Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been possible without US national guards.
|
True. And the US NG are not conscripts. They are highly-trained soldiers, all volunteer, just like the regular troops. The main difference is that they work a civilian job when they are not on active duty. So I don't see why you are trying to use the NG to support your ideas about conscripts, since they aren't conscripts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
What was essential was the lack of centralized command on the Franco-British side (therefore strategy).
|
They did have a centralized command. One that made a great many mistakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
When it comes to the tactical level they were often defeated as in Narvik
|
The Germans won at Narvik. The British only temporarily took the port and were forced to pull back out.
But you've completely missed my point. Both the German and the British armies in 1940-41 were composed of professional soldiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
The Wermacht for its part was in no way a volunteer army. It was a conscript one organized around a very strong professional element which was composed of corporals, sergeants and highly skilled officers trained during the inter-war period and on the battlefields in Spain and Poland.
|
While conscription was reintroduced in 1935, the majority of the army until 1941 was volunteer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
When it comes to tanks, their equipments were largely inferior and remained inferior all war long.
|
This has nothing whatsoever to do with conscription or professional soldiery. And Germans equipment was equal to or better than Allied equipment, except for the T-34 and KV-1, throughout most of the war. Germany's problem wasn't quality, it was lack of quantity. That, and lacking long range bombers, and having a moron for a leader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
The Luftwaffe sustained so many losses during the battle of France that they had to postpone the invasion of UK (and later cancel it).
|
Must be French revisionist history. The Luftwaffe didn't lose significant numbers during the invasion of France. Mainly because the UK declined to risk their planes over the continent and wisely kept them in reserve to defend the homeland instead. The reason Sealion was postponed was due to losses suffered by the Luftwaffe against the RAF
after France had surrendered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
When the British withdrew the Jews didn't even have one man with any kind of experience with tanks.
|
You should do some research into Yitzhak Sadeh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
if you read standard russian military procedure for 1941, you quickly realize that their losses during the first months of the war were integrated into their defensive views.
|
Sorry, no. Their losses in 1941 were not planned. Anything implying that it was part of some plan was the Soviets rewriting their history (which they did a LOT of) after the war. The Soviets, prior to being invaded, had no intention to trade vast amounts of land and troops to buy time. It's something that they did because they had no choice and were unprepared. Stalin had not expected Hitler to betray him so soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
The russian won and had no core of professionals to begin with (They had been killed during the purges, 3 years before).
|
Look up the following names: Zhukov, Timoshenko, Vatutin. Konev, Rokossovsky, or Malinin. I could name plenty of others. The purges only killed half of the officer corps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
Moreover, the development of tanks and tank tactics had ceased.
|
False. The T-34 was designed during 1937-1940 and the KV-1 was designed during 1938-39. There were other tanks being designed during the same period. And the Soviets were developing new tactics during this time, too. Including massed armor, patterned after the panzertruppen.