Singapore should learn from Hitler's mistakes and idea
-
If we look at the big picture either at Hitler's mistakes, the Allies' mistakes in Singapore, Arabs defeat in Six Day War, Israel's near disaster in Yom Kippur etc...
They all had many things in common like poor tactics, lack of strategic weapons etc...
But the ultimate thing is this:
- Underestimating the threat.
If there is a lesson for all of us to learn, it is never to underestimate the enemy or let complacency set in. -
I'm not sure if the French were such poor users of tanks as they are made out to be. The German 3rd and 4th armored division lost more than 150 vehicles , while the French lost more than a 100 of their own. And that was while the French Calvary Corps was vastly outnumbered. They're coordination of their artillery and armor forced the Germans to pay a heavy price.Originally posted by tvdog: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.
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.
The battle of Gembloux Gap saw the French prevailing against the Germans in a tank vs tank engagement under General Prioux. Instead of being reinforced, General Prioux was forced to withdraw. If they had been reinforced, they German front in Belgium may have collapsed. If the French really had no idea how to use tanks, would they have been able to defeat the combined might of 2 German armored divisions, packing more than 250 vehicles per division? -
To me, I read the situation differently. In the case of Singapore and France.
In France, the Political leadership had lost the will to fight, even though their troops were still fighting.
In Singapore, the Political Leadership (colonial masters) were half hearted in defending their colony, and the troops, mostly weren't too interested in fighting for Singapore too.
To fight a battle, both the political leadership, AND the military must have the resolve to fight and defeat the enemy. Lack of resolve on either, will cause the battle to be lost. -
The French werent all that bad in using their tanks. Yes they werent as good as the Germans in using them but the quality of their tanks compared to the Germans made up for that.Originally posted by Shotgun:I'm not sure if the French were such poor users of tanks as they are made out to be. The German 3rd and 4th armored division lost more than 150 vehicles , while the French lost more than a 100 of their own. And that was while the French Calvary Corps was vastly outnumbered. They're coordination of their artillery and armor forced the Germans to pay a heavy price.
The battle of Gembloux Gap saw the French prevailing against the Germans in a tank vs tank engagement under General Prioux. Instead of being reinforced, General Prioux was forced to withdraw. If they had been reinforced, they German front in Belgium may have collapsed. If the French really had no idea how to use tanks, would they have been able to defeat the combined might of 2 German armored divisions, packing more than 250 vehicles per division?
The problem with the French was a lack of a plan B. They had 1 plan to stop the Germans and when that failed they just panic and went everyway. Also some of their High command generals were far from the front and could not keep pace thus sometimes issuing orders that could now longer be carried out or were no longer relevant. -
The French were bad users of tanks because they did not co-ordinate their armour, infantry and air support. So what if you have tanks but no infantry to consolidate your gains or exploit a breakthrough made possible by tanks?
-
Well, I'm not sure about their Infantry.
Their Air Support was too far behind the front to be effective to help their armor. Most of their aircraft was about an hour away.
The French were fighting a desperate and defensive battle. It is a matter of fact that they dealt the Germans a very heavy blow at Sedan despite facing difficult odds against the Luftwaffe Junkers and 2 German Armored Divisions. Being heavily outnumbered, yet still being able to dish out more damage than they took... (though it was also a serious blow to them). In my view, I would think of them as rather effective users of Armor.
Whatever the way they used in back in WW2, the BlitzKrieg was only ONE way of fighting with Armor. It fascinated even the Soviets, who later adapted a version of it. BUT still, lets examine the real Armor strategies that won allies the war.
1. Montgomery used his Armor systematically. When the enemy retreated, he didn't just chase after them. Instead, he systematically captured and held strong points. Unlike his predecessor, who tried to "exploit" a counter-attack, and ended up chasing their enemies back to their strong points, only to be chased back in return. If it demonstrated one thing, it showed that mechanisation allowed a force to retreat faster than another force can chase.
2. The Soviets attacked the Germans on a broad front. Not a consolidated mass across a small front that broke through and raced towards an enemy's rear. No blitzkrieg no breakthrough.
The last demonstration of the Blitzkrieg resulted in the Battle of the Bulge. We all know how that story ended.
