Sherman Tank

I see you're throwing another one of your well documented hissy fits

Ummm, your post. You claiming that the soviet union was solely responsible for the destruction of the German army, is just as dumb as Americans claiming we won all by ourselves. Utter rubbish. You honestly think the soviets would have stood a chance in the early years of the eastern front, if Germany wasn't stretched out fighting up two three fronts? Hell, Hitler's bumbling intervention in military operations pretty much handed the Soviets easy pickings.

So what, the fact that he was fighting in Africa in the first place was a god send to Stalin, and his generals. Rommel may have not made an impact on the eastern front, if sent there, but the men and material in Africa sent by Hitler, did make an impact on the eastern front. same goes for the germans fighting in the Balkans and Italy.

Oh wow, the Bulgarians, Hungarians, and italy's three divisions really made an impact, on the eastern front. Romania is really the only Allie that made a sizable contribution to the effort

Hilarious, what a understatement.

No not really, you constantly try to skew historical facts to undermine American contributions to the war effort, and that's due to your small prick syndrome that you display on this forum all the time. If somebody claims the US won ww2 by themselves, they're just as full of (*)(*)(*)(*) as you saying it was the soviets.

My grandfather and great uncle fought from the beaches of France to the Rhine, and when pricks like you demean what they went through, I wish we were face to face, so I could slap the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of you.

 

Oh look a strawman argument. Back to the IL you go.

 

Here's an interesting fact to those who claim that the US contribution in WWII was minimal. The 8th USAAF lost more personnel in combat than did the entire US Marine Corps during WWII. The US contribution during WWII was indeed substantial.

 

I love how when you get intellectually punked, you scream strawman, and run away with your tail tucked between your legs.

 

I didn't say it wasn't substantial. I said the Soviets were decisive.

And the Japanese sucked at combat so that's not exactly surprising.

 

Perhaps on the eastern front. But the Americans, and to a lesser extent the British, were decisive in the European Theatre, Pacific Theatre and SE Asian Theatre.

I don't agree. The Japanese were excellent jungle fighters and fanatical in their resolve.

 

That last bit is what made them poor soldiers. Being willing to die for the cause is one thing, making sure you die for the cause if just bad soldiering.

 

No, that's what made them fanatical soldiers. The resolve to fight and resist no matter what the outcome.

 

Do you know what was unique about Iwo Jima?

 

Yes. It was the only Pacific battle where the US Marine Corps casualties exceeded those of the Japanese.

 

Well done.

After the initial shock of discovering that the Japanese weren't all 4 foot 3 and were blind wore off the Japanese weren't that hard to defeat. It just took time due to the large area they conquered, which isn't surprising really considering everyone's attention was on Europe at the time and would mostly remain so even after the Japanese entry.

 

It was a forgone conclusion that we'd defeat the Japanese on Iwo Jima. They weren't well equipped and supplied, they had no covering air power or naval artillery and they had no means of resupply or reinforcement. What they did have going for them was tenacity, a superb understanding of jungle warfare and, as you've said, a willingness to die for the emperor.

 

The problem was that the over willingness to die meant that they would kill themselves, or die in a banzai charge, instead of continuing to resist. If they had been slightly less willing to die they possibly could have held out longer than they did.

 

True, yet a small number did manage to hold out until well after the war ended. As I'm sure you are aware, a Japanese lieutenant held out in the Phillipines until 1974 when his former commander persuaded him to surrender.

 

Hiroo Onoda

 

I wonder, did the Japanese government issue him back pay?

 

Interesting question.

 

This is a very misleading statistic.

The 8th USAAF also had something like 5 times as many men deployed in combat than the entire U.S. Marine Corps.

 

Que? Rommel worked his way up, during the Blitzkrieg. He was sent to North Africa, and Hitler burned him and the Afrika Korp down, by refusing to invade Palestine, to enable a pincer attack, on Suez. Hitler ignored Yasser Arafat's relative, who was a Grand Mufti, to let Rommel linger.

We do know Hitler invaded the Soviets, I see.

Of course, if Hitler didn't just scuttle the Wehrmacht and the Third Reich, Americans wouldn't get to retreat to this here virtual island and wank.

Got any tales of that, from your homeland?

 

Rommel only got as far as he did as he was best buds with Hitler. It all boiled down to, "It's who you know, not what you know."

He was sent to North Africa as he didn't have the strategic ability/knowledge to be useful anywhere else. Rommel spent the interwar years being Hitler's bodyguard. While others were trained in modern warfare Rommel wasn't.

 

This is flat wrong. Rommel wrote a definitive book on Infantry tactics before the war and served as an instructor/commander at a war college. He was a huge advocate of mechanized infantry, and while not experienced with armor, was extremely successful commanding the 7th Panzer division in 1940. Rommel was a brilliant tactical commander though he certainly lacked the strategic competence for higher level commands. I've heard it joked that Rommel was just a highly competent company commander at heart who scaled this mindset/competence to higher levels. I think he was perfect as a division commander and perhaps as a corps commander, but above that, wasn't nearly as competent.

 

Rommel had a considerable career, and his authorship is various. Where'd you get the "bodyguard" rant, PKwagon?

Of course, without the Wehrmacht coming down on Suez, from Palestine, when this would have had considerable Arab support, Rommel languished, in Africa.

Heard of PINCERS? Gosh, don't get those, if you don't get to.

 

Rommel, what more can be said...
He was a magnificent bastard and Patton read his book.

[video=youtube;AJXKVOxqkWM][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJXKVOxqkWM[/url][/video]

 

Hello and welcome to my point.

As a General, and especially a German General, he wasn't supposed to worry abou tactics. That's why he was a poor General. He worried about tactics to the exclusion of strategy. Strategy was his job.

 

Because he was Hitler's bodyguard perhaps?

And of course Rommel was only supposed to defend in North Africa. He disobeyed orders by attacking. Everyone knew that he couldn't win as he lacked the logistics to sustain an attack. Everyone but Rommel, because he sucked at strategy.