Good news on future of BOM

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

One week has passed since, lets hope some word this Friday

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Albert Einstein

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Gonna have to disagree with you. Ludendorff's "Kaiserschlact" attacks of Spring 1918 used none of the concept of deep penetration and attack on rear objectives which were characteristic of German armoured doctrine in WWII. Yes, the Stossstruppen used infiltration techniques on a tactical level which involved bypassing strongpoints instead of assaulting them, but there was no combined arms with tanks, the Germans barely had any tanks available. And Ludendorff did not know how to exploit his initial successes, he had no plan to feed reserves through the holes he created, and get into the Allied rear areas. In fact, the Allied commanders in WWI were much better at exploiting success than the Germans, they managed to break the conflict out into open countryside out of the trenches by October of 1918 in their counter-offensive.



Gonna have to disagree with you again. Ironically the Wehrmacht under Adolf Hitler, a totalitarian dictator who insisted on complete obedience to his wishes, was actually the most democratic institution in Nazi Germany. Initiative in this new German army was encouraged on all levels, junior Wehrmacht officers, even NCO's were encouraged to take decisions which in other armies, such as the French and British, would be referred upwards in the chain of command, hence causing delays and failures to exploit opportunities. Some of the greatest successes the Germans achieved were as a result of junior commanders following this spirit of initiative, and ignoring the directions of their superiors. In the Battle of France, both Guderian and Rommel ignored Hitler's and their superior's orders to stop short after crossing the Meuse, and instead drove forwards at a relentless pace because they knew they had the French on the run. Only the Americans developed a Officer corps which was capable of showing the same level of initiative in the junior levels. There was not a lot of "National Socialist" fervour in the Wehrmacht, to the contrary, it was the largest source of opposition to Hitler once he started to run into trouble. Yes, Hitler did create an elite body of troops in the SS Panzertruppen, who were committed Nazis, but surprisingly, if you look at their combat record, they were no more effective, in many cases worse, than the standard Wehrmacht Panzer divisions. The Divisions with the best record in the German army were the 116th Panzer Division, and the 2nd Panzer Division. Look at the Battle of the Ardennes. The 6th Panzer Army under SS General Seip Dietrich, all SS Divisions, failed in its breakout attempt, despite much better equipment. The Wehrmacht Panzer divisions in the 5th Panzer Army, under Wehrmacht General Manteuffel were the ones who actually broke out through the American lines and made the deepest penetration. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of us, the lead Panzer Divisions ran out of fuel just short of the Meuse river and were surrounded and slaughtered by one of the US Army's best Tank commanders, Ernest Harmon of the 2nd Armoured division. Contrary to the myths perpetuated by the Patton cheerleading section, this was the real critical moment of the Battle not the relief of Bastogne.



Again, you are ignoring the facts. In the case of Poland, the Polish had only 45 tanks, which were obsolete R35's. In fact, by far the majority of the French tank forces were comprised of these same obsolete Renault R35 tanks dating from 1933. These had weak armour, a low velocity inaccurate 37mm gun designed for fighting infantry, and were not a match for the Panzer II's high velocity 20mm, which were the majority of the German tank force. The 20mm on the Panzer II could penetrate the R35's turret at 100 meters, the 37mm on the R35 could not penetrate the Panzer. The Panzer II was a fine tank, quite fast and maneuverable for its time, it had a top speed of 40km/hr compared to 20 km/hr for the R35. In addition, almost all French tanks had no radios, which meant the tanks could not work in concert, and their commanders had to load and fire as well as call out maneuver commands, something which did not work in practice. Imagine leaning out your turret and waving a flag to try to get the remainder of your tank platoon to follow a direction... Yes, there were some Char B's and Somua S-35's, but they were the minority, the next most numerous French Tank was the Hotchkiss H35, which was as slow as the R35, and had the same poor gun, with weaker armour, which was notorious for bad manufacturing and weak spots which were easily penetrated. The most numerous British tank was the Mk VIA, which was very much inferior to the Panzer II, having weak armour and a MG as armament. There were very few Matildas.

