Fischer MRX 650: Would you buy one?
101 - 117 of 117 Posts
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
Depends on your definition of competent. They were certainly competent to a point--they could have won the war. However, it was a number of stunningly bad decisions and misinterpretations that helped greatly to do them in. Plus, you could argue that their entire theory of world domination and the Thousand Year Reich was completely and hopelessly flawed.
Then let us remember that it wasn't only Hitler who bungled the war. Their military commanders were guilty of some awful strategic and tactical moves. In fact, although the Germans had a reputation as a formidable military power, they hadn't really won much. You've got to go back to the days of Prussia to find any real accomplishments, most of them defensive. Turns out that the mighty German war machine had an inherent flaw in its command structure. So while they had many talented military minds, the organization, many times, made them ineffectual.
That spells a certain kind of incompetence to me.
Depends on your definition of competent. They were certainly competent to a point--they could have won the war. However, it was a number of stunningly bad decisions and misinterpretations that helped greatly to do them in. Plus, you could argue that their entire theory of world domination and the Thousand Year Reich was completely and hopelessly flawed.
Then let us remember that it wasn't only Hitler who bungled the war. Their military commanders were guilty of some awful strategic and tactical moves. In fact, although the Germans had a reputation as a formidable military power, they hadn't really won much. You've got to go back to the days of Prussia to find any real accomplishments, most of them defensive. Turns out that the mighty German war machine had an inherent flaw in its command structure. So while they had many talented military minds, the organization, many times, made them ineffectual.
That spells a certain kind of incompetence to me.
Joined
·
17,448 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
The Nazis persecuted some of their best nuclear scientists because they were Jewish. The Scientists went to Britain and the US.
The Nazis never let the crying need for railroad rolling stock to move their troops get in the way of the program to exterminate the Jews and other "genetic inferiors".
The Germans got beaten in every engagement with the US, except for Kasserine Pass. Rather than bypass Stalingrad they blew the war with Russia by investing the city. Then Hitler wouldn't allow a defensive retreat, allowing the Germans to get bagged in Russia, thus sealing his doom. There are many examples of the Nazis' stupidity.
Well heck for that matter in the late 30s the French and Brits couldn't give Hitler everything he wanted fast enough. Germany was even getting its African colonies back when the fool Hitler attacked Poland.
They were very efficient. Given a task they could probably organize and pull it off better than anybody. Being efficient doesn't mean being smart. One of the diry little secrets is that wars are seldom "won". They are usually lost by the worst blunderers. Japan's worst blunder was attacking the US at all, for example. We'd never have gotten into the war at all without that "brilliant strategy". And the Japanese commander didn't even carry out his mission anyhow by destroying the fuel facilities at Pearl Harbor.
Hitler was Austrian. Maybe he was merely carrying out an elaborate plan to destroy Germany. He did a pretty good job of it. That could explain many of his decisions.
The Nazis persecuted some of their best nuclear scientists because they were Jewish. The Scientists went to Britain and the US.
The Nazis never let the crying need for railroad rolling stock to move their troops get in the way of the program to exterminate the Jews and other "genetic inferiors".
The Germans got beaten in every engagement with the US, except for Kasserine Pass. Rather than bypass Stalingrad they blew the war with Russia by investing the city. Then Hitler wouldn't allow a defensive retreat, allowing the Germans to get bagged in Russia, thus sealing his doom. There are many examples of the Nazis' stupidity.
Well heck for that matter in the late 30s the French and Brits couldn't give Hitler everything he wanted fast enough. Germany was even getting its African colonies back when the fool Hitler attacked Poland.
They were very efficient. Given a task they could probably organize and pull it off better than anybody. Being efficient doesn't mean being smart. One of the diry little secrets is that wars are seldom "won". They are usually lost by the worst blunderers. Japan's worst blunder was attacking the US at all, for example. We'd never have gotten into the war at all without that "brilliant strategy". And the Japanese commander didn't even carry out his mission anyhow by destroying the fuel facilities at Pearl Harbor.
Hitler was Austrian. Maybe he was merely carrying out an elaborate plan to destroy Germany. He did a pretty good job of it. That could explain many of his decisions.
Not a chance. Korean engine? I'd much rather have a Buell or an air cooled Duc or Beemer or Guzzi.
I hate radiators and having to adjust valves and oily messy final drive chains that you have to keep in adjustment and lubricated.
Those old fashioned wet sump engines and their radiators are butt-ugly.
