Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2013 18:00:19 GMT -5
The Russian T-34 had foot pedals if it ran out of gas the crew could peddle the thing .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2013 18:04:52 GMT -5
recall a tank got only one to two a gallons a mile at best. Not much worse than my motorhome! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on May 2, 2013 18:12:02 GMT -5
When we were on the road with a 2 ton F100, and a 2.4 ton caravan, we got 2 kms per litre of LPG.
That is about 7.5 kms (maybe 4 or 5 miles??) per US gallon.
SJ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2013 18:37:11 GMT -5
One has to wonder just what was the objective of Barbarossa ? It had to be a Hitler Stalin thing as neither could stand each other and both were utterly ruthless .
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on May 2, 2013 18:48:25 GMT -5
"A lying son of a bitch"
SJ
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on May 2, 2013 22:07:39 GMT -5
One has to wonder just what was the objective of Barbarossa ? It had to be a Hitler Stalin thing as neither could stand each other and both were utterly ruthless . To conquer the Soviet Union and kill everyone who didn't fit Der Fuhrer's idea of being human.
|
|
|
Post by griffin on May 2, 2013 22:25:51 GMT -5
One of the important factors in the failure of the Germans was that British and Commonwealth forces. They delayed and kept pushing back the date for the invasion of Russia through their defence of Greece and Crete, which meant German troops designed for the Russian attack were directed to these areas. Further, with the allies supplying arms to Tito and others, which also tied down large numbers of German soldiers.
The Germans also failed to supply Rommel with the assets he needed. Had he been properly supported he would have gotten all the fuel and oil that the German's machine would have needed, and the loss of fuel for Britain may have changed the course of the war.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on May 2, 2013 23:05:47 GMT -5
as I have claimed before, I really doubt that victory at Leningrad, Moscow AND Stalingrad would have made all that much difference.
The German forces would have been under constant (and growing) attack from the Red Army etc etc, and eventually they would have been worn down and thrown back. German lines of communication would have been forever vulnerable, along the entire Russian Front. A Russian thrust half way between Leningrad and Moscow, or halfway between Moscow and Stalingrad, would have been Hitlers nightmare every night.
JMO
SJ
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on May 2, 2013 23:12:51 GMT -5
Paul is right - we were the dagger in the Germans' backs, and our bombing campaigns also led to the grinding down of their air forces.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on May 3, 2013 0:44:59 GMT -5
Relying on a fading memory, but that Minister for War Production whoever he was said that 25% (I think) of the German anti aircraft workforce was devoted to flying planes, shooting 88s, making the ammo, transporting it, or cleaning up the rubble, or fighting the fires, of the Allied bombing offensive.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on May 3, 2013 6:05:35 GMT -5
Albert Speer also said that, when people talk of Hitler's mistakes, they may be right, but that doesn't mean the war could have been won even if he hadn't made them, because the forces against the Reich were too great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 11:00:18 GMT -5
We fought the Germans and the Germans fought every body and they did a pretty good job of it for awhile .
|
|