And the French airforce was not a match for the Germans, they had nowhere near the same number of Squadrons in the air, their infrastructure could not support the number of aircraft they had in reserve. Also the Morane 406, the most numerous French fighter was simply not a match for the 109E. Only the Curtis H75 and Dewoitine 520 were a match and the 520 was manufactured in small numbers while the Curtiss was an American import. (Curtiss H-75's shot down more German aircraft than any other French manned fighter)

I think we're essentially arguing around the margins here but maybe I’m just not explaining myself very well. All of the principles employed by the Germans in their assault on France and the Low countries were known to the western allies prior to 1940. Most of the combined arms principles used in the course of the German assault had in fact been pioneered in WW 1 or well before. Tank tactics, the concept of armoured thrusts and breakthroughs etc were international concepts by the 1920s and 30s and certainly not the exclusive preserve of the German Army. The Germans essentially continued where they had left off at the end of in WW 1 and with further refinements employed these same tactics again in 1939-40. But crucially, it was not beyond the powers of the French to stop them. German supply lines, which were strung out along a very narrow front were highly vulnerable and at absolute breaking point and sometimes beyond breaking point during the German drive for the coast. However, the French failed to seize the initiative and exploit this glaring weakness. French leadership utterly failed at the critical moment. It was this failure rather than the introduction of new unheralded tactical innovations that secured a German victory. And yes, I agree about the greater abundance of initiative among German officers and NCOs during critical moments during the assault, but what has this to do with Blitzkrieg? If anything it simply reinforces my point that even if the Germans were making use of unheard of tactical innovations during the assault (they weren't), they could only take the invaders so far, and on numerous occasions, the assault would have stalled or failed had it not been for the willingness of small units and in some cases individuals to undertake extraordinary feats of arms to ensure its success.

[fruitbat]

It was the Battle of Amiens (8th aug 1918 )that was the first to incorporate an all-armed co-ordinated attack, bringing together artillery, tanks, infantry and aircraft, for the first time, by the British, not the Germans......

And to those who still believe there is a BoM coming, big lol's.....

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by klem

lonewulf, sorry to add to the pile, but a flaw in your statement about Hitlers objective in Russia retains the flaw in Hitler's own perception of victory in Russia.

Hitler believed that by capturing Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad etc he would defeat Russia, because the Russians would capitulate. He wouldn't have because they wouldn't have. Stalin would have (and was already) withdrawing Eastward where he was relocating his production facilities and rebuilding his forces as well as drawing on forces from Mongolia etc. If Hitler did not pursue him Stalin would have re-built and come back against him as he did in any case and with far superior numbers and equipment (for the region). If Hitler did pursue him through the sccorched earth of Russia he would have been unable to sustain his forces and eventually he would have been crushed, as in fact happened to his 6th Army when he was no-where near as stretched. He may have captured the Caucuses and the Ukraine wheat fields but sustained forces means both supplies and men and I don't think he had the manpower to stretch that far. These are the reasons why I don't think Hitler could ever have defeated Russia. His perception of victory was flawed.

The Russians might have welcomed Hitler with open arms after Stalin but as Hitler had pronounced them sub-human and the German forces took full advantage of their conquest with killings, rapings, destruction, etc, the Russians weren't likely to take kindly to the Germans.

I don't agree with this. If anything it was Hitler, rather than his generals, who understood that it was the control of resources, rather than bricks and mortar, that would determine ultimate victory. That is why he withdrew from the Battle for Moscow and thrust towards Stalingrad and the Volga because he understood the economic significance of the Volga to the survival of the Soviet Union. And it was also Hitler who understood that, despite the claims to the contrary, the Soviets didn't have unlimited man power. By the end of the war the Soviets, like everyone else, were beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel. That is why Hitler insisted on unwavering defense because he knew that wasteful Soviet tactics worked ultimately in his favour.

