Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is the most overlooked, undervalued, underestimated aspect of WWII?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The issue of coming from 'leftfield'

    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
    I think I know the sort of you want: a seemingly outrageous argument out of left field such as that which one of my lecturers came up with once:

    "Neville Chamberlain was Britain's Bismarck ".

    You academics are all alike !
    Good parry. And I kinda, sorta, in a way know what you mean.
    We never miss an opportunity to be clever!
    However do need to keep in mind, it can really p_ _ _ some people off. and more importantly TURN them off the topic.
    That ain't so cool:.
    Thanks for reminding me.

    However (he said, determined to get in the last word!) just because a premise, or argument or suggestion is 'out of left field' does not invalidate them automatically.

    In fact the old cliché, 'when you look at it that way' or when you look at it from another perspective' can be an invaluable learning and teaching tool.

    As for example in my suggestion about:
    The comfort zone in question?
    As I said: "when its not one of our guys or gals its kinda not the same is it?"


    Which raises the questions of national bias, blinkered viewpoints, uncomfortableness with the unfamiliar and yes plain old prejudice.

    Used to love tackling that stuff back in the day.

    Anyway, good discussion. Thanks for your input.

    Regards
    lodestar (you're right we never change)

    Comment


    • Which raises the questions of national bias, blinkered viewpoints, uncomfortableness with the unfamiliar and yes plain old prejudice......
      An awful lot of the above in this world...

      I don't know if anyone brought it up yet with all the talk about K-rations and woman pilots but wasn't WWII the first war in which there was quite a few operations using airborne troops-gliders, paratroops, commando drops, supply drops, troop movements, ect..I know Lodey mentioned Ebal Emael but I think he missed the larger picture of airborne use by all sides.

      Also, wasn't napalm, or something like it, first used in WWII?...

      Regards,Kurt



      Last edited by Kurt Knispel; 15 Feb 17, 04:01.
      Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
        " ... <snip>
        Also, wasn't napalm, or something like it, first used in WWII?...
        Not such a new idea as many might think.
        Napalm (or something approximately like it) was first used in ancient times.
        The basic idea may go back as far as the 9th Century BC.
        A later and better known variation was "Greek Fire". It was an incendiary fluid that was pumped under pressure out of a hose-like apparatus:
        "Greek fire was an incendiary weapon developed c. 672 and used by the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. The Byzantines typically used it in naval battles to great effect, as it could continue burning while floating on water. It provided a technological advantage and was responsible for many key Byzantine military victories, most notably the salvation of Constantinople from two Arab sieges, thus securing the Empire's survival."
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire

        http://all-that-is-interesting.com/greek-fire

        "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
          Not such a new idea as many might think.
          Napalm (or something approximately like it) was first used in ancient times.
          The basic idea may go back as far as the 9th Century BC.
          A later and better known variation was "Greek Fire". It was an incendiary fluid that was pumped under pressure out of a hose-like apparatus:


          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire

          http://all-that-is-interesting.com/greek-fire

          Thanks for the links and the history lesson ..In the Wiki page titled Napalm the Greeks use of a "sticky" fire weapon was given one sentence. The point of my post was that Napalm was first developed in 1942 and and used in the last year of WWII, and as such, is often "overlooked" because of its widespread use in the Vietnam War and automatic association by the general public with the Vietnam War.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm
          Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser.[1] Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam






          Regards,Kurt
          Last edited by Kurt Knispel; 14 Feb 17, 15:28.
          Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

          Comment


          • Eban emal? NO Emal eban? NO Enabl emaen ??!!!

            Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
            An awful lot of the above in this world...
            I don't know if anyone brought it up yet with all the talk about K-rations and woman pilots but wasn't WWII the first war in which there was quite a few operations using airborne troops-gliders, paratroops, commando drops, supply drops, troop movements, ect..I know Lodey mentioned Ebal Emael but I think he missed the larger picture of airborne use by all sides.
            Well I don't consider the 'larger picture of airborne use by all sides' an overlooked, undervalued, underestimated aspect of WWII.

            There's been a great many books written about WWII airborne components of operations, especially Market Garden (and yes I know MG is the umbrella name for both airborne and overland parts of the operation) and D-Day.

