Kursk, D-Day, Bulge

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:34 pm

Beginning at 7PM EST tonight (Sunday) the History Channel is running 3 of their Hell's Battlefield programs back-to-back.

M4Jess · Post by **M4Jess** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:28 am

I AM SO THERE!

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:38 am

Ive seen those

I didnt like them

Short on substance and heavy on theatrics

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:41 am

Fallschirmjager wrote:Ive seen those

I didnt like them

Short on substance and heavy on theatrics

Thanks man...and I had the popcorn all set to go!

Ahh WTH, I'll still watch em; for me the old film footage is 1/2 the fun anyway.

One that I really liked was the 'Battlefield' series; I caught a couple of them on PBS about a year ago. They were more educational in nature: they'd explain events leading up to the battle, use tactical maps to show the combatant's dispositions and plans, and then go into detail about how the battle played out. Maybe I'll go check EBay to see if any are available.

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 2:46 am

tracer wrote:Thanks man...and I had the popcorn all set to go!
Ahh WTH, I'll still watch em; for me the old film footage is 1/2 the fun anyway.

One that I really liked was the 'Battlefield' series; I caught a couple of them on PBS about a year ago. They were more educational in nature: they'd explain events leading up to the battle, use tactical maps to show the combatant's dispositions and plans, and then go into detail about how the battle played out. Maybe I'll go check EBay to see if any are available.

During Kursk

Count the number of times they use the word "elite panzer divisions"
It will drive you crazy

I love the history channel..but those are terribly made

M4Jess · Post by **M4Jess** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 2:50 am

Fallschirmjager wrote:"elite panzer divisions"

??? WHATS THAT???:rolleyes:

Don Doom · Post by **Don Doom** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:09 am

M4 Jess wrote:??? WHATS THAT???:rolleyes:

The same as a M4 is a real tank :rolleyes:

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:16 am

M4 Jess wrote:??? WHATS THAT???:rolleyes:

Its a redundancy...kinda like saying 'a broken M4'. :p

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:24 am

tracer wrote: One that I really liked was the 'Battlefield' series; I caught a couple of them on PBS about a year ago. They were more educational in nature: they'd explain events leading up to the battle, use tactical maps to show the combatant's dispositions and plans, and then go into detail about how the battle played out. Maybe I'll go check EBay to see if any are available.

Well, there were a few on EBay..but folks were fighting over them like hungry dogs. Who would have thought they'd become collector's items, going for more than their original price! If anybody has tapes from this series (Battlefield, from Time-Life) and would consider making a copy, I'd be happy to compensate you ($).

TIA

M4Jess · Post by **M4Jess** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:15 pm

tracer wrote:Beginning at 7PM EST tonight (Sunday) the History Channel is running 3 of their Hell's Battlefield programs back-to-back.

I watched all 3...

Capt Chris · Post by **Capt Chris** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:58 am

I watched all 3 as well. I didn't think they were that bad. A someone else said, I also liked the old movie footage.

My wife was kinda upset that she didn't get to watch Carnivale on HBO last night.

Orzel Bialy · Post by **Orzel Bialy** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 6:11 am

I like the old file footage too...especially those made on the Eastern Front...but I have to agree that some of commentary it was less than precise.

One line towards the end of the film stood out and that went something like this "in the end the Tigers, Panthers and Ferdinands were no match for the T-34".
What what what???

Maybe they were no match for the NUMBERS of T-34's AND all the soviet ATG's, ARTY, AIRCRAFT, MINES and INFANTRY...but that statement was a bit too gracious for even the T-34.

Now...all you Russian armor fans and Kat Haters don't get me wrong...it was one of the best weapons in the war due to its sloped armor, robust design, excellent power to weight ratio and ease of manufacture and repair in the field...but by 1943 it was not the undisputed queen of the battlefield anymore.

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 8:56 am

Orzel Bialy wrote:I like the old file footage too...especially those made on the Eastern Front...but I have to agree that some of commentary it was less than precise.

Within the first 10 minutes I saw/heard a few mistakes. When they spoke of the Russians surrounding the Germans at Stalingrad, they said it happened in January 1942....they must be using free college interns to do their research! :sleep:

Then as they ran numerous clips about the German build-up be Kursk, there appeared a shot of a large formation of King Tigers. Sure, they would have come in handy, but....

Frank W. · Post by **Frank W.** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:33 pm

Orzel Bialy wrote: One line towards the end of the film stood out and that went something like this "in the end the Tigers, Panthers and Ferdinands were no match for the T-34".
What what what???

did they say, that the offensive was delayed due to hitler + high command wanted to wait untill they had enough of the new tanks assembled ?

which proved to be a big mistake because the russian could built even better defenses and assemble more troops + material. also the new weapons were not proven in action and much of them doesn´t even reach the battlefield to mechanical problems.

also manstein was the opinion had the final stage of the battle, that a last effort could break the russian defenses, but hitler called it off, because of allied landings in italy.

interesting thing is hitler himself was not covinced by the plan.

guderian said something like this : " must we really attack at this point ? it´s so obvious every person that can read a map will see it ! "

hitler answered " i know, i know. and the thought on it turns my stomage"

there is no real answer why the kursk offensive was undertaken despite most ppl. didn´t give it a real chance. the deep russian defenses were known by the germans,also recon planes found the huge masses of tanks.

this blunder by the german army remains a miracle.

Orzel Bialy · Post by **Orzel Bialy** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 8:38 pm

The real driving forces behind the Kursk offensive ( in the end ) was politics.

While Hitler wasn't sold on the idea (and neither were several other High Command officers besides Guderian) it eventually became a matter of German pride. They had to show the world that despite their setbacks of 42-43 they were still the same victorious military machine that had taken over most of Europe.

