2676
2677

TIL that the only recorded instance of a cavalry capturing an enemy's ships occurred in the unusually cold winter of 1795, when most of the waterways in Northern Europe froze over and the French cavalry were able to charge out onto a frozen port to capture the Dutch fleet stranded there (en.wikipedia.org)

17211721 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]new_guy36 1ポイント2ポイント  (15子コメント)

Not really. The Nazi forces developed a shock and awe tactic called Blitzkrieg. It required extremely fast movement of troops and to take land very quickly to support the army. Their main fault was to open up an Eastern Front during the winter (though this was necessary as the Western Front had stalled). No one has conquered Russia in the Winter...well...except the Mongols.

[–]elos_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Barbarossa started in July lol. Wtf are you talking about "opened it up in the winter"

[–]Artyomic 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Not really. The Nazi forces developed a shock and awe tactic called Blitzkrieg.

The Germans never called it this

It required extremely fast movement of troops and to take land very quickly to support the army.

The fast taking of land was not to support the army. That's the goal of the army, taking land.

Their main fault was to open up an Eastern Front during the winter (though this was necessary as the Western Front had stalled).

The whole goal of the war was to invade and defeat the Soviet Union. The Western Front was a sideshow. And the Germans invaded in June.

[–]AadeeMoien 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Germans did call it that, as a matter of fact they created the term in mid-30s following the tactic's first field test in the Spanish revolution.

And the fast taking of land was to support the army. First shock troops would break enemy lines and route defenders, allowing the regular army to advance behind them to clean up defenders and begin occupying. In normal maneuvers, the army would press the front as a whole, which was slower amd more deliberate, that's what made the blitzkrieg an innovative move.

[–]elos_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're describing Hutier Tactics which were used in the Spring of 1918 not necessarily Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg is more denoted by:

  • Heavy armor concentration with little to zero infantry support penetrating small frontage

  • Air power being heavily concentrated to support said incursion

  • Paratroopers being used to match the speed of the advance and occupy targets the Armor/Air Power obliterate or soften targets prior to their advance

Hutier Tactics, which I believe you are confusing with Blitzkrieg, had little to do with armor or air power but a lot with 'shock troops' which the Germans concentrated from their entire army into single divisions. They would break, with massive overwhelming numbers, and infiltrate deep behind enemy weak points thus surrounding the strong points which could be hit from all sides; the regular army would hit the front and the infiltrated forces the rear and sides.

It may sound similar but they are actually two separate things -- Hutier tactics are about using concentrated shock infantry to penetrate lines theoretically only for a brief period and then coordinate with the rest of the infantry to move the entire line up. Blitzkrieg, which was just one part of a greater doctrine by the way, was more about using heavy armor concentrations and air power to penetrate deep into enemy lines and cause massive encirclements and seize strategic objectives rapidly.

[–]sawu101 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Operation sea lion should of happened not barbarossa if hitler wanted to win, but youre right of course

[–]Artyomic 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

Operation sea lion should of happened not barbarossa if hitler wanted to win, but youre right of course

This is patently untrue. The Kreigsmarine didn't have the naval power to scratch the RN, and didn't have enough landing craft to cross the North Sea.

The Russians were launching a massive rearmament and reorganization campaign. The Nazis were racing the clock until the Russians had the upper hand (just as Germany was in 1914). Waiting a year to build up for an invasion of the UK would have allowed the Russians crucial time to get ready to wreck Germany. Also, it is unlikely that America would have tolerated an invasion of the UK.

Historians argue about this, but i believe the Russians were getting prepared to invade Germany but Germany beat them to the punch.

Think about it strategically. Do you spend a year to crush a nation whose army you just neutered, or do you preemptively strike a much larger land power on your borders while you still have the advantage? If you go after England, you have to expose your split your forces in two because the Russians are going to come in blazing from the East the minute Hans lands in Dover. And in option B, Ivan is ready.

With Barbarossa, you can destroy by far your greatest military and ideological enemy without a risk of a two front war (the famous German dilemma). Barbarossa was supposed to be a decisive victory at the end of the summer, and the Nazis came within visual range of Moscow's landmarks and thus victory (the USSR could not survive without Moscow's infastructure).

Again as in 1914, if the Germans won in Russia the whole world may have been better off. The holocaust may have been greatly reduced (it was never the intention to industrially murder Jews, at least until the war got bad). The USSR falls, and they were (and this is a major debate) IMO a different Horseman to the Nazis but a Horseman nonetheless. The cold war doesn't happen.

Hilariously, like something out of /r/polandball, the saviours of European democracy may have been, wait for it, Italy and Greece. Germany originally planned to launch in May, but the Italians decided to invade Greece. The Italians, being the Austro-Hungarians of WWII, muck it up and have to call Uncle Fritz to come in and bail them out. This pushes Barbarossa back a month. This means that the Germans very literally freeze to death at the gates of Moscow. Another month may have meant German victory in the war itself.

With a German victory in '41, it becomes virtually impossible for America to land in France. The Wehrmacht in the West any time after D-Day was at best a secondary priority to the Nazis, and the Americans still struggled with it. And that was not the Wehrmacht of '41. That Wehrmacht was destroyed in Russia and nowhere else. The vast majority of German war casualties occur in Russia.

