aid the Russian while still fighting our own war at home, in the desert and later in Europe.
We cracked the enigma code and invented the computer which effectively neutralised German signals and the u boat fleet.
We suffered some initial setbacks in the far east but then annihilated the Japanese with the Chindit special forces and 14th Army and units like force 136.
We neutralised the German navy and pretty much made it impossible for it to sail on the high seas, leaving with them a compromised submarine force as its sole sea power.
Department 20 of the secret service(XX or 'double cross' in typical schoolboy humour) had most abwehr german agents unwittingly under our control and fed them false intelligence right up to the end of the war.
All that's not bad for an absolutely *tiny* island nation smaller than most US states.
That might sound a tad arrogant but the point im trying to make is that we're a very small nation with limited resources and at the outbreak of war a very small army and managed to hold the line against overwhelming forces until the US entered the war in 42.
While i dont doubt that without the COMBINED and ALLIED effort of both our nations (and the brave contribuition of the commonwealth nations) that the war would not have been ended by 1945... By 42 Germany had lost the ability to fight an aggressive and sustainable campaign.
The royal navy blockades were virtually starving them out over time,. this coupled wiht a failure to gain soviet grain and oil fields meant that the end of the reich was inevitable as you cannot run a war machine without the fuel, rubber, copper and food they simply didnt have.
On the other hand Britain and the Commonwealth (and Russia) received ample supplies of the essentials required to sustain a war form our generous allies for some time before the first US soldier fired a shot in anger.
My point is.. we couldn't have won it without each other so quickly. So its really hard to say anyone made any superior contribution... although if i had to put money on it i'd say Russia probably gave the most - virtually bleeding Germany dry of manpower during barabrossa and the later campaigns
We should never forget that the ALLIES means just that, we all needed each other!
|
|
gadge
Corporal
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by gadge on Sept 15, 2009 13:57:36 GMT -5
True, if only because of the multiple fronts the Germans were fighting on. They also kinda forgot that masses of adequate equipment trumps small amounts of excellent equipment. I've got abook around here about German aircraft of WWII. It's totally mind boggling how many different designs their engineers produced, when they should have settled on a few good designs and cranked them out in huge numbers. The same with armour... no fewer than 65 completely different chassis in service at any one time. Logistics nightmare compared to allied armour on the western front that generally used the the same six or seven chassis.
|
|
gadge
Corporal
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by gadge on Sept 15, 2009 14:10:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vii_Cii on Sept 15, 2009 17:37:08 GMT -5
I would say... FINLAND! Why? But then again, I could also choose Germany, cause they fought really hard on ww2 (remember, it took almost the whole world to win Germany) And as a third option, US trops in PTO, those brave marines fighting against heavily defending japanese (who also have my respect). And to continue sarcasm from Italy, they have never lost a war, cause they will allways change sides to the one who is winning
|
|
|
Post by hburn on Sept 15, 2009 17:45:26 GMT -5
I have to go with the Polish army. they fought the Germans, The Russians and then they were screwed over by the allies. we gave the Russians their land . Then Stalin decided to allow them to starve to death. Then my second would have to be the US. they had the best equipment, without the support of the US, the Axis would have won the war. We ended up suppling equipment and money to the Aillies which allowed them to stay in the war.
|
|
Sgt_Tom
Technical Sgt.
Combat!
Posts: 3,580
|
Post by Sgt_Tom on Sept 15, 2009 17:59:46 GMT -5
They all had there ups and downs. The Germans did held off from 1940 to 1945. So many years for such a small nation. Plus they invented a new type of warfare, new Tanks, new Weapons, and maybe even given a few more years a Atom bomb. For the Allies you gotta give the British credit for the Battle of Britain. Its a pretty unbelievable feat. If Germany had been successful invading Britain the United States chances of winning would have been weak. However the United States Marines and Navy have to be given credit for there actions in the Pacific. Although the US weren't the only ones there they played a huge part. Its hard to leave anyone out. Each side did there part.
|
|
|
Post by airbornerocks on Sept 15, 2009 18:58:29 GMT -5
Allied army...
|
|
azeeze
Private 1st Class
Posts: 622
|
Post by azeeze on Sept 15, 2009 22:18:32 GMT -5
Kimbo Slice.
|
|
gadge
Corporal
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by gadge on Sept 16, 2009 4:40:52 GMT -5
Actually when you put it like that Finland did a bloody impressive job... shame they ended up fighting alongside Axis though (and arguably they had no choice!)...
|
|
gadge
Corporal
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by gadge on Sept 16, 2009 5:14:29 GMT -5
I'd also like to add a vote in for the British Secret Service and SoE. They scuppered german plans for an atomic bomb before 45, their deception plans with 'phantom' signals units convinced the germans that the main assault on Europe would have been at Calais which they still believed for days after the Normandy landings. Consider how bloody the beach landings were and how close it was at times... if the Germans had re-enforced the *right* beaches then those landings probably would have been thrown back to be honest and it would have been the 1950s before they were ground down through blockades and bombing. So that s a vote for the unseen heroes who probably contributed more than they are ever credited with. Allied intelligence was streets ahead of Axis agents from the very start of the war. The only really big mistake they made was believing the Dutch underground was compromised at Arnhem and not listening to on the ground intel. Sgttom also makes a good point. The GIUK gap is crucial to take US forces to Europe until recently and it takes weeks to get a battle group across it. If Britain had fell (and with it you'd have lost Ireland, Greenland and Iceland) then its a bloody long haul across the atlantic in troop ships that would have suffered the full force of the Kriegsmarine and the u boat packs (with no Royal Navy to hem in the german navy and with no bletchly park code breakers to crack enigma t let you know where the u boats were). While i dont doubt a US army alone could probably have defeated Germany on the ground...invading a hostile shore form such a distance would have been nigh on impossible in the 1940s (or even 1950s). Once again my point is that it simply wouldn't have happened without the USA, Canada, Britain, India, Autralia, Poland, Free France etc standing side by side. My posts about British raids in the 41-43 period is the same... without brave men in Norway, France and Holland prepared to fight undercover and aid SOE they simply wouldn't have stood a chance. Its also academically questioned these days whether the was would have been lost without US involvement. The theory is Germany was screwed by the utter failure of barbarossa and the tide had turned in the east after Stalingrad and in the west with the battle of Britain (both a full year before US involvement and three or so years before troops on the ground in Europe.) What is undeniable is that without US power the war woudl have gone on into the 50s or more. But consider this. Germanys plan to invade Britain required absolute air superiority and naval ascendancy as they planned to cross the channel in captured dutch river barges - they also needed complete calm seas for this. The kriegsmarine told hitler if even one Royal Navy destroyer was afloat the plan was doomed and all german experts knew it to be a pipe dream. Invading Britain after the battle of Britain simply wasn't going to happen - and that's the nazis opinion! The Desert war was going badly, Britain had effectively knocked Italy out of the running and the royal navy was blockading most of Africa. Germany was forced to divert valuable manpower form the eastern front to the desert in order to secure the desert theater. So again, no global conquest likely there. On the Eastern front Hitlers instance on taking Stalingrad rather than pushing on had destroyed the army, they were crippling ly short of fuel, warm clothing and rations after the Russians scorched earth policy. Hitler knew when Stalingrad fell it was all over in the East - again no more blitzkrieg there... So what most likely is a painful nasty stalemate lasting years as Germany would be unable to advance further on any front as it was simply unsustainable without access to the wheatfields of the Ukraine, desert oil fields or metal resources in Africa and other countries... couple this with an unsustainable shortage of manpower given the horrific losses on the eastern front campaign and you dont have a nation capable of doing much other than just holding on. What is undeniable is that an armada and invasion type victory was simply not going to happen from any one nation alone but its highly likely an economic victory would have been achieve eventually. In those days controlling the sea really means everything. Air power just wasnt good enough then negate a big fleet and a big fleet meant logistics.. logistics win wars not super tanks. No good having a super ninja tigerII tank if you cant run the engine as you've no petrol, you cant fire the guns cos you've got no ammuniton. So i think what i'm trying to say is that the *logistical* strength of the allies (and the greatest part of that being Russian and American) won the war so quickly but without the American part of that i think Germany was pretty spent by 42 and that the Soviet Union would have gradually worn them down while Britain held tight and defended itself. Not a glorious victory but a long slow painful one... (BTW i cannot stress enough that i'm not knocking anyones contribution to the war but i'm stating this to play devils advocate and also to approach some lines of thought from a different and more considred perspective than that which Hollywood sometimes gives us.... U571 anybody? )
|
|