            However the Germans used their airborne arm to greatest effect in operationally or strategically important terms.
            This was especially true of the attack against Crete in May 1941, the only truly 'Airborne Forces' strategic/operational-level victory achieved during the war, the airborne components of D-Day and MG being parts of larger and multi/combined-arms ops.
            Eben Emael (it's Eben Emael NOT what you said [Ebal Emael] and NOT how I initially how I spelt it [Eban Emal] sheesh umazing how somme wurds kan be mispeld so eezily isn't it?) on the other hand is definitely an overlooked 'gem' of a 'special forces' operation which highlighted German innovation, daring, boldness and skill.

            I suspect it's overlooked to degree partly because of the same problem I outlined about Soviet female combat pilots: "when its not one of our guys or gals its kinda not the same is it?"
            Which raises the questions of national bias, blinkered viewpoints, uncomfortableness with the unfamiliar and yes plain old prejudice.


            If you are 'uncomfortable' about some issues raised in this thread or my 'clichés' thread, my patriots or progressives' thread, my 'the term heroes is now meaningless' thread, my 'Germans did not vote for World War or genocide' thread' or any other lodestar matter.....you need not suffer alone

            The lodestar hotline ...18000Iknoweverything/and/amalwaysright347 is open twenty for seven if you want to talk.

            Or you can just contact me by PM or of course just plain post on the thread concerned.

            I am here to help.
            Regards
            lodestar

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lodestar View Post
              Well I don't consider the 'larger picture of airborne use by all sides' an overlooked, undervalued, underestimated aspect of WWII.

              There's been a great many books written about WWII airborne components of operations, especially Market Garden (and yes I know MG is the umbrella name for both airborne and overland parts of the operation) and D-Day.

              However the Germans used their airborne arm to greatest effect in operationally or strategically important terms.
              This was especially true of the attack against Crete in May 1941, the only truly 'Airborne Forces' strategic/operational-level victory achieved during the war, the airborne components of D-Day and MG being parts of larger and multi/combined-arms ops.
              Eben Emael (it's Eben Emael NOT what you said [Ebal Emael] and NOT how I initially how I spelt it [Eban Emal] sheesh umazing how somme wurds kan be mispeld so eezily isn't it?) on the other hand is definitely an overlooked 'gem' of a 'special forces' operation which highlighted German innovation, daring, boldness and skill.
              Even more overlooked IMO is German paratroops' initial failure in Rotterdam at the same time - due to stubborn 4-day resistance from local marine cadets.

              Originally posted by lodestar View Post
              The lodestar hotline ...18000Iknoweverything/and/amalwaysright347 is open twenty for seven if you want to talk.

              Or you can just contact me by PM or of course just plain post on the thread concerned.

              I am here to help.
              Regards
              lodestar
              "Don't forget to include stamped SAE"
              (sorry, couldn't stand the temptation to add this necessary line)
              "Keep Calm. Use Less X's"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
                "Thanks for the links and the history lesson ..In the Wiki page titled Napalm the Greeks use of a "sticky" fire weapon was given one sentence. The point of my post was that Napalm was first developed in 1942 and and used in the last year of WWII, and as such, is often "overlooked" because of its widespread use in the Vietnam War and automatic association by the general public with the Vietnam War. ... "
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm
                Yes, but that's not exactly what you said before when you asked the question. This is what you actually said (my bold):
                Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
                " <snip> Also, wasn't napalm, or something like it, first used in WWII?..."
                Note: "Napalm or something like it."
                I wasn't trying to be a smartarse. I was genuinely doing my best to answer your question as you wrote it.
                Therefore, my point was that something like it goes back many centuries at least, if not millennia. The basic idea is very far from new.
                Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post






                Regards,Kurt
                I've heard some Vietnam vets who were not overly impressed with that movie but I must admit, I did enjoy it. And Robert Duval played the part of an eccentric/oddball American commander quite well, IMO.
                Last edited by panther3485; 18 Feb 17, 03:07.
                "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                Comment


                • As per NUMEROUS repeated warnings, an off topic post by lodestar contributing nothing of value to the thread was deleted. This is not your personal blog and no one has any interest in, or time for, rants or polemics that contribute nothing of historical value to the thread. Any further contributions of this type from the OP will be deleted and the thread will be permanently locked. This is a blanket warning for all threads created by the OP.
                  My patience is worn out with dealing with this type of behaviour.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
                    Great Britain and France declared war on Germany 3 September 1939 and then did what exactly?...Lets use the Saar offensive on 7 September 1939 as an example of the timidity of the French at the time. France had some 2500 tanks facing the Siegfried line in which the Germans had less then 50. The French also had 100 divisions to Germany's 50. What did they do?.. They withdrew their forces 17 September after some brief clashes at the Siegfried Line against German undermanned forces....
                    Nope.

