header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: OT - Weird History

 (Read 478657 times)

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10751
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5026 on: June 06, 2025, 12:42:22 PM »
About training, per above (which is excellent IMHO), the US put the 106th in a "quiet sector" along the lines in December 1944 for "training" as they were green, so the idea was some low intensity conflict with scouting and manning the lines and getting used to the privation would toughen them a bit and get them ready for more offensive operations later.  I'm sure this was common in the war.  It worked out poorly for the 106th.

The 28th had been through the Hurtgen forest battle and was torn up and under strength but had experienced soldiers in the main.

The Wehrmacht in WW 2 largely had some superior generals relative to the forces they faced, experienced, tending to be a bit younger and open to new ideas.

The French couldn't see past WW One where northern France was really torn up, they wanted to fight a defensive war in Belgium so it would get torn up and the Germans would take heavy casualties on the offensive against their lines.  When this blew up, they couldn't adapt at all.

IMHO the Maginot Line did its job effectively.  I also think Chamberlain had no choice at Munich.
I agree with all of this.  

In defense of the French, they really just didn't have enough time to adapt.  The Russians were at least as badly mauled by the Wehrmacht when Barbarossa launched over a year later but Russia is REALLY big which bought them the time to figure out modern warfare and eventually they came storming back.  It took about six months for them to figure out how to defend and more than a year for them to figure out serious modern offensives.  Given six months or a year the French may well have accomplished the same thing but they didn't have that long because France simply isn't that big.  

In re Munich:
I grew up believing the talk of Chamberlain being an idiot for appeasing Hitler at Munich but as I've learned more I've come to realize that he wasn't.  When Chamberlain got back from Munich he infamously held up thee agreement and claimed "Peace for our Time".  One thing that must be said is that was merely his public statement, at the same time British armaments production and war preparation swung into high gear.  Despite claiming that he had secured peace publicly, Britain's war preparations which occurred under Chamberlain's Government clearly demonstrate that, at a minimum, he himself believed that war with Germany was likely.  

In 1938 the British had a few Hurricanes and next-to-zero Spitfires.  The Battle of Britain wouldn't have gone well for the British if they had been attempting to defend themselves with Furys, Demons, and Bulldogs (biplanes that the Hurricane and Spitfire replaced).  

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 20235
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5027 on: June 06, 2025, 12:42:42 PM »
Unresponsive once again.
to what you made something up and applied it to me. You replied to my comment I never assailed yours. I'm not getting sucked into to your I'm rubber/your glue twaddle. Maybe you should pull your very dense head out of the imaginary histories and take the time to read the actual History of WW II. Again the British demanded Germany 1st then ran everywhere else while there was a war in the pacific that Churchill tried to use the ANZAC troops to hold onto rubber trees in Burma. While close to home Raboul had fallen,Port Moresby was surrounded and the IJF were bombing the their northern port of Darwin. In summary, other than your post being full of shit, AND irrelevant to the subject, it was a good post

You bloviated on how great the british were, you are aware that the British Crown conveniently forgot to repay its loan debt to the US Treasury in the 1st War, yes? The Americans had to shoulder that load, none of the crown jewels were sold off to square up that debt. Whilst the so-called Royals were still fox hunting and playing polo on their estates and drinking tea off of china and silver in their estates as the US Government struggled to fill the financial void. Back then they really had to balance a budget they didn't play parlor tricks and shell games with the National Treasury the way they do today. If you really are in business you'd understand that. Good Riddance
“There’s nothing like working with people you love—and beer. Mostly beer.” - Norm Peterson

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22756
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5028 on: June 06, 2025, 12:45:04 PM »
Sheesh will you two get a room already?

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10751
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5029 on: June 06, 2025, 12:52:08 PM »
Here's a hot take for you: the concept of this soldier is inherently better than that soldier is ridiculous. Some soldiers have better equipment than others; some soldiers have better leaders than others; often one group of soldiers is much better trained or supplied than others; nearly all soldiers will fight like hell to defend themselves, their friends, and their homeland, as long as they believe they have a chance.
This is a great post, thank you for sharing.  I enjoy talking history with people who actually know what they are talking about (ie, not @MrNubbz ).  

The Japanese honestly believed that Japanese soldiers were superior to all others.  This worked out reasonably well for them against the poorly equipped, poorly led, and constantly infighting Chinese Nationalists and Communists but when they went toe-to-toe with the Soviets at Khalkhin Gol they got smoked (and this was by the pre-war Soviet Army).  If Japanese leadership hadn't been bat-shit crazy they might have learned from that and adjusted their expectations.  

I point this out because it was Japanese racism that fueled their belief in their own inherent superiority and your point that "the concept of this soldier is inherently better than that soldier is ridiculous" would have served them well.  The same applies across regions and times.  

The Italian Army was infamously pathetic in WWII and I always wondered why.  There were a myriad of reasons but one of the biggest ones was that Mussolini wanted to flex so he got the brilliant idea to reduce all his divisions from four regiments to three thus to increase his number of divisions by 33%.  The comically ridiculous part is that the Italian leadership then apparently promptly forgot that they had done that and attempted to use their new three-regiment Divisions in place of traditional four-regiment Divisions on a one-for-one Division basis.  Looking at the fight in North Africa this helps to explain why Italian Divisions were so much less effective than German, British, or American Divisions.  

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 46346
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5030 on: June 06, 2025, 12:57:40 PM »
wasn't the German racism similar with their opinion of their soldiers?
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 83975
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5031 on: June 06, 2025, 01:10:11 PM »
wasn't the German racism similar with their opinion of their soldiers?
I'd say yes, mostly, though their concept of racism included the French and British of course, and the Americans, but they often viewed Americans as culturally soft.  It's a bit odd they allied with the "inferior" Italians and Japanese, I think they viewed Italians as half a step down.

When at least some of your troops are willing to commit suicide for the "Emperor", it does add another factor, but that factor cuts both ways at time.  The Japanese seemed to adjust and not stage many "banzai" attacks after Guadalcanal, there were a few.  But then the kamikaze was effective.

The quality of your noncomms, as noted above, can be a super critical feature in how well your privates perform in battle.

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10751
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5032 on: June 06, 2025, 01:15:09 PM »
to what you made something up and applied it to me. You replied to my comment I never assailed yours. I'm not getting sucked into to your I'm rubber/your glue twaddle. Maybe you should pull your very dense head out of the imaginary histories and take the time to read the actual History of WW II. Again the British demanded Germany 1st then ran everywhere else while there was a war in the pacific that Churchill tried to use the ANZAC troops to hold onto rubber trees in Burma. While close to home Raboul had fallen,Port Moresby was surrounded and the IJF were bombing the their northern port of Darwin. In summary, other than your post being full of shit, AND irrelevant to the subject, it was a good post

You bloviated on how great the british were, you are aware that the British Crown conveniently forgot to repay its loan debt to the US Treasury in the 1st War, yes? The Americans had to shoulder that load, none of the crown jewels were sold off to square up that debt. Whilst the so-called Royals were still fox hunting and playing polo on their estates and drinking tea off of china and silver in their estates as the US Government struggled to fill the financial void. Back then they really had to balance a budget they didn't play parlor tricks and shell games with the National Treasury the way they do today. If you really are in business you'd understand that. Good Riddance\
 @MrNubbz , the adults are talking, you don't have a sufficient knowledge base to contribute and I don't have the patience for your ignorance.  

If you want to try this all started because you made factually inaccurate statements:  
In response to @Cincydawg 's post about the British Empire you said:
It was also  a stack of cards, Unlike a Republic that turned to free enterprise and manufactured their goods the British mostly invaded others and took their shyt.Their fauntleroys officers mostly because they had some sort of connections to aristocrats got their Tommies filleted in 2 WWs
I then pointed out that these are all factually inaccurate statements:

First:  "It was also a stack of cards." 
I replied:
Britain's empire referred to above as a "stack of cards" was the greatest the world has ever seen and stood more-or-less intact for centuries. 
You still have neither acknowledged the falsity of your statement nor presented anything resembling a coherent response.  

Second:  "...the British mostly invaded others and took their shyt."  
I replied:
Contra "invading others and taking things" every former British possession is VASTLY better off than they would be had they never been colonized or had they been colonized by another power.  The British lost their empire not because someone took it but because they couldn't afford to maintain it.  Ie, it was absolutely NOT a profitable theft operation as you suggest.  Instead the British spent a lot of money improving the areas they controlled and eventually simply couldn't afford such spending. 
You still have neither acknowledged the falsity of your statement nor presented anything resembling a coherent response.  

Third:  "Their fauntleroys officers mostly because they had some sort of connections to aristocrats got their Tommies filleted in 2 WW's".  
I replied:
I have no doubt that the British Army had some incompetent officers who got their positions based upon who they knew rather than what they knew and their ability to command in combat but that is hardly a uniquely British phenomenon, it happens in EVERY army.  The British Army acquitted itself quite well in both WWI and WWII.  They were clearly and obviously superior man-for-man to the every army involved in WWI with the exception of the Germans and in WWII while they ultimately couldn't match the volume of both men and material that the US and the USSR supplied they stood alone against the Germans for nearly a year from the fall of France until Barbarossa, beat the Germans in the skies over their island, and as late as 81 years ago tomorrow the British took three of the five beaches in Normandy.  American forces took two.  If their army had been as bad as you think it was, D-Day would not have gone well considering that they handled the lions share of it. 

