IL-2 WIP (Germans always gettin screens b4 us!!) -1 reply

Please wait...

Archangel85

Customtitles rock!

50 XP

30th June 2003

0 Uploads

795 Posts

0 Threads

#131 15 years ago

the germans were running into a wall of AT-guns and tanks in Kursk, just because a german general, fearing for his career says that he could have a breakthrough isn't that convincing...




Piispa

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

20th August 2003

0 Uploads

292 Posts

0 Threads

#132 15 years ago

Well, actually there IS some research made on the battle of Kursk and speculations generally say that Germans did actually have a win in their grasp, but were forced to let go due to Hitler's retreat order. Hitler wasn't much of a strategist nor tactic, you know... But the fact is that if Italians could've dealed the Allied langing on their own, Germans wouldn't have to get involved and thus, the battle of Kursk might have continued the additional day to German victory.




TommyGunDaliani

Cesare

50 XP

26th June 2003

0 Uploads

1,717 Posts

0 Threads

#133 15 years ago

All I can say is that this is a long drawn out arguement. With too many people arguing.




[RnL]Sarge

Resistance aNd Liberation

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

46 Posts

0 Threads

#134 15 years ago
PiispaWhole Africa campaing by German was only to fight the time. Western history tells a tale how Rommel's Afrika Corps was defeated in El Alamenin, but in truth Rommel never intended to win but to buy time. He was ordered to retreat from Africa, although he did think he could conquer the North Africa with just a little bit reinforcements, but Hitler disagreed because of the Operation Barbarossa. Now, if Hitler really wanted the oil in Iraq, why did he refuse to send reinforcements for Rommel, when Rommel himself did think he could win with reinforcements? Because Africa, and middle-east was not an importance for Germany. African front was opened by Italians, and they screwed it up.. Germany was needed to clean the mess but they wanted to keep the losses at minimum. The main strategical importance in Africa for Germany was the fact that it binded Allied troops there also and thus made the conquering of the Western Europe easier.

Rommel was never ordered to retreat. In fact he actually disobeyed orders from both Hitler and the Duece in holding his ground to ever last man. But unlike other loyal commanders Rommel knew the importance of his men and wasnt going to risk his mean all dieing in holding idiotic positions where his troops could be easy pickings for the overwhelming british forces and when the time came for Hitler's last order to hold his ground Rommel once again refused but instead of pulling back like he usually did he instead engaged the british forces by lashing out another offensive in Kasserine and of course after inital success he was beaten back. Later wounded by an RAF airplance and sent back to Germany to heal why the DAK was doomed to a repeat over and over again of failure with its new commander. In fact i believe it was in 1943-44 that Rommel saw the war in Afrika was going to be lost due to his lack of supplies and lack of belief in his fuhrer's direction and command. But if he was given the right supplies he would have reached Egypt when he had first launched a surprise attack on the british when they were commanded by Auchinleck. But unfortunatly he ran short of supplies and had to fall back from his offensive and Churchill then replaced Auchinleck with Montgomery, who in my opinion was lucky in just getting there in the right time and place when Rommel was at his weakest




Piispa

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

20th August 2003

0 Uploads

292 Posts

0 Threads

#135 15 years ago

Hitler (or some big shoe German general speaking with Hitler's voice) did order the retreat from Africa because Operation Barbarossa needed every man they could get and African front was already doomed to fall. The reason why reinforcements was kept from Rommel was the same: Operation Barbarossa. Africa had no importance next to Soviet Union, so why spend resources and men power to sand?




Archangel85

Customtitles rock!

50 XP

30th June 2003

0 Uploads

795 Posts

0 Threads

#136 15 years ago

barbarossa was well under way when africa was on its peak. In the end, hitler only wanted that the allies had to send men and material to fight in africa instead of prepering an invasion.

Italyfront: that is not true. the eastern front had the no.1 priority. italy was mainly hold by luftwaffe-divisions (they had some, like the panzerdivision herman goering or the fallschirmjägers) and was supplied right, so they gave the allied quite a hard time there. However, I have known no fact that any division was taken from the eastern front to fight in italy (except maybe for refreshing reasons and being in italy when a nearby landing occured).




Piispa

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

20th August 2003

0 Uploads

292 Posts

0 Threads

#137 15 years ago

Barbarossa was been planned since the day Hitler came to power (or even earlier) to be exact, and Africa was needless hole of men and resources next to invading Soviet Union, as I've stated many times before. Getting tired to repeat the same facts over and over again...

And Italy, the amount of Germans actually taking part of fighting in Italy was relatively small, but yes, they did have to reinforce the southern flank from divisions fighting against Soviets.




Kämpfer

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,394 Posts

0 Threads

#138 15 years ago
'[RnLSarge']Rommel was never ordered to retreat. In fact he actually disobeyed orders from both Hitler and the Duece in holding his ground to ever last man. But unlike other loyal commanders Rommel knew the importance of his men and wasnt going to risk his mean all dieing in holding idiotic positions where his troops could be easy pickings for the overwhelming british forces and when the time came for Hitler's last order to hold his ground Rommel once again refused but instead of pulling back like he usually did he instead engaged the british forces by lashing out another offensive in Kasserine and of course after inital success he was beaten back. Later wounded by an RAF airplance and sent back to Germany to heal why the DAK was doomed to a repeat over and over again of failure with its new commander. In fact i believe it was in 1943-44 that Rommel saw the war in Afrika was going to be lost due to his lack of supplies and lack of belief in his fuhrer's direction and command. But if he was given the right supplies he would have reached Egypt when he had first launched a surprise attack on the british when they were commanded by Auchinleck. But unfortunatly he ran short of supplies and had to fall back from his offensive and Churchill then replaced Auchinleck with Montgomery, who in my opinion was lucky in just getting there in the right time and place when Rommel was at his weakest

Germans were NOT EVEN IN AFRICA IN '44!




Kämpfer

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,394 Posts

0 Threads

#139 15 years ago
PiispaHitler (or some big shoe German general speaking with Hitler's voice) did order the retreat from Africa because Operation Barbarossa needed every man they could get and African front was already doomed to fall. The reason why reinforcements was kept from Rommel was the same: Operation Barbarossa. Africa had no importance next to Soviet Union, so why spend resources and men power to sand?

They were sending supplies but with their codes broken the allies easily destroyed the ships from Malta. In some monthes over 70% of all the ships sent to Africa were sunk.




Piispa

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

20th August 2003

0 Uploads

292 Posts

0 Threads

#140 15 years ago

OK, so I checked some facts for doubted my own memory.. here they are:

1. The "defeat" in El Alamein was in 1942 and final defeat in Africa in 1943, so there certainly were not any German troops in Africa in 1944.

2. The African front was opened when Italy invaded Egypt from Libya, without that there would've been no African front.

2. Yes, Hitler did first insisted Rommel to offensive actions, but after operation Torch took place and defeat in Africa started to show inevitable Hitler lost his interest in Africa and focused totally in Barbarossa. "Hitlers interest was fitful in any other theatre than the Russian and until he was about to lose North Africa he treated it as a sideshow, never grasping its place in the total pattern of the war" -Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin - Parallel Lives

2. Supplies did certainly play the main role in both sides, and which finaly gave the nail in Africa Korp's coffin. But 70% losses is just exaggerating. "Allied offensive in the Mediterannean became more and more effective throughout 1942 with the Italians losing 50% of their supplies at sea in December 1942." -my old history book from school.

These are the facts. When planning any further arguments, please consider these so I don't have to repeat myself.