                    On Sept 3rd France was still mobilizing and would not have more divisions facing the Saar until nearly the end of the month. The entire reason for an offensive by M+14 (Sep 17) was to take pressure off the Poles, who were expected to hold out well into the winter. Unfortunately, by Sep 6th the Polish front was effectively in ruins and by Sep 17th Poland was already soundly defeated.

                    France, facing a shaky economy, weak industry (undermined further by mobilising too many specialists in early Sep), falling currency, continued political instability and a demographic disadvantage of 2:1 in males of military age quite rightly cancelled the offensive. Any offensive in late Sep would have simply led to casualties amongst an army that was already ill-prepared for war. The regular army's 20 Active divisions were a screen for the northwestern industrial, resource and manpower centers and on mobilisation many had to give up one at least one regiment to help mobilise a reserve division, absorbing ill-trained reservists in their place. French Category A and B divisions were in bad need of training and many (if not most) reservists were being introduced to modern weapons for the first time since their brief period of compulsory training any numbers of years in the past. Some reservists even had their roles changed upon mobilisation to fill gaps in divisions.

                    French doctrine also needs to be taken into account. 'Methodical Battle' would have taken small bites out of the German front in a successive series of advances planned only for 5-8 kilometers at a time before suspending the attack and redeploying the guns and tanks to support the next bound forward. What exactly the French would have done with any ground won is another good question. Ground taken would then need to be defended against counterattack and the salient would impose losses the army simply could not afford.

                    On the German side the of the line in early Sep the usual excuse of old men and boys is simply wrong. Amongst the German defenders and reserves, stationed right in the path of a French advance into the Saar, were 11 First Wave divisions. Even before Poland surrendered the Germans began shipping more troops west and the relative French superiority (less than 2-1 in late Sep) was eroded quickly. By Sep 17th any offensive simply lost any meaning or worthwhile objective other than to shed blood for a political sop.

                    It was the right move.

                    (Pardon the late contribution to the thread)
                    Last edited by The Purist; 21 Feb 17, 10:27.
                    The Purist

                    Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                    Comment


                    • Post deleted.
                      Please do not make comments on Staff actions in open forum.
                      Thank you.
                      ACG Staff
                      Last edited by panther3485; 25 Feb 17, 04:18.
                      'By Horse by Tram'.


                      I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                      " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
                        An awful lot of the above in this world...

                        I don't know if anyone brought it up yet with all the talk about K-rations and woman pilots but wasn't WWII the first war in which there was quite a few operations using airborne troops-gliders, paratroops, commando drops, supply drops, troop movements, ect..I know Lodey mentioned Ebal Emael but I think he missed the larger picture of airborne use by all sides.

                        Also, wasn't napalm, or something like it, first used in WWII?...

                        Regards,Kurt



                        Those planes were used for quick troop movements more often than some realise. You were loaded into the plane in exactly the same way that the Paras were. A single file sitting down on the floor both sides with your gear stacked down the middle. I was involved with that type of movement twice. The first time, a bumpy landing in a suitable paddock close to the front where we were needed and the 2nd time on a German fighter strip just inside Germany. ( Yes we crossed the Rhine in comfort. ) lcm1
                        Last edited by lcm1; 25 Feb 17, 04:43.
                        'By Horse by Tram'.


                        I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                        " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                        Comment


                        • This post was made in response to a comment on Staff action and has therefore been deleted.
                          If you see another member making comments in such a way, please do not respond at all.

                          Thank you.
                          ACG Staff
                          Last edited by panther3485; 25 Feb 17, 04:21.

                          Comment


                          • Post deleted.
                            Please do not make comments on Staff actions in open forum.
                            Thank you.
                            ACG Staff
                            My apologies for crossing the 'No Go' line. lcm1
                            Last edited by panther3485; 25 Feb 17, 06:57.
                            'By Horse by Tram'.


                            I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                            " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                            Comment


                            • Some overlooked, undervalued aspects of WWII

                              This post was made in response to a comment on Staff action and has therefore been deleted.
                              If you see another member making comments in such a way, please do not respond at all.

                              Thank you.
                              ACG Staff
                              Okay.
                              Here's the part that is just about the historical topic(s) under discussion:

                              "There are still plenty if issues we can explore.

