Switch Theme:

World War II victor  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Do you think that Germany would win?
Yes
No

View results
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





In your base, ignoring your logic.

The command wasn't for the overall army, battalions had their own rules for what they did in terms of smaller scale issues(ie who they would take prisoner compared to where to attack). So a field commander could've issued the order and only that battalion would listen to the order and the rest of the army would carry on with their merry ways.

I never said that the Sherman was designed to take out panthers, the Firefly and Pershing were created to deal with heavier tanks. The sherman was a ubiquitous design created so that it would be easy to produce and upgrade.

I see a Sherman tank and I think Leman Russ. This thing had so many variants it wasn't even funny and there's a reason that every Allied force used them.

England received the majority of Shermans uder the Lend-Lease Act( which is where the Firefly comes from), New Zealand, Australia, Russia, and even Brazil got some Shermans.

Looking at US variants alone we have two TD's a couple rocket launching Shermans(Calliope), the Preist was based off of the Sherman chassis and the list goes on. It was probably the most utilized chassis in the war.



   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





halonachos wrote:The command wasn't for the overall army, battalions had their own rules for what they did in terms of smaller scale issues(ie who they would take prisoner compared to where to attack). So a field commander could've issued the order and only that battalion would listen to the order and the rest of the army would carry on with their merry ways.


Yeah, and the point at which we're talking about informal commands within individual battalions, with no actual recorded instances of SS soldiers being executed because they were SS soldiers, I think it's fair to say we're not really talking about anything at all.

I never said that the Sherman was designed to take out panthers, the Firefly and Pershing were created to deal with heavier tanks. The sherman was a ubiquitous design created so that it would be easy to produce and upgrade.


People in this thread were commenting on the quality of German tanks, but only really mentioning the Tigers and Panthers, and talking down the Sherman - by comparing it to Tigers and Panthers.

I see a Sherman tank and I think Leman Russ. This thing had so many variants it wasn't even funny and there's a reason that every Allied force used them.


Pretty much. Straight forward design, produced en masse, adaptable. Well, mostly adaptable, the turret ring was too small in the original (which was only built for the 50mm gun), but that was fixed.

Mind you, the other two medium tank designs, the German Mk IV and the Soviet T-34 were just as adaptable, and were also upgunned and modified into various self-propelled guns.

England received the majority of Shermans uder the Lend-Lease Act( which is where the Firefly comes from), New Zealand, Australia, Russia, and even Brazil got some Shermans.


Did Australia operate Shermans? I remember reading about a NZ division, which was notable because they had an armoured division and Australia didn't. Perhaps we had some, but not focussed into their own unit, or something.

Looking at US variants alone we have two TD's a couple rocket launching Shermans(Calliope), the Preist was based off of the Sherman chassis and the list goes on. It was probably the most utilized chassis in the war.


Yeah, probably beat out the T-34, but a lot of that would be due to the British fixation on building all kinds of whacky variants.

But yeah, simple manufacture, straight forward operation, not too fiddly to maintain in the field, with a good enough gun, good enough armour and just about good enough speed. A solid, workhorse tank, exactly what was needed.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

The Sherman's problem was that it's gun was never strong enough. Compared to German counterparts, US tank design always lagged behind. For example, by the time the Sherman got upgunned to a 76mm, German tanks had been uparmored and were more resilient to that level of power (the same problem plagued US tank destroyers who other than the M10 never managed to stay ahead of the armor curve). Part of the problem was the existence of the Tank Destroyers, as McNair and Bruce insisted that the Sherman didn't need better firepower (especially McNair who single handedly hosed the entire Pershing program and delayed it by two years).

Other than its weak firepower compared to the armor of German tanks, the Sherman was still good. It's underpowered gun only really came out as a major problem when Panthers and Tigers were around. It did well enough against the hodgepodge of armored vehicles used by the Germans towards the end of the war and of course, outnumbered them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/31 11:21:18


   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

This is a better what if. What if Hitler had been a really good painter?

