Steve wrote:
> Apparently the life span of the ''good''NAZI General was better than
> all.
Isn't that the case with MOST Generals, on either side? "In the rear,
with the gear" With the exceptions of a few like Patton and Rommel,
most tended to send the orders up the line instead of leading into battle.
>
>
> As for the M4A3,read Death Traps.That will give a new appreciation to
> the bravery required to battle the ''superior technology,''by Allies
> alike.
Hell, I've got a lot of respect for the courage of ANY man willing to
fight for his country and his cause. The average soliders in WWII were
not there because of their politics, they were there because they were
fighting "the enemy" to make the world a better place, and keep their
homes and families safe. And as far as German "superior technology"
goes, they DID have some areas where their engineers were better than
ours, especially at the start of the war. If I had the choice of having
to fight a tank battle from either a Sherman or a Tiger, yes, I'd
probably pick the Tiger as well. So would most of the guys who fought
those Tigers while in those Shermans, from an equipment standpoint.
Until the guys in the Tiger had to try and fight off 5 or 10 of those
Shermans at a time, over and over, they were hard to beat. But we DID
eventually beat them, and I'm glad of it. But that doesn't change the
fact that SOME of the equipment the Germans had was "Superior" in design
to some of ours. If the Me-262 had been produced in numbers early
enough and using the proper materials, it would have given the P-51
Mustangs and P-47 Thunderbolts a LOT more of a challenge than the
Me-109s. Even the Fw-190s were a pretty fair match for the Mustangs in
the hands of a good pilot, and had a number of advanced features to
them. Lack of creative engineering wasn't the undoing of the Germans,
it was strategy and the sheer determination on the part of the Allied
troops that determined the outcome of WWII.
> By the way Germany still lost,take them down off that bloody
> pedestal.
What pedestal? I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of
technology, not politics. Are you telling me that at NO time in the war
did the Germans EVER have ANY technological advantages over the allies?
If that were actually the case, then why did the war last as long as it
did and take so much effort on our parts? The fact is, they WERE a
strong opponent. However, they made the one crucial mistake of taking
on an even stronger one- US.
Jay
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 23:18:31 PDT