Instead of fighting the Wehrmacht of our timeline that nearly destroyed almost all of the major military powers, America and England would face a much much stronger Germany with huge amounts of land and industrial equipment beyond bombing range. The German army would have orders of magnitude more troops and equipment to face D-Day. The only way victory would be possible is atomic destruction of much of Germany in '45 and beyond.

[–]sawu101 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No it is not "patently untrue". Hitlers top generals warned of an offensive on the eastern front to hitler and instead of bombing raf bases during the blitzkreig attacks he bombed cities, had hitler effectively removed the rafs capabilities he could in fact order a full scale invasion from calais to dover and so forth. But because of that tactical error the operation was then replaced for barbarossa. When hitler ordered the the operation to start in june 22nd 1941 he already diverted a quarter of germanys armies to the eastern front, had he not done that and held his non aggression pact with stalin whilst also blockading the usas supplies to uk, the uk would of thoroughly been under nazi control. Had this of happened germany would only have had to deal with the soviet union, this also reduces the stress on his lesser ally italy. Stalin was a callous man and cold at heart, what happened to hitlers men also happened to napoleons invasion of russia. However had germany captured Malta it would also allow it and japan to coincide in the indian ocean therefore driving out the british and American opposition. There are many factors at work but i truly think sea lion would of worked. Britain in spite of its navy was not ready for an invasion on such a scale. And had germany effectively finished the raf, sea lion would of been possible in 1942 when the rafs capabilities were low as low can be and this would pave way for an invasion fleet.

[–]sawu101 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But your points are also valid in some aspects not though

[–]Doxbox49 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just saying with all my years of RTS games, I have learned to never let an opponent recover. Smash them into Bolivian and end it or risk them coming back. That's just games though

[–]wowandrew321 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Send them back into that south american shit heap

[–]OldManPhill [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

America could do it. FREEDOM

[–]kylenigga 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think the plan was for it to be over by the winter. Why was it necessary to open new front, instead of concentrating those forces in N. Africa? Was the N. Africa campaign already lost? I guess what I was really referring to is, why, Hitler did not take time to build up naval forces and add to the air force. If England was such a key objective.

[–]new_guy36 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

England had forced a stalemate in that area - the RAF and the RN are pretty essential to an island military power and the British sunk the French navy after Paris' surrender to stop reinforcing the Nazi's sea power - bare in mind Germany wasn't historically a naval power. It would have taken too much time and, as I said, Blitzkrieg relied on speed. Plus, Hitler wanted certain areas (key areas) of England untouched like Dover Castle for his own uses. We were also cracking naval codes as quickly as they could make them thanks to Turing and the Enigma team. The N. Africa campaign was more the brain child of Italy - it was the expansion of THEIR empire, not the Third Reich. And again, British intelligence played a key role in that defeat.

[–]Ricco959 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't forget that war with Russia was inevitable, both parties knew that the non aggression pact that they signed was just to give each side time to prepare for war. The Germans wanted time to try and secure the Western front while the Russians desperately needed the time to raise and train an army, and to equip it with weapons (remember that allegedly (I cant seem to find a good source) in world war 1 it was not unheard of for portions of the Russian army to be sent to the battlefield without guns, forced to scavenge weapons off their fallen comrades or from the enemies they killed).

[–]elos_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because even with Britain being the sole objective they still could not match them. From Max Hastings Inferno

Through August the Luftwaffe progressively increased the intensity of its assaults, attacking Fighter Command Airfields--though only briefly radar stations. Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, C-in-C of Fighter Command, began the battle with an average of 600 aircraft available for action, while the Germans deployed a daily average of around 750 serviceable bombers, 250 dive-bombers, and over 600 single-engined and 150 twin-engined fighters, organized in three air fleets. Souteast England was the main battleground, but Dowding was also obliged to defend the northeast and southwest from long-range attacks. (Pg 85)

Both air forces wildly overestimated the damage they inflected on each other. But the Germans’ intelligence failure was far more serious, because it sustained their delusion that they were winning. Fighter Command’s stations were targeted by forty Luftwaffe raids during August and early September, yet only two—Manston and Lympne on the Kent coast—were put out of action for more than a few hours, and the radar recievers were largely spared from attention. By late August the Luftwaffe believed Fighter Command’s first-line strength had been halved, to 300 aircraft. In reality, however, Dowding still deployed around twice that number: attrition was working to the advantage of the British. Between 8 and 23 August, the RAF lost 204 aircraft, but during that month 476 new fighters were built, and many more repaired. The Luftwaffe lost 397, of which 181 were fighters, while only 313 Bf-109s and Bf-110s were produced by German factories. Fighter Command lost 104 pilots killed in the middle fortnight of August, against 623 Luftwafffe airmen dead or captured. (Pg 85-86, emphasis mine)

The Wehrmacht flat out was not going to win in Britain. The Royal Navy massively outmatched the Kriegsmarine and the RAF outmatched the Luftwaffe