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche






Elephant Graveyard

Apparently he was okay...
There was something wrong with his vision so the edges of his painting were always rubbish but the middle was good...

Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Byte wrote:
halonachos wrote:
Byte wrote:
Mike Noble wrote:Short answer: No, the Soviets would likely have still won.



+1


If the Japanese didn't need to fight off the US then there's a lot of history that changes in the Pacific Front. First of all, no Flying Tigers, you know the American pilots that taught the Chinese how to be competent fighter pilots. It also potentially means no embargo of oil on the Japanese which means they can be more mobile. If the Japanese never lost their naval forces to the American fleet they would've been able to focus on China, Indochina, and Russia which means that Russia would also be split between an Eastern and Western Front. So that means Russia would also be weakened by the fact that they would have to fight the Japanese to the farther east.

I think it would've been a stalemate, but Germany would not have won.


The "planes for hire" Flying Tigers were recruited and discharged from US armed forces and "in theater" before Pearl Harbor and subsequently the US declaring war. Just saying. Additionally, the US already had an oil and metal ore embargo on Japan(pissed Japan off) before Pearl Harbor as a result of Japan's actions in China and such.


Thats an interesting question though isn't it. What if the US had never put an embargo on Japan? Would Japan had stopped other than its efforts in China and IndoChina or would have it eventually gotten uppity for one reason or another?

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

Everyone that heeps praise on the US of A always forgets Russia.

Russia was kicking the gak out of Germany in the East before we made a Western front in Normandy.

Could the UK and French have successfully invaded Normandy without us as early as they did? No.

But with Russia pulling more and more Germans to the Eastern front, the allies eventually could have.

I think it's fair to say that we helped end it earlier. And, since we helped launch the Normandy campaign when we did, we prevented the Soviet Union from land-grabbing more of Western Europe.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/05/31 13:03:15


DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

LordofHats wrote:The Sherman's problem was that it's gun was never strong enough. Compared to German counterparts, US tank design always lagged behind. For example, by the time the Sherman got upgunned to a 76mm, German tanks had been uparmored and were more resilient to that level of power (the same problem plagued US tank destroyers who other than the M10 never managed to stay ahead of the armor curve). Part of the problem was the existence of the Tank Destroyers, as McNair and Bruce insisted that the Sherman didn't need better firepower (especially McNair who single handedly hosed the entire Pershing program and delayed it by two years).

Other than its weak firepower compared to the armor of German tanks, the Sherman was still good. It's underpowered gun only really came out as a major problem when Panthers and Tigers were around. It did well enough against the hodgepodge of armored vehicles used by the Germans towards the end of the war and of course, outnumbered them.


Thats not accurate. Shermans were superior to most German vehicles in Africa and competitive in Sicily and Italy. Their difficulty, as noted was not continuing to upgun in mid 1943. After all we did have 76MM shooters, and later 90MM shooters which were effective. As the Isrealis were able to upgun Shermans to 90MM it was definitely doable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_tank_destroyer

We also have to remember that by the time of DDay, we had a buttload roaming fighter bombers. Yes the Germans could make extremely rare super tanks. But those extremely rare super tanks were utter targets from the air. More importantly their logistics tale was chew toy to air attack.


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

I think the Israelis managed to cram a 105mm gun into the Sherman.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Kilkrazy wrote:I think the Israelis managed to cram a 105mm gun into the Sherman.


Ah you're right. Now thats biggie sizing.


