Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The worst ally of Germany in WWII.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Cthulhu

    All those sacrifices and he never showed.

    Comment


    • #17
      Pizza land?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Hildemel View Post
        Cthulhu

        All those sacrifices and he never showed.
        That was WW1

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Connaught Ranger View Post
          Pointless Thread.
          Haha, nice one!


          Romania was the worst ally with the Hungary and Bulgaria next.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jumper View Post
            The Germans would had a front less if the Italians controled the Mediterranean.
            It would have caused the British a lot of trouble, but even with a advantage in numbers they where routed.
            After clearing the Mediterranean, Balkan and Northern Africa they could have supported the Germans on the western or eastern front.
            I'm wondering why they didn't shared more tech and tactics with the Germans, like maybe a own production line of Stugs, Pz4,Pak40, 88, Mauser, MP40, halftracks etc etc.
            The Japanese acquired German tech near the last days of the war.
            The Germans must have seen that those Tankettes etc where a joke..
            Japanese had such bad tanks not because they thought they were great, but because they couldn't afford to build a navy and a major tank force at the same time. And since they needed a navy more than an armored force, the resources went that way.
            Until Japan entered the war, their tank forces were absolutely adequate. Chi-Ha Kai with 47mm was probably one of the best tanks in the world in early 1942.
            The problem was that the Japanese never fielded a successor generation or only did so in limited numbers for home defense.
            The army just never got the resources it needed, or only got them too late.

            Comment


            • #21
              German Communists taken out of prison camps and told to fight. Bad deal.

              Bulgaria was not an extremely active ally but was it detrimental to the war effort? I don't think so. Uniquely, t paid off for Bulgaria territorially.

              I don't think Slovakia was a bad ally. Sure they sort of switched sides like all the others in Eastern and Central Europe (except the Baltic states). But at least the collaborative regime meant that part of Europe wasn't going to cause that much trouble for some time.



              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by JCR View Post

                Japanese had such bad tanks not because they thought they were great, but because they couldn't afford to build a navy and a major tank force at the same time. And since they needed a navy more than an armored force, the resources went that way.
                Until Japan entered the war, their tank forces were absolutely adequate. Chi-Ha Kai with 47mm was probably one of the best tanks in the world in early 1942.
                The problem was that the Japanese never fielded a successor generation or only did so in limited numbers for home defense.
                The army just never got the resources it needed, or only got them too late.
                Japanese Armor was poor.
                Only one Japanese tank had a co-ax mount, the amphibious Ka-Mi.
                Armor was brittle, thin and riveted.
                Turrets were one man until the Shinhoto Chi-Ha
                Guns were aimed and elevated by Shoulder rest- a system abandoned by the Allies in 1942
                Machineguns were the Hopper fed Type 91 or a mag fed Type 97

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by AND View Post

                  Haha, nice one!


                  Romania was the worst ally with the Hungary and Bulgaria next.


                  As I am not a Romanian, Hungarian or Bulgarian, your pathetic attempt to flame = FAIL

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Linedoggie View Post
                    Japanese Armor was poor.
                    Only one Japanese tank had a co-ax mount, the amphibious Ka-Mi.
                    Armor was brittle, thin and riveted.
                    Turrets were one man until the Shinhoto Chi-Ha
                    Guns were aimed and elevated by Shoulder rest- a system abandoned by the Allies in 1942
                    Machineguns were the Hopper fed Type 91 or a mag fed Type 97
                    As I said, their tanks were about equal to at least American and British ones basically until they declared war.
                    Then they stopped development for 2 years or so until it was too late.
                    Even the tanks they actually fielded but never used due to being kept in Japan were probably on par with a 75mm Sherman.
                    The Chi-Nu was basically an improved Chi-Ha up gunned to 75mm.

                    The Chi-To tank, Japan's actually competitive medium tank with a long 75mm and modern suspension was stuck in development hell, promting them to modify the Chi-Ha hull to accept a 75mm.

                    On the other hand, if you compare Japanese naval destroyer design with German destroyer design, you will note the same lack of experience and underdevelopment in Germany.
                    Germany had as much impetus to develop a competitive destroyer than Japan had to develop a competitive tank.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Linedoggie View Post
                      Ssssh the Stalinaboos will furiously deny the Alliance pre 1941
                      One should try challenging legitimity and excellence of the current Russian president and his party line. There will be a flood of putinbots and paid trolls from a city Olgino where they work trying to silence people in doubts that their employer is not the best.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by AwesomeVladimir View Post

                        One should try challenging legitimity and excellence of the current Russian president and his party line. There will be a flood of putinbots and paid trolls from a city Olgino where they work trying to silence people in doubts that their employer is not the best.
                        Having started a thread that drew some respectable comments, WTF do you now troll it yourself with irrelevant and OT comment?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JohninMK View Post

                          Having started a thread that drew some respectable comments, WTF do you now troll it yourself with irrelevant and OT comment?

                          Unlike RL, the great thing about internet forums is that the insanity of certain posters is revealed (and resolved to everyone else's satisfaction) very rapidly

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'm not that well-versed in the political side of WW2 when it comes to Germany's allies, but could it be argued that their performance in the war has to be considered under the fact that in some cases, Germany pressured them into operations they were simply not capable of?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Romanian Army was actually the only Axis army that executed alone (with some limited German support in the last phase of the operation) and successfully a military operation on eastern front, conquering Odessa from the Soviets. Playied a significant role in taking Crimea as well, and a Romanian Mountain division was the Axis unit that advanced the furthest in USSR, in Caucasus (taking along the road the city of Nalchik in Chechnya).

