Started By
Message

re: Is the Fall of France the greatest military achievement in history?

Posted on 2/26/20 at 8:52 am to
Posted by stateofplay
Member since Sep 2018
1504 posts
Posted on 2/26/20 at 8:52 am to
Japan couldve still had its empire today if it hadn't gotten greedy and attacked America
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
17232 posts
Posted on 2/29/20 at 6:33 am to
quote:

Britain and France were very slow to do away with their horses as these were status symbols of the officer corps. But because Germany was stripped bare of military might after WWI they had no institutional pride, and went with what the best technology was


No institutional pride? I'm not sure where some of you get your information from.

Germany wasn't unique in their recognition of tanks or general mechanization. In fact, Germany's tanks were not appreciably better than their opponents and were often times worse, including during the 1940 Western campaign. Where the Germans drew their edge was in the daring utilization of fast moving tanks to spearhead attacks en masse and then to exploit breakthroughs. It had nothing to do with Britain and France being reluctant to mechanize. This is totally false.

This philosophy did not originate in Germany but German commanders like Guderian did recognize the significant advantages it offered and pushed for its implementation. Hitler, for all his faults, was extremely influential in elevating these new age military minds into position to transform the German armed services. Much like everywhere else, the German army was resistant to change and had a great deal of entrenched and traditional military thinking. It should be noted that a great deal of the German brass prewar were very sceptical about Germany's capabilities. Some were legitimately concerned that Germany could potentially lose in a campaign against Czechoslovakia in 1938. What was key for Germany was not just embracing armor as a vital platform, as most all powers did, but to emphasize concentrated and coordinated armored units with the purpose of deep exploitatation of the enemy rear. Elevating innovative and daring commanders was essential to this and something Hitler was enthusiastic to do.

Everyone had to catch up to Germany's adaptation to this new age of warfare but it wasn't because Germany embraced technology and France and Britain didn't.
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
17232 posts
Posted on 2/29/20 at 6:38 am to
quote:

Hitler spending Marks on expensive and untested Tigers led to the downfall on the Eastern front. After the Russians upgraded the T-34, the Russians outproduced German tanks by a 30-1 margin. This strategy eventually backfired and was one of the major reasons the Germans lost at Kursk


So much wrong here.
Posted by stratman
NOLA
Member since Apr 2013
977 posts
Posted on 2/29/20 at 8:26 pm to
quote:


The only thing that stopped the Khans were the deaths of the Khans


KAHHHHNNNNN!!!!!!!
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 6Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram