Singapore should learn from Hitler's mistakes and idea
-
Why Hitler lost the war
Western Front
1# Only defensible sector was Normandy, No other places to defend well as Hitler believed a back-up plan is a excuse to retreat
Singapore's case: We get attack we all hide in fort canning or sentosa?
2# While retreating from the Ostfront, Many tanks were lost while the 500,000 strong 7th Army or something was wiped out or captured
Singapore's case: We have 350 tanks, Wouldn't that be a hindrance while retreating?
3# Singapore is too small and all fronts must be protected or the enemy will roll into singapore like how Erwin Rommel rolled into the Ardennes with minimum loss and captured of dozens of French Battalions.
Singapore's case: If all fronts protected, Like what Rommel noticed in North Africa, The fronts of British were too sparsely occupied. Thus singapore too many fronts also die, Too little also die.
4# Ostfront, Germans rolled into Russia too quickly such that 100,000 of Russians were behind their lines and their lines were thin and wide
Singapore's case: What if people attack from the south? Those sentosa cannons aren't gonna do freak
5# Germans had a strong airforce in the Luftwaffe while their submarines sunk too many british ships
Singapore's case: How many capital ships do we have?
6# Germany took over France and Belgium too quickly was because, Their motorized division led by Erwin Rommel adopted a new strategy which the world never seen before which led to whole French battalions surrendering even before a single shot was fired
Singapore's case: Follow what is taught by Australia, British and US officers, Note, They definitely have counters to those tactics
7# Erwin Rommel destroyed the British lines when he landed in Africa with only a quarter of his Afrika Corps, He acted accordingly and defied clear orders not to attacked by the Supreme Command
Singapore's case: Disobey order = Die
So many things to learn.. In order for singapore to survive, Besides money.. WE need people who can think of strategy themselves AND a change to martial law is definitely a must -
Singapore's Defense !!
Consider: " Why will 'they' attack if their $$$ is invested here and their children couldn't wait to graduate from our Schools and look for jobs that welcome them more than their Citizens? "
-
Thats why we have allies. lol
-
Number One doesnt sound right
Calais is the defensible sector, and the Allies had been wanting to aim for Normand, Hitler's weakest link, therefore begin to spread a lot of misinformation about them wanting to hit Calais
Its like when the Japanese arrived at Johor Baru, they wanted to cross over the western coast to Tengah since the breadth of the Straits is the shortest there, but created a diversion by pounding Pulau Ubin with mortars -
Number Three doesnt sound right either
Its not about front, but about mobility of army. Hitler proved the uselessness of static defence, which he can simply overrun with his very mobile armies. Or you can always try some other useful strategies, like Dorgen using Wu Sangui to open the Great Wall's gate. -
Hitler's main mistakes is that he is a suspected gay, who meddled too much in how the war is fought. German officers are the best in the world.. (etc..Rommel) and hitler ride them into follies. He's decision to invade Russia and declare war with the US, while being in the a disastrous winter stag in russian front without winter wear.. is his downfall.
-
i luv hitler's nazi uniforms...not NAZI...just the uniform...
-
For foobar's sake, those canons in Sentosa don't even work. They are there as part of the island attraction called Fort Siloso.
-
One of the core strengths of the German Army was its leadership to men ratio. It was significantly higher compared to the allies. I can't remember it off hand, but i'm sure something will turn up quickly through a web crawl.
I'm not saying that we are "Fortress Singapore." Just that an invasion force will have too much to contend with. The first front being the Intelligence Battle. Its very HARD to hide a major force build up.
Another of Hitler's mistake was overconfidence in the "blitzkrieg."
1. The blitzkrieg is over rated. It was an excellent tactic when numerically superior, technologically superior, as it prevented the enemy from massing enough firepower to slow the advancing armor. Airpower is a MUST. Against a technologically equivalent allied army, with lesser tanks than the allies, the Blitzkrieg failed him.
2. Hitler's personal meddling in Tank design, that resulted in the monstrosity called the KingTiger and its predecessor, the Tiger, added the final nail into the blitzkrieg coffin. The hideously slow and ultra heavy tank could not keep up with blitzkrieg style tempo of ops. Firstly, its a gas sucker, and too heavy for the terrain they were supposed to operate in.
3. Hitler's lack of confidence in his commanders, and the German Army's capability to fight defensive battles. The German's were experts at defensive operations. They were extremely organised and more than capable of slowing and inflicting casualties on a defensive fight. He failed to allow his commanders to conduct defensive battles in depth, instead ordering them to counter-attack (blitzkrieg style, yes) whenever the opportunity arose. Fear of the secret police saw to it that the commanders obeyed that order.
Finally, I believed if Hitler allowed Rommel to position armor behind normandy, the allies could not have gotten a beach head at all. They would have been counter attacked immediately on the beach. Instead, armor was positioned more centrally, in a more conservative bet that they would be able to counter-attack against any location the Allies chose to land. He should have gambled with the DesertFox. -
Hilter had fought a war that he dream that he can win..when actually the battle was considered defeated when he was not able to invade United Kingdom.
Fighting a war without a name..how far can you gain? -
The allies planted info that cause the Germans to think the invasion would come from the south...via the med with a staging point somewhere in italy. On the northern shores,most of the defences was centered around calsis.Which is the closest point to England and also a port which Hitler believed was needed.
Many tanks were lost from the retreat mainly due to the fact that they could not be supplied with sufficient fuel.
Rommel was but 1 of many generals who took part in the invasion of france. While he did good, many other generals did just as well if not better. Also it helped that the french only had some 3 division in that area. Infantry divisions at that. To stand up againest a corp of germans.(if i remember the numbers correctly)They also did not really have the ability to defend againest tanks. It is however interesting to note that quility and quantity wise, the french had the advantage.
The british forces in Africa was totally horribly commanded.And while they had better troops their tank force wasnt that good. I believe the mK4's and tigers were better then the matilda's and cruiser tanks.
Alright now to address Shotgun's points.
number 1 is quite wrong.As i've mentioned above, the French had better and more tanks during the invasion.But they still lost. Mainly due to leadership and the fact that the french did not have a general plan or even much of a general staff. Heh dumb frenchies didnt learn from the humiliation that was the Franco-Prussian war.
Points 2 and 3 are valid and true.
Point 4.....well the Germans did have armour. Infact they had 2 SS divisions in that area. They were the legendary 1st SS LAH and the 2 SS HJ and the 9th SS(wiking i believe). Also in the area was the guys of the crack 7th FJ(paras),the 17 SS panzergrendier,Panzer-Lehr division and elements of 6 army armoured divs(2,21,116 and 11)
Of which the 1st SS and 2nd SS and the 17th SS were deployed near normany. In fact the recon and advance guard of the 17th SS did take part in the fighting.
The problem was that that of command structure. The SS divisions were NOT under the army command thus placing them in direct contorl of Rommel. They were under command of Hitler himself. So all orders for them had to go through him. And he wasnt awake to issue them.
So yep. During the intial stage the Germans just couldnt get the armour our. And the allies were surprised also. -
There is something wrong with that final comment for point #5. What's the big deal with capital ships? Dun you know that they are a liability nowadays? Keep the battleships in your dreams.
-
About point 1. It is true that the French DID have better tanks than the Germans, and they still lost. But the french DID deal significant damage to the attacking Germans, though much of it was unrecorded. Its kinda late for me to dig out the text on it, I'll try to get it to u tmr.Originally posted by |-|05|:The allies planted info that cause the Germans to think the invasion would come from the south...via the med with a staging point somewhere in italy. On the northern shores,most of the defences was centered around calsis.Which is the closest point to England and also a port which Hitler believed was needed.
Many tanks were lost from the retreat mainly due to the fact that they could not be supplied with sufficient fuel.
Rommel was but 1 of many generals who took part in the invasion of france. While he did good, many other generals did just as well if not better. Also it helped that the french only had some 3 division in that area. Infantry divisions at that. To stand up againest a corp of germans.(if i remember the numbers correctly)They also did not really have the ability to defend againest tanks. It is however interesting to note that quility and quantity wise, the french had the advantage.
The british forces in Africa was totally horribly commanded.And while they had better troops their tank force wasnt that good. I believe the mK4's and tigers were better then the matilda's and cruiser tanks.