Strategies were meant to be used according to the situation. And its sad that when people think about armor, they only think of a blitzkrieg style, exploit, breakthrough and attack enemy's rear. There ARE other ways to use armor, together with air , infantry and artillery support. -
Well the problems with the Soviets was that they were quite poor logistically. Their infantry and supply lines simply could not keep up. They did adopt german methods of break throughs but unlike the germans, they simply could not manuver enough. In the end hitting on a broadfront did them more good. Because trying to match the germans meant that they were taking the masters of manuver warfare who both knew how to and had the ability to keep their units supplied while running all over. The Russian simply could not. That's why most of their attacks fizzled out. Heck if it wasnt for the US supplying them with 100's of thousands of jeeps and trucks, they most prob would not have been able to do much.Originally posted by Shotgun:Well, I'm not sure about their Infantry.
Their Air Support was too far behind the front to be effective to help their armor. Most of their aircraft was about an hour away.
The French were fighting a desperate and defensive battle. It is a matter of fact that they dealt the Germans a very heavy blow at Sedan despite facing difficult odds against the Luftwaffe Junkers and 2 German Armored Divisions. Being heavily outnumbered, yet still being able to dish out more damage than they took... (though it was also a serious blow to them). In my view, I would think of them as rather effective users of Armor.
Whatever the way they used in back in WW2, the BlitzKrieg was only ONE way of fighting with Armor. It fascinated even the Soviets, who later adapted a version of it. BUT still, lets examine the real Armor strategies that won allies the war.
1. Montgomery used his Armor systematically. When the enemy retreated, he didn't just chase after them. Instead, he systematically captured and held strong points. Unlike his predecessor, who tried to "exploit" a counter-attack, and ended up chasing their enemies back to their strong points, only to be chased back in return. If it demonstrated one thing, it showed that mechanisation allowed a force to retreat faster than another force can chase.
2. The Soviets attacked the Germans on a broad front. Not a consolidated mass across a small front that broke through and raced towards an enemy's rear. No blitzkrieg no breakthrough.
The last demonstration of the Blitzkrieg resulted in the Battle of the Bulge. We all know how that story ended.
Strategies were meant to be used according to the situation. And its sad that when people think about armor, they only think of a blitzkrieg style, exploit, breakthrough and attack enemy's rear. There ARE other ways to use armor, together with air , infantry and artillery support.
Guess they realised that hitting the Germans on a broad front would simply stretch them way too much.
And for the guy who said that they did not organize their tanks properly. Yes that was true at the start of the war. However as the war went on and commands got mixed, the French generals did infact use their tanks together and in coordinated strikes.
As shotgun said, the French lost mainly cuz they lost the will to fight.
btw shotgun, i nv did rate Montgomery highly. I honestly think he's was average. And if it wasnt for numirical advantages he would have got his ass kicked.
Also personally the things that really won the allies the war was their air bombing I mean come on....Panzer Lehr was destroyed from the air. panzer detachment 501 i believe was it's name was also destroyed from the air right?
That's for the western front.
On the east......it was called pretty close....if the allies hadnt open another front the germans just might have won. Too close to call i think. -
pardon me but my 2 cents worth of opinion is that his ultimate mistake was to make his country go to war
-
The strategic bombing of Germany is also quite dubious. I'm not sure if it really did as much damage as allied propaganda claimed. Mainly cos of the inaccuracies of high altitude bombing. Sometimes, the targets were smoked, and they just dropped their payload anyways.Originally posted by |-|05|:Well the problems with the Soviets was that they were quite poor logistically. Their infantry and supply lines simply could not keep up. They did adopt german methods of break throughs but unlike the germans, they simply could not manuver enough. In the end hitting on a broadfront did them more good. Because trying to match the germans meant that they were taking the masters of manuver warfare who both knew how to and had the ability to keep their units supplied while running all over. The Russian simply could not. That's why most of their attacks fizzled out. Heck if it wasnt for the US supplying them with 100's of thousands of jeeps and trucks, they most prob would not have been able to do much.
Guess they realised that hitting the Germans on a broad front would simply stretch them way too much.
And for the guy who said that they did not organize their tanks properly. Yes that was true at the start of the war. However as the war went on and commands got mixed, the French generals did infact use their tanks together and in coordinated strikes.
As shotgun said, the French lost mainly cuz they lost the will to fight.
btw shotgun, i nv did rate Montgomery highly. I honestly think he's was average. And if it wasnt for numirical advantages he would have got his ass kicked.