This is interesting.
The British were more astute in their anticipation of the future development of German armor — beginning development of a 3-inch anti-tank gun even before its predecessor entered service and planning for its use in tanks that would replace the M4. Out of expediency driven by delays in their new tanks designs, they mounted this high-powered Ordnance QF 17-pounder gun in a standard 75 mm M4 Sherman turret. This conversion became the Sherman Firefly. The 17 pounder still could not penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther but it could easily penetrate the Panther's gun mantlet at combat range;[43] moreover it could penetrate the front and side armor of the Tiger I at nearly the same range that the Tiger I could penetrate the Sherman.[44]

In late 1943, the British offered the 17 pounder to the U.S. Army for use in their M4 tanks. Gen. Devers insisted on comparison tests between the 17 pounder and the U.S. 90 mm gun (even though the 17 pounder could be mounted in a standard M4 turret while the 90 mm gun needed a new turret). The tests were finally done on March 25 and May 23, 1944; they seemed to show that the 90 mm gun was equal to or better than the 17 pounder. By then, production of the 76 mm M4 and the 90 mm M36 tank destroyer were both underway and U.S. Army interest in the 17 pounder waned.


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





In your base, ignoring your logic.

kronk wrote:Everyone that heeps praise on the US of A always forgets Russia.

Russia was kicking the gak out of Germany in the East before we made a Western front in Normandy.

Could the UK and French have successfully invaded Normandy without us as early as they did? No.

But with Russia pulling more and more Germans to the Eastern front, the allies eventually could have.

I think it's fair to say that we helped end it earlier. And, since we helped launch the Normandy campaign when we did, we prevented the Soviet Union from land-grabbing more of Western Europe.


Without us there would be a lot less tanks out in the war.

The British received 17,184 sherman tanks, Russia received 4,102, New Zealand received 150 Sherman tanks, Australia got 3 Sherman tanks but they got 757 Lees/Grants, and Brazil got 53 Shermans among the Shermans given to Free France, and Canada was given 4 Shermans but were allowed to manufacture their own and they built 188(known as grizzlies). The US army used 19,247 Shermans by comparison and the USMC used 1,114.

So if we remove the US we remove 21,436 sherman tanks from non-US forces and at a total we remove 41,979 Sherman tanks from the battlefield. That's a whole lot less armor.

We also gave a lot of supplies to Russia, we gave them 7,983 planes through the Alaska-Siberian Air Road and it allowed them to run intelligence as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Without the US the Christie suspension wouldn't of been developed either which means the T-34 wouldn't have been produced as it was and the same goes for some british tanks.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/05/31 15:46:18


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

You're making the assumption that nothing would have taken the place of the Shermans or the Christie suspension.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Kilkrazy wrote:You're making the assumption that nothing would have taken the place of the Shermans or the Christie suspension.


Wait, isn't the OT what would happen if the US was not in the war? If so then there would have been no US tanks shipped.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Except for the ones built by US factories for British clients.

Christie invented his suspension in the 1920s. It was licensed to the Soviets in the 1930s and was in combat use before the US entered the war.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Kilkrazy wrote:Except for the ones built by US factories for British clients.

Christie invented his suspension in the 1920s. It was licensed to the Soviets in the 1930s and was in combat use before the US entered the war.

Except of course if we were not in the war there would have been no "Lend Lease." If we applied a strict nuetrality policy there would have been no armaments sent.
Indeed without the above we wouldn't have a Grant/Lee tank to begin with as those were rushed designs just prior to WWII because it was thought we would go to war with Germany.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Golden Throne

Butchered my post... can't figure out multi quote...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/31 17:44:05


 
   
Made in us
Napoleonics Obsesser






Eventually, they would have given up... or not.

Actually, I'd change my vote if I could, because Germany might have actually won....


If only ZUN!bar were here... 
   
Made in gb
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche






Elephant Graveyard

I don't think Germany would have won.
They would have probably been able to keep their captured lands in Europe and maybe been pushed out of Africa.

Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Except for the ones built by US factories for British clients.

Christie invented his suspension in the 1920s. It was licensed to the Soviets in the 1930s and was in combat use before the US entered the war.