The delays in waiting for more of the new weapons did allow the Russians even more time to prepare, which should have lead to the German HC to call off the operation...but these facts were some what smoothed over by German over-confidence in their hardware and their "will" to win.

By the time the fight was about to kick off both sides had a pretty fair idea of what was in store as far as the scope of the pending battle...and it then became a question of who was mightier both militarily as well as politically.

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 8:55 pm

I don't understand why the delay at Kursk is any suprise.. The Germans delayed at Dunkirk , they delayed Barbarossa , they delayed at Normandy . It is the nature of Politically Driven military campiagns to delay to CYA folks who are more interested to protecting thier political careers than being professional soldiers . Despite the Myth , German officers were not chosen for any kind of military Genuis , but for Party Loyalty , yes a few had some , even good. military skills, but that ended thier career more often than it helped it. Germany exicuted or exiled almost 100 senior generals for lack of party loyality and continued to advance loyal party members regardless of combat effectiveness .. geeze look at Goering.

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 10:12 pm

It was a surprise in that they had recently (and painfully) learned at Stalingrad what would happen if they deviated from their successful strategy of mobile warfare and committed themselves to a static battlefield. The main weakness of the Soviet forces was their inability to quickly and effectively respond to a fluid situation; by delaying, the Germans were unable to exploit this. And with their high-placed intelligence source 'Lucy', the Soviets knew much of the German plan well in advance and were able to turn the battle into one where their strengths (like static defense) would be most effective.

The delay at Dunkirk was different: as I understand it Hitler wanted the Brits as allies, and ordered his armies to pause to avoid a massacre that would have made such a future alliance very unlikely. Their current objective was to conquer mainland Europe, and this delay did not stop that goal from being achieved.

Barbarossa's delay was similar since it was done to accumulate the necessary forces, but it didn't change the outcomes of the early battles. The effect of this delay was that it gave the German forces insufficient time to capture Moscow before winter arrived.

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:35 am

Tracer , Hitler may have prefered peace with Britian , but that isn't what stopped him at Dunkirk .. The German Ground Forces had out run their supply lines and were pretty shot up and just plain tired .. Goering said the Luftwaffe could destroy the Brits and French at Dunkirk.. Hitler planed on Invading England there for quite a while. Of course Goering could not deliver/ did not deliver, just as he didn't in the Battle of Britian, but he sure was loyal and never suffered in his career while truely Good Generals like Rommel and Guderian got themselves fired or put in exile or shot or forced to commit suicide.
Stalingrad is a perfect example of Generals knowing better yet putting careers over Military Leadership , both in the Do Not Retreat Orders intially and the futile breakthru attempts that came way to late, as well as Goerings promises to resupply by air. Actual combat performance did not matter as much as Loyalty and paying lip service to Hitlers Plan .
Barbarossa was delayed by Hitlers loyalty to Mussolini and the rescue of the failed Italian adventures in Greece and other issues of Political importance in the Balkins .. some Generals protested weakly and then despite professionally knowing better diluted and delayed Barbarossa to please thier master and save their careers . The Final Push to Moscow was diverted on Hitlers whim and the Officers folded. Any dispassonate evaluation of the German High Command would have to come to the conculsion that the rank and file of the German Army was badly served by it's Officers.
Conversly Zhukov finally was able to stand up to Stalin after Stalingrad and started running the Russian Army under militarily sound principles.
I was reading some stats the other day and was suprised to find the Russians only had about 1/3 the steel production and 1/4 the mining production that Germany had , pretty much thru out the war yet managed to out produce Germany several times over. It only goes to show however , how badly the Political Loyal, career minded Generals and Party functionaries screwed things up at all levels.
The more I study on this, The more I think that German Leadership is grossly overrated. And the more and more these disasters on the Battlefield seem enevitable.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:44 am

I have Battlefield tapes and Warfile tapes and well just about every known top quality documentary series on tape coming out of my ears.

Recently scored Why We Fight on dvd from Walmart for peanuts.

I have seen A World at War series but it goes for like 145 bucks on dvd, just a bit to far for my blood.

What I need to do is buy a spindle of blank dvds and transfer my tape through computer onto dvds so I can enjoy them more easily (tapes suck).

I have recently actually just been throwing the tapes away when I get them replaced on dvd. I have gotten a good number of the must have war movies replaced Longest Day, A Bridge to Far etc.

If anyone wants to eat the cost of postage, I can mail you this junk err tapes

when I find they are no longer welcome around here hehe.

Orzel Bialy · Post by **Orzel Bialy** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 4:53 am

I can't say that I disagree with what has been said thus far about the lack of backbone the German generals showed when it came to making career choices over sound military ones.

However, I don't think that can be used as the basis of a blanket statement proposing that they were an over-rated group when it came to leadership abilities.

I think a good deal of German officers had very sound characteristics except one fatal one: the moral courage to stand up to a thug dictator. Then again, who here can honestly say that they would have acted any differently under the circumstances???

When things were going good and estates were being granted for victories I think the human nature of "wanting a piece of the pie" creeped in. After all it looked like they were going to pull it off for a while there in 40-41...and a good deal were probably looking forward to the post war years and a comfortable retirement lifestyle.

Then, when things started going bad, well the chance of ending up dead for protesting too loudly became a very real possibility and that in itself is a very character-altering force.

I know I would not have cherished the possibility of trying to tell Hitler "I'm sorry...I don't agree".

As as been stated in other replies it was the corrupting of the real military influence in the execution of the war by the dirty hands of party politics and loyalities that did in the general staff rather than a true lack of leadership qualities.

Kursk, D-Day, Bulge

Kursk, D-Day, Bulge

I only got to watch the one on Kursk...

Why Kursk Happened at All..

Interesting...