The dry sump V-Twin Buell powerplant is state of the art beautiful.
American? Not with a Korean engine it ain't, not really.
I hate radiators and having to adjust valves and oily messy final drive chains that you have to keep in adjustment and lubricated.
Those old fashioned wet sump engines and their radiators are butt-ugly.
The dry sump V-Twin Buell powerplant is state of the art beautiful.
American? Not with a Korean engine it ain't, not really.
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
Wehrmacht was the more competent army.
They occupied almost whole of Europe, and would have got England as well had it not been for the channel. They were at the gates of Moscow and had a big chunk of North Africa. Bloody amazing feat.
Obviously they were stretched too far and couldn´t keep it up. When the D-day came, they had already had 2 million casualities. That´s like a big number. Still, in the western front they killed 2 for each one of their own dead. The gringos never got a breakthrough in Italy although the krauts were 1-10 underdogs.
- cruiz-euro
Wehrmacht was the more competent army.
They occupied almost whole of Europe, and would have got England as well had it not been for the channel. They were at the gates of Moscow and had a big chunk of North Africa. Bloody amazing feat.
Obviously they were stretched too far and couldn´t keep it up. When the D-day came, they had already had 2 million casualities. That´s like a big number. Still, in the western front they killed 2 for each one of their own dead. The gringos never got a breakthrough in Italy although the krauts were 1-10 underdogs.
- cruiz-euro
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
Well, let's see. The Nazi's had been building up their military at an alarming clip for most of the 30s while the England was making collection-agency calls for the WWI reparations, Chamberlin was playing patsy cake with Hitler, and the French were drinking wine behind the "impenetrable" Magenot Line. I think the Germans had the jump on the Allies, don't you? Hell, the U.S. was still using horse calvary up to the time we entered the war.
In fact, the Wehrmact was not the more competent army. They were effective to a degree. Strategically and tactically they were outsmarted at almost every turn. The rigid German command structure was too slow and politicized to be effective in the big picture. The Allies, particulary the Americans, allowed their officers, non-coms and even enlisted men to innovate and make decisions on the fly based on infomation they had in real time and to correct errors more quickly than the Germans in most situations.
The Germans should have smashed the British and French at Dunkirk. They let them get away. Then the Luftwaffe was shot to hell in the Battle of Britain, despite overwhelming numbers. D-Day was an unmitigated disaster. The Germans fell hook line and sinker for every ruse the Allies threw at them, wouldn't listen to Rommel (the only one who believed that the invasion was coming through Normandy) and then held two tank divisions in reserve instead of sending them towards the Allies. Best part, Rommel, "the genius" wasn't even there! He was in Germany at his wife's birthday party! He figured the Allies would never attack at low tide, so he thought he could take a few days off.
By the way, your assertion that the Germans were 1-10 underdogs in Italy is not really true. Defending forces only need a fraction of the forces of that of an attacking force. I would imagine that a defender's advantage would even increase in the event of a seaborn invasion.
As an attacking force will usually have more casuaties than a defending force (unless the attackers have an absolutely overwheming advantage), your 2:1 kill ratio doesn't mean much. And the massive German counter attack during the Battle of the Bulge resulted in a huge number of Allied dead and wounded, but was ultimately a last-gasp gambit.
I could go on and on, but I'll make one last point: Don't you think it was unwise to try and conquer an entire continent, and expect to occupy it forever, with the amount of men and material Germany could reasonably produce? They were doomed from the begining.
Well, let's see. The Nazi's had been building up their military at an alarming clip for most of the 30s while the England was making collection-agency calls for the WWI reparations, Chamberlin was playing patsy cake with Hitler, and the French were drinking wine behind the "impenetrable" Magenot Line. I think the Germans had the jump on the Allies, don't you? Hell, the U.S. was still using horse calvary up to the time we entered the war.
In fact, the Wehrmact was not the more competent army. They were effective to a degree. Strategically and tactically they were outsmarted at almost every turn. The rigid German command structure was too slow and politicized to be effective in the big picture. The Allies, particulary the Americans, allowed their officers, non-coms and even enlisted men to innovate and make decisions on the fly based on infomation they had in real time and to correct errors more quickly than the Germans in most situations.