                              As an example, Purist’s exploration of French inaction in Sept 1939 and the reasons (valid or not?) for it in Post#129 is excellent material for discussion.
                              My father remembers clearly the period of the dreaded ‘Affiches Blanches’ the call-up posters and the great fear the army would have to go through 14-18 again.
                              I needs to be remembered just how desperate the Western powers (especially the French who had suffered the most) were to avoid a repeat of ‘the trenches’. Appeasement is much condemned now but at the time it was a widely supported and perfectly understandable approach.
                              I’ll open a thread shortly on my on-going ‘Road to War’ series to discuss this further.

                              Other topics we can explore regarding this thread are, for example:
                              from Post # 113:
                              . "Italian midget submarine warfare. A world leader and in way ahead of it's time. If the rest of Italy's war effort had been as on the ball as this we'd all be eating herrings and smoked cod (or whatever it is Italians eat)!"

                              Post # 81. "Whatever the faults, tyrannical oppression and at times near insanities of pre-war Stalinist rule, it was cancelled out by Hitler's insane racial doctrine and his attempt to implement it with Barbarossa.
                              The Nazi's just being themselves was all the guarantee needed to ensure they'd lose the war."

                              Post # 61: "Campaigns: Japan's war in China and the impact of having so many divisions tied down there on prosecution of war elsewhere.

                              Decision: Uhhh it's the deluxe hindsight/armchair general question. Let's cheat and say; variety of decisions that led to the historical size of British forces in France in 1940.
                              Weapon: Trucks / US-UK radio-artillery infrastructure

                              Post # 60:
                              "The Soviets had female COMBAT pilots

                              Not to take anything away from the great courage and daring of Western female pilots who served so bravely ...but...the Soviets had female COMBAT pilots .

                              The really are unsung. At least in the West."

                              Post # 28: "If the Germans were smart, they would have tried to make allies of the Russians and Ukrainians they conquered, many of which had no love for the communist government and Stalin. But the Nazis contempt and treatment of the native peoples turned most of them to support the devil they knew. But even with the Nazis contempt of the Slavic people, they still managed to find Ukranians to fight against the Soviets, so great was their hatred against the Communist."

                              Plenty more I’m sure.

                              Fair enough? I'm just interested in developing further ideas and expanding existing ones.

                              Regards
                              lodestar
                              Last edited by panther3485; 25 Feb 17, 06:55.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                                Nope.

                                On Sept 3rd France was still mobilizing and would not have more divisions facing the Saar until nearly the end of the month. The entire reason for an offensive by M+14 (Sep 17) was to take pressure off the Poles, who were expected to hold out well into the winter. Unfortunately, by Sep 6th the Polish front was effectively in ruins and by Sep 17th Poland was already soundly defeated.

                                France, facing a shaky economy, weak industry (undermined further by mobilising too many specialists in early Sep), falling currency, continued political instability and a demographic disadvantage of 2:1 in males of military age quite rightly cancelled the offensive. Any offensive in late Sep would have simply led to casualties amongst an army that was already ill-prepared for war. The regular army's 20 Active divisions were a screen for the northwestern industrial, resource and manpower centers and on mobilisation many had to give up one at least one regiment to help mobilise a reserve division, absorbing ill-trained reservists in their place. French Category A and B divisions were in bad need of training and many (if not most) reservists were being introduced to modern weapons for the first time since their brief period of compulsory training any numbers of years in the past. Some reservists even had their roles changed upon mobilisation to fill gaps in divisions.

                                French doctrine also needs to be taken into account. 'Methodical Battle' would have taken small bites out of the German front in a successive series of advances planned only for 5-8 kilometers at a time before suspending the attack and redeploying the guns and tanks to support the next bound forward. What exactly the French would have done with any ground won is another good question. Ground taken would then need to be defended against counterattack and the salient would impose losses the army simply could not afford.

                                On the German side the of the line in early Sep the usual excuse of old men and boys is simply wrong. Amongst the German defenders and reserves, stationed right in the path of a French advance into the Saar, were 11 First Wave divisions. Even before Poland surrendered the Germans began shipping more troops west and the relative French superiority (less than 2-1 in late Sep) was eroded quickly. By Sep 17th any offensive simply lost any meaning or worthwhile objective other than to shed blood for a political sop.

                                It was the right move.

                                (Pardon the late contribution to the thread)
                                Was it? The Germans were having ammunition and equipment problems in the closing stages of the Polish campaign, a French attack would have aggravated them. It would also have interfered with their planning of and preparation for what would have been a counter-offensive in the West.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X