Also personally the things that really won the allies the war was their air bombing I mean come on....Panzer Lehr was destroyed from the air. panzer detachment 501 i believe was it's name was also destroyed from the air right?
That's for the western front.
On the east......it was called pretty close....if the allies hadnt open another front the germans just might have won. Too close to call i think.
In fact, their target was not defined as a structure, or series of structures. But a target area that was 16km in diameter. Further more, they found that less than a third of the bombers hit anywhere near the 16km diameter target; Near meaning with 8km of the 16km target.
What really dropped German production was the loss of France and Romania in 1944. France was their main source of Iron ore, and Romania; oil.
Strategic bombing cost the lives of more than a hundred thousand airmen, and killing many times that number of civilians. Furthermore, they failed to hit their targets. Of course, one can also argue, that with lesser civilians, there were fewer workers to work in the factories?
-
The germans have the largest railway gun i (dora) n the world, the heaviest and the most powerful tanks (the maus), not to mention all their tanks are more heavily armoured and armed (88mm gun compared to allied 75mm gun) then its allied equilvant, likewise the Japanese have the largest and the most powerful capital ship, the battleship Yamato and Musashi, their guns are designed to outgunned all known battleship class at that time, but all of em were destroyed. The dora were knocked out by allied aircrafts, the maus were too slow and were not used, destroyed by its own crew. Battleship Yamato and Musashi were attacked and sunk by American fleet aircrafts and submarines without meeting American battleships which it have been built for. Big guns does not mean anything, it's the strategy used, maximise one own strength and attack enemy's weaknessOriginally posted by Agenda:Dude, big guns destroys army -
nah i meant tactical bombing. The kind that made movement during day time impossible for the Germans. meaning they were pretty slow to respond to certain situations.Originally posted by Shotgun:The strategic bombing of Germany is also quite dubious. I'm not sure if it really did as much damage as allied propaganda claimed. Mainly cos of the inaccuracies of high altitude bombing. Sometimes, the targets were smoked, and they just dropped their payload anyways.
In fact, their target was not defined as a structure, or series of structures. But a target area that was 16km in diameter. Further more, they found that less than a third of the bombers hit anywhere near the 16km diameter target; Near meaning with 8km of the 16km target.
What really dropped German production was the loss of France and Romania in 1944. France was their main source of Iron ore, and Romania; oil.
Strategic bombing cost the lives of more than a hundred thousand airmen, and killing many times that number of civilians. Furthermore, they failed to hit their targets. Of course, one can also argue, that with lesser civilians, there were fewer workers to work in the factories?
They also pounded troop concentractions and stuff so yea i think it affected the Germans some.The germans have the largest railway gun i (dora) n the world, the heaviest and the most powerful tanks (the maus), not to mention all their tanks are more heavily armoured and armed (88mm gun compared to allied 75mm gun) then its allied equilvant, likewise the Japanese have the largest and the most powerful capital ship, the battleship Yamato and Musashi, their guns are designed to outgunned all known battleship class at that time, but all of em were destroyed. The dora were knocked out by allied aircrafts, the maus were too slow and were not used, destroyed by its own crew. Battleship Yamato and Musashi were attacked and sunk by American fleet aircrafts and submarines without meeting American battleships which it have been built for. Big guns does not mean anything, it's the strategy used, maximise one own strength and attack enemy's weakness
The Germans had some 6 guns with 800mm,3 with 1200mm and i believe 1 more of 1400mm? I'm not to sure but they sure as hell had alot of them deployed to leingrad!!!
Some took almost 2hrs to reload!!!!
Then the Germans had 600mm guns which didnt do jack shit
And like u said the maus(mouse) which i believe had a naval gun.....erm....200++MM? -
The real truth is that Hilter and Napoleon both had make the same mistake. They attacked the russian. Russia is considered the worst country to invade, the cold weather is a killer. The long stretched logistic is another.
You can't beat russian, they are mainly hungry man..
-
Ah yes the tactical bombing. That was why Rommel wanted armor nearer to his anticipated landing site. Cos he knew that it was very difficult to move them under allied air superiority.
He learnt that in Africa, but the German higher ups insisted that the situation in Africa was unique and cannot be applied in Europe. So much for that.