Except of course if we were not in the war there would have been no "Lend Lease." If we applied a strict nuetrality policy there would have been no armaments sent.
Indeed without the above we wouldn't have a Grant/Lee tank to begin with as those were rushed designs just prior to WWII because it was thought we would go to war with Germany.


The US didn't apply a strict neutrality policy. The US was happy to take British payment for supplies until the money began to run out. Lend Lease started before the US entered the war.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Except for the ones built by US factories for British clients.

Christie invented his suspension in the 1920s. It was licensed to the Soviets in the 1930s and was in combat use before the US entered the war.

Except of course if we were not in the war there would have been no "Lend Lease." If we applied a strict nuetrality policy there would have been no armaments sent.
Indeed without the above we wouldn't have a Grant/Lee tank to begin with as those were rushed designs just prior to WWII because it was thought we would go to war with Germany.


The US didn't apply a strict neutrality policy. The US was happy to take British payment for supplies until the money began to run out. Lend Lease started before the US entered the war.


Thats my point. I think the OP is asking what happens if the US stays out of the war. Therefore no Lend Lease and no shipments before that. remember, that occurred because Roosevelt effectively wanted us in the war. In this scenario something has happened and the US would be nuetral.
Alternatively, who's to say the US doesn't start selling munitions and materiale to Germany as well? Then you might really have a problem with MADE IN THE USA Panthers running about.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/31 18:30:54


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





In your base, ignoring your logic.

Kilkrazy wrote:You're making the assumption that nothing would have taken the place of the Shermans or the Christie suspension.


Oh something would have, but it would need to be developed first of all. Same goes for the B-25's that were given to the Russians for Lend-Lease, something would've replaced them but seeing as though that means all of the production of war materials would've been in a country being bombed by another country it would be less. And again, that's almost 50,000 tanks that would be out of the war and all of those tanks were produced in the United States, away from war conditions. If you have England trying to produce their own fighting vehicles they would not have been able to produce close to that amount.

Overall, England only made 20,150 tanks from 1940 to 1945. America made double that number in Shermans alone so I think it would be safe to say that England would not have been able to replace the lost tanks with their own production, they just weren't capable of it. Not to mention the fact that the british tanks during the early part of the war could barely fare against German Anti-tank weapons and a lot of german armor, until the M3 Lee/Grant was introduced to the British they suffered terribly.

Russia on the other hand made 102,300 tanks on their own, making them the most capable of trying to replace the lost Sherman tanks. However, the US produced 88,500 tanks in total. During 1942 and 1943 the US outproduced the Russians (25,000 to 24,700 and 29,500 to 24,000) respectively and production waned over the next two years.

Germany alone made 46,700 tanks and outproduced the English.

So if we remove the US the allies lose 88,500 tanks total which is almost half of the Allied armor produced. I doubt England would have been able to replace the armor given to them during the Lend-Lease act. (42% of tanks produced for the allies were american made.)

Now to planes.

England produced about 123,500 warplanes and Russia produced 157,500 warplanes which really aren't bad numbers until you look at the whopping 301,500 warplanes produced by the US. (52% of the total warplanes produced were american)

Remove the US and you lose over half of the total number of warplanes used during WW2.

Now let's look at the actual people holding the weapons and driving the tanks.

England put forth a respectable 22,727,000 troops and Russia put forth 48,907,000 troops. The US put up 38,116,100 men. If you take out the US, that's 35% of the allied fighting force.

The truth is I doubt they would've been replaced because the UK didn't have the capacity to do so.(UK tank doctrine was also screwed up so that didn't help either).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/31 18:41:49


 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

Frazzled wrote:Thats not accurate. Shermans were superior to most German vehicles in Africa and competitive in Sicily and Italy.


Hence my statement about the firepower only being a problem around panther's and tigers. In all other combats against other opponents until about mid 1943 it was capable. Clarify: It's accurate in the sense that the power and range of the Sherman for much of its service time was not comparable to that its German counterparts, but the tanks that posed a threat to the Sherman were in much fewer number than Shermans, and there were often more older German tanks in service than new ones.

