[PBVBROOK]

Submarines.

I also agree with the DC3.


One people never mention. The US Armys training of noncommissioned officers to do jobs previously resered to officers exclusively. This continuity of command allowed US Army units to remain tactically effective after their offices were killed or wounded. The Germans never did this.

[Rick]

Submarines.

Uh, submarines were HARDLY an underspoken weapon of WWII, einstein.

[Potemkin]

One of the little ironies in that war that we supplied the Russians with some of the most effective weapons to use against us, and even without introducing it into our own army.

Capitalism - ya gotta love it!

What was it Lenin said about capitalists and rope again?

[Oxymoron]

No its just that the Americans used the Soviets to bleed the Germans while invading Normandy so that they faced 17 year olds and old man, the americans could have used tractors instead of tanks and still defeat the germans in France.

[alyster]

What was it Lenin said about capitalists and rope again?

Wasn't it Stalin?

[Potemkin]

No its just that the Americans used the Soviets to bleed the Germans while invading Normandy so that they faced 17 year olds and old man, the americans could have used tractors instead of tanks and still defeat the germans in France.

False.

[Oxymoron]

Karl want to elaborate? We are not cave men a sentence contains more then one word.

[Potemkin]

Clickee clickee.

[Oxymoron]

I see very good point their, yes go on, yes...Potemkin you really know your stuff I am immpressed. Clickee Clickee genius.

[Potemkin]

Let me rephrase it then: I have pasted a hyperlink in my previous post, dear chap. If one clicks with the left mouse button on that hyperlink, one is whisked by the wonders of modern technology to a page on the internet, to wit the Wikipedia page on The Battle of the Bulge, which, if you peruse it with due attention, will reveal that in fact the Americans were not facing merely old men and 17 year olds, and in fact required rather more than merely tractors to win against them.

[Oxymoron]

Much better thank you. I was exagerating to make a point but you are right the Battle of the Bulge was the only real engagement on the Western front where the outcome was in limbo yes tractors wouldnt do so well.

[PBVBROOK]

Uh, submarines were HARDLY an underspoken weapon of WWII, einstein.

You just trying to be annoying? Or just ill-bred. I vote for ill-bred.

Submarines were devastating weapons that do not get as much credit as the Aircraft carriers and long-range bombers. They comprised less than 2% of the Navy yet they were responsible for sinking 30% of Japan's Navy and 60% of its merchant marine. They strangled the Japanese economy.

I believe their importance now and potential dominance of the world's oceans in any future conflict is under-reported. You may disagree. It is your right youngster.

[Rick]

Submarines were devastating

What weapons were devastating wasn't the subject of the OP, steel-trap brain.

[Thunderhawk]

German Submarines during WW2 are infamous.


Allied Subs are virtually unknown of. Several months ago I posted about English/allied subs, and a German poster all but refused to accept that the allies had subs

American subs were quite effective in the Pacific, but they were against the Japanese who werent experianced at taking on subs.

(The American subs for most of the war were given torpedoes using magnetic proximity detonation devices, supposed to detonate 'just under' the enemy ship, thus doing more damage. Great idea, but it didnt work well. Captains just directed the torpedoes directly at the enemy ship)

[Avatan]

I'd say the Kaiten. No one ever talks about it, but it's a facinating concept.

The "kaiten" is not actually a submarine, but rather a manned torpedo launched from a submarine and used by the Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II to pierce the underbellies of American naval vessals such as the USS Underhill and a few other notable rigs.

It's typically Japanese in that it is, like their fighters, 100% offensive. Just as Zeros were cheap, completely unarmored and disposable (vs heavily armored allied fighters), so were these.

The Kaiten.

[Far-Right Sage]

Wasn't it Stalin?

No, it was Vladimir Lenin.

[Potemkin]

Much better thank you. I was exagerating to make a point but you are right the Battle of the Bulge was the only real engagement on the Western front where the outcome was in limbo yes tractors wouldnt do so well.

Big of you to admit that, Oxy (I presume you prefer me to call you 'Oxy' rather than 'Moron'? I thought so.) However, I would suggest that the Normandy landings themselves were another counterexample to your claim about tractors. Establishing a beachhead on D-Day and immediately after was pretty hard-fought, wouldn't you say?

[Oxymoron]

Clever clever you took part of my name and...

In any case Potemkin The US was fighting Token resistance, yes a beach landing was complex but the results were never in question. The battle of the Bulge was act of desperation on Hitlers part since the whole strategy relied on Allied fuel depots.

[Potemkin]

The US was fighting Token resistance, yes a beach landing was complex but the results were never in question.

I believe the results were in question. D-Day was a tremendous gamble which might have gone horribly wrong; in fact, on some beaches it did go horribly wrong. And the fight to establish a beachhead and capture Caen was even tougher than expected.

The battle of the Bulge was act of desperation on Hitlers part since the whole strategy relied on Allied fuel depots.

Agreed; it never really had much chance of ultimate success. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't a vicious struggle. The Battle of the Bulge was the bloodiest battle American troops fought in WWII. Losing 19,000 of your men is pretty fucking serious. Imagine the causualty figure if they had only had tractors rather than tanks.

[Oxymoron]

Well the landing at Normandy was though it was in no way a huge gamble, Lets say that the battle of Kursk was far more up for grabs.