And while I think much can be said about the disgraceful behaviour of German forces in the East during the War, I am not aware that they had a reputation for rape. The Red Army on the other hand had a well documented propensity for this type of behaviour.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

I don't agree with this. If anything it was Hitler, rather than his generals, who understood that it was the control of resources, rather than bricks and mortar, that would determine ultimate victory. That is why he withdrew from the Battle for Moscow and thrust towards Stalingrad and the Volga because he understood the economic significance of the Volga to the survival of the Soviet Union.

umm, the original point of Fall Blau was to attack the Caucasus to capture the vital Soviet oil fields there, it was Hitler who got hung up on Stalingrad, which had no resource benefit at all.......

[JG52Krupi]

Right okay I know I was part of the thread derailment but please use a different thread.

Stick to the topic please!

[raaaid]

yeah having helped also to derailed the thread i created a new one on who won the war i dont like to discuss rumours so ill stay out of this thread

[Kaiser]

Originally Posted by klem

All true except that the Allies were not in a position to launch a successfuil invasion before June '44.

In the U.S. shipyard in 1943 "produced an unprecedented number of ships" in 1943, the American shipyard launched the merchant ships with a total tonnage 19.2 million deadweight tons, which exceeded more than twice the tonnage of the vessels built in 1942
Makalvi in ​​1965, claims that plans landings across the English Channel in August 1943 were unrealistic because "in 1942, the Allies suffered heavy losses in the courts, when the losses were greater than the possibility of their completion." However, the American historian McInnis immediately after the war, published data, which indicate that in 1943, the American shipyard launches tonnage "is ten times more than the tonnage of their losses." American historian McNeill in 1953, only slightly McInnis said. He concluded that by August 1943 the "new tonnage is nine times higher than the loss of tonnage from all causes".
During the years of World War II, the U.S. built merchant ships with a total displacement of 33 million tons, and the military - to 8 million tons.
In August 1943, the British merchant fleet tonnage, despite Poterna is maintained at a high level and amounted to 13.5 million tons.
Status of the sea was so prosperous that in early August 1943 Chiefs had to officially inform the chairman of the military production that they are no longer considered a bottleneck merchant navy for the war overseas.
On the eve of the Tehran conference in Cairo, the special Anglo-American Conference, which found that "the review of applications for the court rather than the estimated total deficiency in tonnage on the adopted plan to get even some slack". After this, the JCP strategic operations was forced to admit that there was an opportunity to "provide for scheduled maritime and ground operations."
American journalist Ralph Ingersoll in the acclaimed book "The Secret" refers to a conference in Quebec (August 1943), which found that, "for the plan" Overlord "(the plan landing of British and American troops in Northern France. - VS ) existing landing craft is not enough ... ". But when experts have carefully studied all the possibilities, says British military historian Herman, and especially to investigate the possibility of rational use of the merchant navy, it was found that "the strategic plans are not threatened by the lack of real courts, and a flaw that actually existed only on paper"
Joint Planning Committee, presented at a conference in Quebec report, which noted that "the operation planned for throughout 1943 and into the summer of 1944, provided a sufficient number of amphibious ships, vessels and resources"

[FAE_Cazador]

Originally Posted by zapatista

OK's, back on track !

i think right now all we can do is keep an eye on the russian forums to see if there are any other snippets of information from DEDA being posted, or any further progress reports or updates on BoM development from other russian posters who are closer to the project.

since B6 stopped managing the CoD/BoM forums, our english 1C forums have been left in a bit of an information vacuum. so all we can do is wait for now

Back on track

This is reminding me the old Cold War years "Kremlinology"

From Wikipedia:

"Lack of reliable information about the country (USSR) forced Western analysts to "read between the lines" and to use the tiniest tidbits, such as the removal of portraits, the rearranging of chairs, positions at the reviewing stand for parades in Red Square, the choice of capital or small initial letters in phrases such as "First Secretary", the arrangement of articles on the pages of the party newspaper "Pravda" and other indirect signs to try to understand what was happening in internal Soviet politics...."

Change "country" by "BOM", "Pravda" by "Sukhoi.ru" and "First Secretary" by "Project Manager" and There you are...... Back to the Cold War!

[Jaws2002]

Someone should change the name for this thread to something like "Who TF won WW2 whine-fest".