After all we did have 76MM shooters, and later 90MM shooters which were effective. As the Isrealis were able to upgun Shermans to 90MM it was definitely doable.


All separate issues from actually upgunning the Sherman during WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_tank_destroyer


Um, not a Sherman? There was a variant based on the Sherman Chassis but it was not employed as other Shermans were by the US in WWII.

We also have to remember that by the time of DDay, we had a buttload roaming fighter bombers. Yes the Germans could make extremely rare super tanks. But those extremely rare super tanks were utter targets from the air. More importantly their logistics tale was chew toy to air attack.


There were a multitude of reasons for the lack of upgrading the Sherman. Air superiority, limited German armor capabilities, the vast numbers at which the Sherman could be produced, McNair being a douche etc.

England put forth a respectable 22,727,000 troops and Russia put forth 48,907,000 troops. The US put up 38,116,100 men. If you take out the US, that's 35% of the allied fighting force.


How many of the 38 mil served in Europe? It's important to distinquish between the War in the Pacific and the War in Europe when making a comparison for fighting Germany. EDIT: Also might want to check your numbers. Maybe cut the US in half, divid Britain by 2, and who cares how many Russians there were? There were plenty

UK tank doctrine was also screwed up so that didn't help either


The British armor doctrine was more serviceable than ours and they adapted better to changes in German armor.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2011/05/31 23:06:11


   
Made in us
Monstrous Master Moulder




Secret lab at the bottom of Lake Superior

Well, Mr. H did make the horrible decision to double cross Stalin. A poor move indeed.

Commissar NIkev wrote:
This guy......is smart
 
   
Made in gb
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche






Elephant Graveyard

In Nazi Germany Hitler double crosses you.
In Soviet Russia double cross Hitlers you!
It had to be done gents...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/31 22:58:13


Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. 
   
Made in gb
Oberleutnant





"Not to mention the fact that the british tanks during the early part of the war could barely fare against German Anti-tank weapons and a lot of german armor, until the M3 Lee/Grant was introduced to the British they suffered terribly."

Not completely true. The Matilda II was immune to just about every AT element available to the Germans apart from the 88. It was however woefully under-gunned.

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

The main reason Hitler lost because was because Germany lacked CRASSUS ARMOURED TRANSPORTS.
   
Made in gb
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche






Elephant Graveyard

Cheesecat wrote:The main reason Hitler lost because was because Germany lacked CRASSUS ARMOURED TRANSPORTS.

I think you mean CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT there my dairy feline friend...

Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

purplefood wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:The main reason Hitler lost because was because Germany lacked CRASSUS ARMOURED TRANSPORTS.

I think you mean CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT there my dairy feline friend...


...But, but there's no assault ramps if only Hitler knew he might have won the war.
   
Made in gb
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche






Elephant Graveyard

Cheesecat wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:The main reason Hitler lost because was because Germany lacked CRASSUS ARMOURED TRANSPORTS.

I think you mean CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT there my dairy feline friend...


...But, but there's no assault ramps if only Hitler knew he might have won the war.

The name stays.
And, Hitler was/is(depending on who you listen to) a certified nutcase so go figure, he probably lost BECAUSE he used CRASSUS ARMOURED TRANSPORTs instead of the other, better variety...

Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

purplefood wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:The main reason Hitler lost because was because Germany lacked CRASSUS ARMOURED TRANSPORTS.

I think you mean CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT there my dairy feline friend...


...But, but there's no assault ramps if only Hitler knew he might have won the war.

The name stays.
And, Hitler was/is(depending on who you listen to) a certified nutcase so go figure, he probably lost BECAUSE he used CRASSUS ARMOURED TRANSPORTs instead of the other, better variety...


What a lack of foresight because it's insulated interiors would have helped the Germans cope with the harsh Russian winters.
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: