WWII in HD on the history channel
 

Been on since Sunday....anyone watching?


http://www.history.com/content/wwii-in-hd

This is when I wish I had my cable back. I saw it being advertised when I went to TGI Fridays last week. I was SO tempted to get my cable back. I'm just going to buy the DVD set. Not a Nazi fan, but I've always liked German WWII military machines. Their technology was so superior.

That can be argued. The US had better infantry weapons and the Soviets had better tanks. Though I will admit I really liked the uniform of the German Heer and Schutzstaffel.

I saw a part of last night's epsiode and I was really touched by the story of the soldier trying to get a hotel room when there weren't any available and how moved he was that a stranger gave him a room so the soldier could be with his wife. He was so precious - explaining that their first child was born exactly nine months later!

I disagree. The Germans had much better tanks and everything else. The reason why their tanks weren't effective in Russia was because the Germans didn't expect to be in Russia that long. They thought it was going to be quick and easy like the invasion of France and Poland. The Russians set them up. They kept pulling back and back until the Germans were so far in that they ended up starving and freezing to death. Their tanks also had thicker oil because they invaded Russia at a time when the weather wasn't freezing, so they wouldn't start. Try starting a diesel engine in freezing weather with heavy weight oil. The U.S. had more resources but the technology wasn't better. At the end of the war Russia and the U.S. took Germany's scientists. Look at the B2 stealth bomber. Where do you think that design came from? What about the X29's reverse wing pattern? What about the Soviet Mig 15's swept wings? That all came from German technology.

I've watched parts of it, but can't seem to get "involved" with it. This is totally odd, since I'm more likely to have one of the History channels on at any given time.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the sheer chutzpah of the Nazis. Not only did they commit some of the most atrocious acts in history, but they were so proud of it, you can almost hear someone say, "Hey, Hans! Bring the camera over here next!" *shakes head* The sheer audacity is truly amazing.

I don't know, the Russian T-34 was generally considered to be the best tank design put out in WWII. Even when the Russians started to push into Germany near the end, they rolled over the Panzer and Tiger tanks of Germany. And as for the Americans, quite a few military historians consider the M-1 Garand to had made a significant difference in combat effectiveness, as it was the first semiauto battle rifle.

I will give you the facts that the Germans were amazing when it came to aeronautical engineering. They put out some amazing aircraft, though the RAF and USAAC for the most part had better pilots. Not to mention the p-51, which is probably the best prop driven fighter aircraft ever designed.

The problem inherent in German armor is that toward the end they traded speed for armor and firepower. The result was a tank that could screw you up if it hit you, but that you could bracket and beat the crap out of because it couldn't get out of its own way. This is why the T-34 and our own Sherman did so well against it; the Allied R&D people understood the need for balance.

I will give credit to the Germans where its due though: first to use bona fide assault rifles in combat, I believe the first to use paratroops effectively, first jets, and of course their innovations with rocketry. It's scary to consider that had they been headed by a competent leader toward the end all that could *very* well have given WWII a few more years if not a different outcome altogether.

Regarding the air forces, the Germans initially had parity or superiority over their enemies; their pilots were veterans of the Spanish Civil War and later the Battle of Britain, trained by some of the most decorated aces of WWI and their air force was basically unchallenged until Britain. The problem they had was attrition; they simply couldn't keep up the quality training and keep churning out the weapons of war as it dragged on and their industrial base was broken.

I'm not sure I would say that the Sherman did well against the German armor. It was decent but the German armor was superior in almost every way. The main problem with German armor was the fact that it was, well German. They over engineered the hell out of it, and it was hard to produce as a result. The 34 and the M4 were both easy to mass produce and easy to train people to use.


The Germans were a great force, and if Hitler didn't try to fight a war on two fronts, he would have won. He also violated one of the very few laws of European combat. YOU DO NOT ATTEMPT TO INVADE RUSSIA. Especially during the winter. Not a single person who tried it succeed in winning. Though they weren't the first to effectivly use airborne troops. They were the first to make use of them, but the Fallschirmjäger suffered insane causalities in their first mission against the British, and Hitler stopped using them.