Alright now to address Shotgun's points.
number 1 is quite wrong.As i've mentioned above, the French had better and more tanks during the invasion.But they still lost. Mainly due to leadership and the fact that the french did not have a general plan or even much of a general staff. Heh dumb frenchies didnt learn from the humiliation that was the Franco-Prussian war.
Points 2 and 3 are valid and true.
Point 4.....well the Germans did have armour. Infact they had 2 SS divisions in that area. They were the legendary 1st SS LAH and the 2 SS HJ and the 9th SS(wiking i believe). Also in the area was the guys of the crack 7th FJ(paras),the 17 SS panzergrendier,Panzer-Lehr division and elements of 6 army armoured divs(2,21,116 and 11)
Of which the 1st SS and 2nd SS and the 17th SS were deployed near normany. In fact the recon and advance guard of the 17th SS did take part in the fighting.
The problem was that that of command structure. The SS divisions were NOT under the army command thus placing them in direct contorl of Rommel. They were under command of Hitler himself. So all orders for them had to go through him. And he wasnt awake to issue them.
So yep. During the intial stage the Germans just couldnt get the armour our. And the allies were surprised also.
The problem with the French was that their gov panicked and capitulated early. They thought that without the British they were done for. The prevented ground commanders from mounting counter-attacks after their forces had successfully repelled the Germans as they thought it was a German trap. Trap or not, the Germans paid a hefty price.
If the British hadn't left, and the French hadn't panicked, they would have held off the German "blitzkrieg." The blitzkrieg was made fiercesome by both axis and allied propanganda. For the Germans, it was a morale booster for their people and troops. For the allies, a convenient excuse for losing hold of Europe. -
yep hah at least someone understands. People sometimes under write the French too much. The French still had some 70% of their country and quite abit of their armed forces still around and stationed in the south. Just that they could not get their act together neither did they have much of a plan.Originally posted by Shotgun:About point 1. It is true that the French DID have better tanks than the Germans, and they still lost. But the french DID deal significant damage to the attacking Germans, though much of it was unrecorded. Its kinda late for me to dig out the text on it, I'll try to get it to u tmr.
The problem with the French was that their gov panicked and capitulated early. They thought that without the British they were done for. The prevented ground commanders from mounting counter-attacks after their forces had successfully repelled the Germans as they thought it was a German trap. Trap or not, the Germans paid a hefty price.
If the British hadn't left, and the French hadn't panicked, they would have held off the German "blitzkrieg." The blitzkrieg was made fiercesome by both axis and allied propanganda. For the Germans, it was a morale booster for their people and troops. For the allies, a convenient excuse for losing hold of Europe. -
The defence of calsis was only set-up after the landing in normany because hitler saw conditions that would encourage a second allied landing
And Blitzkireg was only used to start the war not while defending, In the Ostfront, The germans were retreating too quickly such that counter-attacks failed badly while the ardennes counter-attack was to make a bulge into the allied lines thus making them retreat which they did until russians broke into the eastern borders
And I doubt tanks can move well in the urban area to the northeast front from the northwest
And sentosa do have some cannons that can actually fire but they're kept away
Artillery fire is also useless in singapore because there is a 40% chance of the shells hitting our own army due to land constraint and while artillery are not very precise
Blitzkireg is not over-rated if you actually understand how it led to the capture of france in the span of less than 1 month -
At the start of the war, Italy in africa was superior but the attack on egypt led to the capture of hundreds of tanks and 160,000 soldiersOriginally posted by |-|05|:The allies planted info that cause the Germans to think the invasion would come from the south...via the med with a staging point somewhere in italy. On the northern shores,most of the defences was centered around calsis.Which is the closest point to England and also a port which Hitler believed was needed.
Many tanks were lost from the retreat mainly due to the fact that they could not be supplied with sufficient fuel.
Rommel was but 1 of many generals who took part in the invasion of france. While he did good, many other generals did just as well if not better. Also it helped that the french only had some 3 division in that area. Infantry divisions at that. To stand up againest a corp of germans.(if i remember the numbers correctly)They also did not really have the ability to defend againest tanks. It is however interesting to note that quility and quantity wise, the french had the advantage.
The british forces in Africa was totally horribly commanded.And while they had better troops their tank force wasnt that good. I believe the mK4's and tigers were better then the matilda's and cruiser tanks.
Alright now to address Shotgun's points.
number 1 is quite wrong.As i've mentioned above, the French had better and more tanks during the invasion.But they still lost. Mainly due to leadership and the fact that the french did not have a general plan or even much of a general staff. Heh dumb frenchies didnt learn from the humiliation that was the Franco-Prussian war.
Points 2 and 3 are valid and true.
Point 4.....well the Germans did have armour. Infact they had 2 SS divisions in that area. They were the legendary 1st SS LAH and the 2 SS HJ and the 9th SS(wiking i believe). Also in the area was the guys of the crack 7th FJ(paras),the 17 SS panzergrendier,Panzer-Lehr division and elements of 6 army armoured divs(2,21,116 and 11)
Of which the 1st SS and 2nd SS and the 17th SS were deployed near normany. In fact the recon and advance guard of the 17th SS did take part in the fighting.
The problem was that that of command structure. The SS divisions were NOT under the army command thus placing them in direct contorl of Rommel. They were under command of Hitler himself. So all orders for them had to go through him. And he wasnt awake to issue them.
So yep. During the intial stage the Germans just couldnt get the armour our. And the allies were surprised also.
Panzer lehr was later on virtually destroyed by allied bombings in a attempt to attack st periers
During the start of the war, Germans had better weapons in the KAR98 but their tanks although lightly armoured.. They moved too quickly such that many souma tanks were captured
Later on, Not much weapons were made except the K43 to counter the M1 garand.. A series of tanks were made but they proved useless against the bazooka and especially the piat
Hitler was indeed in control but the main guys were hausser and kluge, rommel was later forced to commit suicide after he was suspected of the attempted seize of power in the supreme command -
Dude, big guns destroys armyOriginally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:There is something wrong with that final comment for point #5. What's the big deal with capital ships? Dun you know that they are a liability nowadays? Keep the battleships in your dreams. -
Did you know the shots that were used to shoot at americans were actually fired by the french? It was the vichy french era aka puppet govt of france because paris was taken and the fight was lost thus marshall petain took over govt while de gaulle fought in alegriaOriginally posted by Shotgun:About point 1. It is true that the French DID have better tanks than the Germans, and they still lost. But the french DID deal significant damage to the attacking Germans, though much of it was unrecorded. Its kinda late for me to dig out the text on it, I'll try to get it to u tmr.
The problem with the French was that their gov panicked and capitulated early. They thought that without the British they were done for. The prevented ground commanders from mounting counter-attacks after their forces had successfully repelled the Germans as they thought it was a German trap. Trap or not, the Germans paid a hefty price.
If the British hadn't left, and the French hadn't panicked, they would have held off the German "blitzkrieg." The blitzkrieg was made fiercesome by both axis and allied propanganda. For the Germans, it was a morale booster for their people and troops. For the allies, a convenient excuse for losing hold of Europe.
even if the british stayed, they would have lost because the DM of UK asked for the RAF back to UK as they lost too many already, by the start of BOB they only had 650 planes against the luftwaffe's 2,500
british troops in dunkirk were pulled back without equipments due to the lack of ships, for some reason no attacks were made here
had the british stayed on, germany would have take UK easily cause the defenders would be old men and kids
so pulling back from france was actually the turning point of the war, had they not pulled back.. american marines wouldn't be able to land anywhere in france
And blitzkreig allowed motorized division to roll into france quickly, which can seen with the mass amount of frenchies surrendering and their mode of communications were outdated not forgetting their weapons obsolete.. Furthur more, the germans avoided the heavily fortified franco-german borders -
The italians were badly lead,averagly equipped and badly motivated. That's why they lost.Originally posted by Agenda:At the start of the war, Italy in africa was superior but the attack on egypt led to the capture of hundreds of tanks and 160,000 soldiers
Panzer lehr was later on virtually destroyed by allied bombings in a attempt to attack st periers
During the start of the war, Germans had better weapons in the KAR98 but their tanks although lightly armoured.. They moved too quickly such that many souma tanks were captured
Later on, Not much weapons were made except the K43 to counter the M1 garand.. A series of tanks were made but they proved useless against the bazooka and especially the piat
Hitler was indeed in control but the main guys were hausser and kluge, rommel was later forced to commit suicide after he was suspected of the attempted seize of power in the supreme command
Yes the Germans had the Kar98k which is ww1 rifle and in all respect equal to the French MAS36.