                              Also even having a much smaller navy didn't allowed soviet navy to have the total control in Black Sea. The attempt to attack the Romanian port Constanta in the first days of war ended with Soviet destroyer Moskva sunked and firther attempts ended. Also Romanian navy (with some allies help) evacuted tens of thousands of soldiers from Crimea.

                              We performed not so good in open fields due to lack of logistic and heavy weapons (tanks especially). For those who talk about Stalingrad, well, that order of battle was something like one Romanian infantry division with an AT gun at every 1 km of front line facing 4 Soviet infantry division and 2 tank brigades helped by thousands pieces of heavy artillery. Even so they repeled the first waves of attack.

                              Seeing how numerically superior and much better equipped Soviet soldiers where defeated en masse in the first part of war, and how both Russians and Germans (later in war) used special units behind the lines to shot those who retreat or desert I won't hurry to point fingers to others (sure as tech we were not there most of the time, with few exceptions we can't compare with big countries and much better equipped armies).
                              Anyway, if USSR would have been the size of France or Poland (even the size of Poland and France combined) they would have fall just as easy. Even so Nazis (and their idiot ideology, not that Stalin, their main ally in first years of war, was any better) fcked up the things big time. But this is happen when dictators and greed for power comes above normal people lives

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Radu View Post
                                Romanian Army was actually the only Axis army that executed alone (with some limited German support in the last phase of the operation) and successfully a military operation on eastern front, conquering Odessa from the Soviets. Playied a significant role in taking Crimea as well, and a Romanian Mountain division was the Axis unit that advanced the furthest in USSR, in Caucasus (taking along the road the city of Nalchik in Chechnya).

                                Also even having a much smaller navy didn't allowed soviet navy to have the total control in Black Sea. The attempt to attack the Romanian port Constanta in the first days of war ended with Soviet destroyer Moskva sunked and firther attempts ended. Also Romanian navy (with some allies help) evacuted tens of thousands of soldiers from Crimea.

                                We performed not so good in open fields due to lack of logistic and heavy weapons (tanks especially). For those who talk about Stalingrad, well, that order of battle was something like one Romanian infantry division with an AT gun at every 1 km of front line facing 4 Soviet infantry division and 2 tank brigades helped by thousands pieces of heavy artillery. Even so they repeled the first waves of attack.

                                Seeing how numerically superior and much better equipped Soviet soldiers where defeated en masse in the first part of war, and how both Russians and Germans (later in war) used special units behind the lines to shot those who retreat or desert I won't hurry to point fingers to others (sure as tech we were not there most of the time, with few exceptions we can't compare with big countries and much better equipped armies).
                                Anyway, if USSR would have been the size of France or Poland (even the size of Poland and France combined) they would have fall just as easy. Even so Nazis (and their idiot ideology, not that Stalin, their main ally in first years of war, was any better) fcked up the things big time. But this is happen when dictators and greed for power comes above normal people lives
                                If the USSR was the size of France or Poland it wouldn't be the USSR - it would be a different country with a much smaller army, different culture, different defensive strategy, different equipment, different political leadership, maybe a different ideology and so on; and who knows how it would have fared.

                                As it was though the Brest Fortress resisted for longer than either the whole of France or Poland.
                                So did Odessa for that matter since you broached the subject.

                                The Soviets weren't numerically superior where it mattered in the first part of the war - on the front. How the Germans (or anyone) attacked - is by massing divisions/brigades and achieving local numerical superiority over the defenders; preferably attacking from two or more directions, enveloping, encircling and all the other tricks.
                                And this is exactly how the Soviets fell early on - the first Soviet defensive line was massed along every nook and crany of the border, instead of in a sound defensive line - the Germans simply concentrated their forces, punched through the weak points and enveloped hundreds of thousands of men - who were then forced to fall back from the prepared defensive positions they had in an effort to escape being surrounded - which usually failed in the early days as the Germans were moving too quickly and the Soviets were too disorganized with chaos being sent down instead of orders; and so most of those men ended up getting captured or melted away into partisan groups.
                                The Soviet Air Force on the front line was all but exterminated on the ground during the German surprise attack - so it's numbers or technology (AFAIK nontheless inferior to the Luftwaffe) didn't much matter.
                                The Soviet tank force had some good tanks - but light tanks, with speed, mobility and all the rest of it - not exactly optimal for defending and last stands - so they got owned there too.

                                When the Germans reached the 2nd defensive line (Stalin line, Leningrad, etc...) the situation became much more balanced as the Soviets had time to react and organize by then.

                                tl;dr - most of your post is bull and ignores how the war was actually fought.

                                About how the Romanian Army performed I know quite little - only that they were routinely schooled by Black Sea Fleet marines in the Crimea and failed around Stalingrad. Romanian performance at taking Odessa is nothing to brag about either - they took huge losses, got routinely successfully counterattacked and in the end they only marched into Odessa after it had been completely evacuated of troops & equipment.
                                Last edited by flamming_python; 11-01-2017, 02:08 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X