Agreed on that point, especially when it came to material. Also like I mentioned before, most of the German equipment really wasn't designed to be easily mass produced.

I totally agree with this.:) The RAF Spitfire was also a great fighter plane, but the T-34 only killed the German tanks because of what I posted earlier. If they were carrying a lighter weight oil, then I don't think the T-34 would have been as successful. You also have to look at why Stalin was an ally to Hitler in the beginning. That was just to give him time to build up his forces, because he knew Hitler would have eventually tried to overthrow him too.

Great post though.:)

I've been watching, and it's helping me better understand my (now deceased) grandfather. He won a silver star in the Battle of the Bulge.

Also, my grandmother (who is slightly nutty) threw away said medal. Through my contacts here in DC, I was able to get a replacement medal and give it to my mom last year for Christmas. Her reaction was priceless.

What about the Tiger and King Tiger tanks?

What's your opinion of them and their superiority?

Umm....last time I checked, June was not winter - even by Soviet standards. . . .

I also hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Soviets were not trying to pull the Germans deeper into the Soviet Union. They were seriously getting their butts kicked and were retreating - but made sure in their retreat the Germans did not have resources. The mistake was the Germans followed. The Soviets had been in the process of rebuilding their military (which was VERY slow due to the nature of the Communist Party). Not only did the Germans following deeper into Russia (that was Hitler's idea) allow the Soviets to regroup but allowed Britain to breath after constant bombing as Hitler pulled the Luftwaffe over to Eastern Europe - and later the Soviets keeping the Germans occupied created the two front war which was Germany's ultimate downfall.

ETA: Oh, and by the way, the purpose of Operation Barbarossa was NOT to conquer the Soviet Union but rather to get at the natural resources found in the eastern Soviet Union (namely the Ukraine).

Operation Barbarossa lasted well into December 1941

I watched it mainly because I wanted to see if I could see any videos with my grandfather in it (he was in many of the battles in the Pacific). I never knew him (he passed in '74 due to asbestos at his job) and so anything I read, or see brings me closer to him. He's in a few books about the pacific battles, but was hoping to see something. So far nothing, but I still find it VERY interesting especially hearing the words of these soldiers and seeing the pictures to go with it.

Im guessing you also saw Flags of our fathers...if you did...did you like it?

No i haven't, is it good? I try to stay away from actual movies about wars. The only movie I really like is Glory.

Next time I go to the video store, I'll rent that one and see it.

Flags of our Fathers was a very good movie and the book was one of the best reads I ever had in my life.

I Liked t...it was depressing in some parts but good.

You were able to get a replacement medal?? I've been helping my brother try to get medals he was entitled to from Viet Nam for over 15 years, and he still doesn't have them.

My mother's eldest brother was killed at the Anzio Beach Invasion. I have no idea who has his medals, as he had no children, and my other uncle, my brother & I are the only family left. :( He was 21.

I worked in a military agency for a year and a half and I knew someone in the military awards division. The only way I was able to get it was because I had the paperwork he was given (a copy of his Army citation) and had a friend hook me up. If you had any sort of paperwork regarding what he is owed, I could help you out. PM me if that's the case.

Actually into the early months of 1942 - but that's not what was planned nor when it was started. . . It was supposed to be a typical blitzkrieg offensive (so short and decisive) but didn't turn out that way.

Late 1941 early 1942

Either way...it was cold as hell, Germany was still trying to push into Russia, they failed.

That was the point he was making.

Regarding WWII medals, I was talking with the daughter of a WWII veteran and she said the army was not very good about tracking men down to award the medals and many vets do not even have those that are owed them. She was able (with his paperwork) to get her dad's medals awarded to him. Another friend was able to do it with much less (her dad's paperwork was destroyed in a fire and he had since died). With information about the company he served in, etc she was able to get his medals posthumously.