Not much weapons were made? they had the legendary MG42....as well as the Stg 44!!!!! Anyway the G43 and G41 was developed not to counter the M1 but to counter the Russian SVT38 and 40. remember at the time of development , Germany wasnt yet at war with the US.And the Brits were using a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifles.
The tanks werent really useless againest the Piat and the bazooka. Heck the Piat was spring cocked and that caused problems. generally it was used as a 1 shot AT weap. The germans developed putty and an extra shield to help with the new AT weapons.
The german tanks werent just lightly armoured....the had mere 20mm or 37mm guns while the CharB and Somua tanks had 47mm guns and way better armour.
The Somua and the PanzerII had the same speed,while the PanzerIII were slower then both. The CharB was the slowest of all. The Panzer I's only had machine guns and i believe they were mainly retired by the time of the french invasion.
The Allies also had more planes in France then the Germans.
The germans did not attack the brits on the beaches of Dunkirk some say because hitler wanted to let the brits off hopping they would at least listen to peace overtures. Anayway i gotta go now i'll reply the rest later heh
Rommel did not kill himself becuz he was suspected of attempting to seize power. He was given the option of killing himself or getting court martialed for conspiring to kill hitler. -
Still it does not equate to being better. Big guns need big ship sizes, requiring more manpower and assets to safeguard. The Tirpitz was virtually useless given the High Command's morbid fear of losing it and lowering troop morale after the sinking of the Bismark. She tied down a sizeable portion of manpower and resources even by just sitting in port before the British finally sank her.Originally posted by Agenda:Dude, big guns destroys army
If common sense prevails, big ships in this region also make choice targets for anti-ship platforms. Besides, the world no longer depend on big naval guns. There are things called missiles nowadays. -
Huh? Why learn from Hitler's mistakes? Europe WW2 is too remote and example.
The best lesson is how the Allies failed in defending Singapore. That's the best and most important lesson. The other lessons come from Israel's conflicts with the Arabs. They made some mistakes, the Arabs made some mistakes. We can learn from the mistakes of both.
I thought these are very obvious examples. -
There are some questionable accounts regarding the air war in 1939-1940. In a rough break down of aircraft type, French Curtis 75A fighters downed 33 german fighters and lost 3 of their own. MS406s, downed 31 luftwaffe, while losing 6, Bloch 152 equipped units downed 156 Luftwaffe planes while losing 59, and Dewoitine 520 units shot down 175 Luftwaffe aircraft, while losing 44.Originally posted by Agenda:Did you know the shots that were used to shoot at americans were actually fired by the french? It was the vichy french era aka puppet govt of france because paris was taken and the fight was lost thus marshall petain took over govt while de gaulle fought in alegria
even if the british stayed, they would have lost because the DM of UK asked for the RAF back to UK as they lost too many already, by the start of BOB they only had 650 planes against the luftwaffe's 2,500
british troops in dunkirk were pulled back without equipments due to the lack of ships, for some reason no attacks were made here
had the british stayed on, germany would have take UK easily cause the defenders would be old men and kids
so pulling back from france was actually the turning point of the war, had they not pulled back.. american marines wouldn't be able to land anywhere in france
And blitzkreig allowed motorized division to roll into france quickly, which can seen with the mass amount of frenchies surrendering and their mode of communications were outdated not forgetting their weapons obsolete.. Furthur more, the germans avoided the heavily fortified franco-german borders
The Kill Lost ratio was clearly in favor of the french. How long can the Luftwaffe sustain this kinda kill lost ratio, given their high sortie rate. Comparing to the French 1-2 sortie per day, and the Luftwaffe 3-4 sortie. Problem with the French air force then, was that they were "not around." They were based far from the front, while the Luftwaffe aircraft were just about half an hour from their targets.
As for the RAF, they deployed 12 out of 40 operational squadrons, while the French, only deployed 580 of their 2200 aircraft. Out numbered? Only by sortie rate, and lack of resolve.
French Tanks were not obsolete. The French Souma S35 Tank, was faster, more heavily armored and its 47mm gun could disable any German vehicle. There were 400 produced, as compared to 381 of the inferior German Mark3s. As for MBTs, the B1 was a formidable opponent on the battlefield. It had no rival except for the 88mm anti aircraft guns that were pressed into anti tank service.