They also kicked Rommell's ass in North Africa and although we Americans eventually showed up and helped finish that off the British Army was so vastly superior to the American Army early in the campaign that the British internally referred to the Americans as "our Italians" referencing the VAST difference in fighting quality between the Germans and their Italian allies.  Unlike the Italians, the Americans eventually overcame their early-war deficiencies but that does not negate the fact that in 1942 a British army unit regardless of size (squad, company, division, whatever) was VASTLY superior to a comparably sized American army unit. 
The only response you gave that was even remotely on point for this was Ludendorf's offhand comment about Lions led by Jackasses.  Well, Ludendorf lost to those Jackasses but aside from that, the British held their own against the Germans in both WWI and WWII so your implication that their entire army was led by buffoons is clownish.  

You are clearly incapable of addressing the corrections that I made to YOUR false statements.  Instead you have rambled on about everything you hate about the British in general and Churchill specifically.  I am NOT defending the British in general nor Churchill specifically so none of your incoherent rambling is relevant.  Address the points or admit that you were wrong, respect your betters, thank me for educating you, and STFU.  

Also:
like last year when you went off on one of these dubious diatribes. 
Since you brought it up, I'll embarrass you again over your ignorance in that episode:

You claimed that Churchill was personally responsible for the loss of Repulse and PoW.  

Here is a really good video that makes the point that "Churchill was an idiot".  Unlike you, TIK knows history and understands command hierarchies so in his half-hour diatribe about Churchill's idiocy, he doesn't mention Repulse, PoW or Force Z because that wasn't a Churchill mistake.  This is abundantly obvious to anyone who actually knows anything about it and now you know it too so please:

Respect your betters, thank me for educating you, and STFU.  

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10751
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5033 on: June 06, 2025, 01:17:38 PM »
I'd say yes, mostly, though their concept of racism included the French and British of course, and the Americans, but they often viewed Americans as culturally soft.  It's a bit odd they allied with the "inferior" Italians and Japanese, I think they viewed Italians as half a step down.
It was an odd alliance to be sure.  When the Japanese took Singapore Ribbentrop wanted to trumpet the success of the Nazi's Japanese ally for propaganda purposes but Hitler quashed it because he was squeamish at the idea of "inferior" Asians defeating co-Norther-Europeans.  

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 83975
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5034 on: June 06, 2025, 01:23:45 PM »
I have read that the Japanese Navy officers had been trained mostly by the British, earlier, and had some sense of, well, "fair play".  Their army was trained mostly by the Germans, and didn't.  The army seems to have fomented the most grevious atrocities, Nanking etc.

I know the earlier Japanese battleships were built by the British.

My other weird opinion is the our retaining the Phillipines caused the Japanese to attack us at PH.

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 20235
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5035 on: June 06, 2025, 01:33:02 PM »
Sheesh will you two get a room already?
Make his a rubber one - and come up with something original. like he's so sensitive he could be an honorary longhorn
“There’s nothing like working with people you love—and beer. Mostly beer.” - Norm Peterson

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 31568
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5036 on: June 06, 2025, 01:34:24 PM »
One of my best friends is a Brit "Brummy" (his wife's word - she's Welsh) from the wrong side of the track in Birmingham. His father served in WWII and that is a tremendous source of pride for him.

The stories are telling. Those Brits were a fierce lot and a major force to be reckoned with. They don't quit. And yes, we were their "Italians" for the first couple of years.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 20235
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5037 on: June 06, 2025, 01:40:04 PM »
Respect your betters, thank me for educating you, and STFU. 
see a proctologist to have your head examined,you've repeated that twice a sure sign of aspergers. Evidently you are a monty doppelganger he had the too.
“There’s nothing like working with people you love—and beer. Mostly beer.” - Norm Peterson

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 20235
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5038 on: June 06, 2025, 01:47:21 PM »
The stories are telling. Those Brits were a fierce lot and a major force to be reckoned with. They don't quit. And yes, we were their "Italians" for the first couple of years.
Ring me up when our Italians were being "strategically evacuated" from
1940  Norway,Netherlands, Belgium and France,Dunkirk 
1941  Greece, Crete,Hong Kong and Libya
1942  Tobruk and Dieppe,Singapore
the GIs sailed 3500 miles of ocean so Monty/Brooke could sail the last 30 across a channel.Britain had plenty of good soldiers but Bernard Law Montgomery wasn't amongst them


“There’s nothing like working with people you love—and beer. Mostly beer.” - Norm Peterson

SFBadger96

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1916
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #5039 on: June 06, 2025, 02:41:48 PM »
There is no legitimate argument: the U.S. Army was underequipped, undertrained, and undersized at the beginning of WWII. It addressed all of those things relatively quickly, but per the comment above about the 106th Division in Belgium, the U.S. did not perform very well in Africa when it first arrived. It learned, adapted, and became a more effective fighting force. Experience is a great teacher.

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.