i heard on a show lately that the german army lost 1/4 of all supplies and material that the germans ever produced in the ENTIRE SECOND WAR!
i was like whaaaaaaa?!
is this accurate? it makes sense of a lot of things for me. by number losses of troops alone i always thought that the germans should be able to recoup their losses by their volunteer campaigns in occupied territories, or by forcing human labor in the territories occupied to free up more german men to be put into the wehrmacht.
1/4 of all supplies produced lost is staggering.
makes you wonder why in the hell Hitler didnt allow a tactical retreat from the area after the soviets counterattacked en masse.
the question is this. is the 1/4 loss number accurate?
I’d consider more likely to be 1/4 of the Eastern Front forces or even the entire Wehrmacht in 1942. 1/4 of the entire war is highly unlikely, considering that it took until 1944 before German war production was fully mobilized for the war effort.
Most over rated is Patton. He made no greater command decision than “charge”. Any jackass can do that (almost). I am sure you know the whole “blood and guts” nickname he had (and earned).
The worst General, by FAR was Clark. It is absolutely stunning they allowed him to live after the war. He should have been court martialed and hung for all of the American (and axis too) lives he wasted. Little story about this POS…
When he finaly broke through in Italy and was about to capture Rome it was mid afternoon when his caravan had to stop because there was some fighting going on up the road. We were mopping up some Germans who were cut off. Clark’s assistant asked “how long till we can get under way”. The guy in charge said it would probably take 4-5 hours. Clark wouldn’t allow it, he demanded it be cleared in 2 hours (and it was).
The reason why?
The sun was going down and the General wouldn’t be able to take good pictures in the twilight as he entered Rome.
Most over rated is Patton. He made no greater command decision than “charge”. Any jackass can do that (almost). I am sure you know the whole “blood and guts” nickname he had (and earned).
The worst General, by FAR was Clark. It is absolutely stunning they allowed him to live after the war. He should have been court martialed and hung for all of the American (and axis too) lives he wasted. Little story about this POS…
When he finaly broke through in Italy and was about to capture Rome it was mid afternoon when his caravan had to stop because there was some fighting going on up the road. We were mopping up some Germans who were cut off. Clark’s assistant asked “how long till we can get under way”. The guy in charge said it would probably take 4-5 hours. Clark wouldn’t allow it, he demanded it be cleared in 2 hours (and it was).
The reason why?
The sun was going down and the General wouldn’t be able to take good pictures in the twilight as he entered Rome.
Is he the guy who decided to head for Rome instead of cutting off the retreat of the German forces after the breakouts from Anzio and the Gustav line?
Most over rated is Patton. He made no greater command decision than “charge”. Any jackass can do that (almost). I am sure you know the whole “blood and guts” nickname he had (and earned).
The worst General, by FAR was Clark. It is absolutely stunning they allowed him to live after the war. He should have been court martialed and hung for all of the American (and axis too) lives he wasted. Little story about this POS…
When he finaly broke through in Italy and was about to capture Rome it was mid afternoon when his caravan had to stop because there was some fighting going on up the road. We were mopping up some Germans who were cut off. Clark’s assistant asked “how long till we can get under way”. The guy in charge said it would probably take 4-5 hours. Clark wouldn’t allow it, he demanded it be cleared in 2 hours (and it was).
The reason why?
The sun was going down and the General wouldn’t be able to take good pictures in the twilight as he entered Rome.
wrong topic friends.
i heard on a show lately that the german army lost 1/4 of all supplies and material that the germans ever produced in the ENTIRE SECOND WAR!
i was like whaaaaaaa?!
is this accurate? it makes sense of a lot of things for me. by number losses of troops alone i always thought that the germans should be able to recoup their losses by their volunteer campaigns in occupied territories, or by forcing human labor in the territories occupied to free up more german men to be put into the wehrmacht.
1/4 of all supplies produced lost is staggering.
makes you wonder why in the hell Hitler didnt allow a tactical retreat from the area after the soviets counterattacked en masse.
the question is this. is the 1/4 loss number accurate?
I think this may be be reference to a line in the “Stalingrad” episode of “The World at War”. Towards the end of the episode, as the narrator describes the German losses in men and equipment at Stalingrad, he says that enough equipment was lost to equip one-quarter of the German army. So it’s not a reference to one-quarter of the equipment produced, which would be a much larger number.