The Qty of the tanks the french had was also very impressive. 1200 R35 light tanks, 695 H35 light tanks, 200 D1 and D2 medium tanks, 285 soumas, and 175 B1 Tanks. Adding to that, another 3000 over FT tanks, and 400 "tankettes."
Now here comes the best part. More than 338000 men of the BEF, and 139000 French troops evacuated at dunkirk. The British, left behind 2400 guns, 63000 vehicles. Add those vehicles and AT guns to the already French Armored force, and not forgetting the Belgians. Don't you think the they actually STOOD a chance if they had stayed and fought decisively? -
Originally posted by Agenda:
Actually the Allieds did not capture ANY major harbour intact, most of the coastal towns were declared "festungs" and hold out until the end of the war
1# Only defensible sector was Normandy, No other places to defend well as Hitler believed a back-up plan is a excuse to retreat
Singapore's case: We get attack we all hide in fort canning or sentosa?
The German panzerdivisions acted as firebrigades and stopped many Russian breaktroughs that could have transformed the retreat into a rout.
2# While retreating from the Ostfront, Many tanks were lost while the 500,000 strong 7th Army or something was wiped out or captured
Singapore's case: We have 350 tanks, Wouldn't that be a hindrance while retreating?
Ehh what ??
3# Singapore is too small and all fronts must be protected or the enemy will roll into singapore like how Erwin Rommel rolled into the Ardennes with minimum loss and captured of dozens of French Battalions.
Singapore's case: If all fronts protected, Like what Rommel noticed in North Africa, The fronts of British were too sparsely occupied. Thus singapore too many fronts also die, Too little also die.
To quickly ??? The Russians ended up i captivity
4# Ostfront, Germans rolled into Russia too quickly such that 100,000 of Russians were behind their lines and their lines were thin and wide
Singapore's case: What if people attack from the south? Those sentosa cannons aren't gonna do freak
the importance of capital ships ended in the forties
5# Germans had a strong airforce in the Luftwaffe while their submarines sunk too many british ships
Singapore's case: How many capital ships do we have?
Rommel lead ONE Panzerdiv, and the strategy was not new, it was used in Poland the year before.
6# Germany took over France and Belgium too quickly was because, Their motorized division led by Erwin Rommel adopted a new strategy which the world never seen before which led to whole French battalions surrendering even before a single shot was fired
Singapore's case: Follow what is taught by Australia, British and US officers, Note, They definitely have counters to those tactics
One big reason behind Rommels success was that the Allieds moved troops to Grece and Kreta
7# Erwin Rommel destroyed the British lines when he landed in Africa with only a quarter of his Afrika Corps, He acted accordingly and defied clear orders not to attacked by the Supreme Command
Singapore's case: Disobey order = Die -
heres the post of a thinker.Originally posted by sand king:Thats why we have allies. lol
UN = safety -
Yes, it is well recirded that at the beginning of Blitzkreig, the French had better tanks than the Germans, who had mostly Panzers mark 1 & 2's. These are fast but lightly armed and lightly armoured. But Hitler used them as part of a infantry/armour strike force supported by airstrikes. So the quality of the tanks itself was secondary. The combined air/land tactics and the willpower was what really won.Originally posted by Shotgun:Now here comes the best part. More than 338000 men of the BEF, and 139000 French troops evacuated at dunkirk. The British, left behind 2400 guns, 63000 vehicles. Add those vehicles and AT guns to the already French Armored force, and not forgetting the Belgians. Don't you think the they actually STOOD a chance if they had stayed and fought decisively?
The French used the tanks poorly, I read. So their thick armour and bigger guns were wasted.
The defeat of the Allies in Europe, as well as the defeat of the Allies by Japan in Asia - namely Singapore - is nearly identical. Similarly, a smaller but well-led and well-motivated strike force was able to "Blitzkreig" a large and well-armed defending army.
Yes, the Japs had tanks, but they used their tanks poorly. They kept mostly to the roads and attacked without infantry support. The only reason they prevailed was the dire shortage of anti-tank guns and ammo. Otherwise they were easily defeated. One Australian anti-tank crew killed six tanks coming round a bend in the road without any infantry protection. Then the Aussies ran out of ammo.