The Germans should have smashed the British and French at Dunkirk. They let them get away. Then the Luftwaffe was shot to hell in the Battle of Britain, despite overwhelming numbers. D-Day was an unmitigated disaster. The Germans fell hook line and sinker for every ruse the Allies threw at them, wouldn't listen to Rommel (the only one who believed that the invasion was coming through Normandy) and then held two tank divisions in reserve instead of sending them towards the Allies. Best part, Rommel, "the genius" wasn't even there! He was in Germany at his wife's birthday party! He figured the Allies would never attack at low tide, so he thought he could take a few days off.
By the way, your assertion that the Germans were 1-10 underdogs in Italy is not really true. Defending forces only need a fraction of the forces of that of an attacking force. I would imagine that a defender's advantage would even increase in the event of a seaborn invasion.
As an attacking force will usually have more casuaties than a defending force (unless the attackers have an absolutely overwheming advantage), your 2:1 kill ratio doesn't mean much. And the massive German counter attack during the Battle of the Bulge resulted in a huge number of Allied dead and wounded, but was ultimately a last-gasp gambit.
I could go on and on, but I'll make one last point: Don't you think it was unwise to try and conquer an entire continent, and expect to occupy it forever, with the amount of men and material Germany could reasonably produce? They were doomed from the begining.
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
Hmmm... the D-day was a success because of the overwhelming force. Total sea and air supremacy and crushing magnitude of material and manpower. Couldn´t have failed. Unlike the popular belief that the gringos and limeys hold so dear, the main body of the nazi army was in fact somewhere else i.e. in Russia, where it had been all but consumed fighting most desperate and horrific battles already for three years. The rest of the army was spread thinly in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania, France etc.
Hell, they were so short of resources that the bunkers at Normandy were manned mostly by "voluntary" Poles and Russians. As one German general dryly noted: "If we ask a Russian to fight the Americans for the Germans in France, we are asking a lot". How true. That they managed to give hell in Omaha and Utah as much as they did is a testament for the wehrmacht´s (unfortunate) efficiency.
There has been plenty of discussion of the two panzer divisions, whether they should have been closer to the beach as Rommel wanted, and receiving the collective fire of the allied big naval guns, or further back where their movement was severely hindered by the allied air. This is like discussing whether Titanic would have been better of the band playing in the bow instead of the aft.
To answer your question: Unwise yes, but it was a gamble that they took. One different twist of the tale, like England agreeing to peace, or Hitler going straight to Moscow, would have meant 1000 year Reich. And us two would still today be mortal enemies.
- cruiz-euro
Hmmm... the D-day was a success because of the overwhelming force. Total sea and air supremacy and crushing magnitude of material and manpower. Couldn´t have failed. Unlike the popular belief that the gringos and limeys hold so dear, the main body of the nazi army was in fact somewhere else i.e. in Russia, where it had been all but consumed fighting most desperate and horrific battles already for three years. The rest of the army was spread thinly in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania, France etc.
Hell, they were so short of resources that the bunkers at Normandy were manned mostly by "voluntary" Poles and Russians. As one German general dryly noted: "If we ask a Russian to fight the Americans for the Germans in France, we are asking a lot". How true. That they managed to give hell in Omaha and Utah as much as they did is a testament for the wehrmacht´s (unfortunate) efficiency.
There has been plenty of discussion of the two panzer divisions, whether they should have been closer to the beach as Rommel wanted, and receiving the collective fire of the allied big naval guns, or further back where their movement was severely hindered by the allied air. This is like discussing whether Titanic would have been better of the band playing in the bow instead of the aft.
To answer your question: Unwise yes, but it was a gamble that they took. One different twist of the tale, like England agreeing to peace, or Hitler going straight to Moscow, would have meant 1000 year Reich. And us two would still today be mortal enemies.
- cruiz-euro
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
They already are in our neighborhood, but they are different breed now. Like 180 degrees different. They are the most anti-militaristic people you can imagine. And for a reason.
- cruiz-euro
They already are in our neighborhood, but they are different breed now. Like 180 degrees different. They are the most anti-militaristic people you can imagine. And for a reason.
- cruiz-euro
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
Sorry, can't agree. Given the conditions, geograhical features, and the highly defensible fortified positions of the flawed-but-still formidable Atlantic Wall, the Normandy invasion was no sure thing. Storming unprotected over an open beach with gun implacements reigning fire from high on the bluffs was a dangerous proposition no matter what.
The Germans had no one to blame but themselves for their lack of air power. They sqandered their air crews and equipment. The fact that they resorted to conscripting conquered Russians, Poles and Frenchmen (you forgot the French) because much of their better forces were mired in the disaster that was the Eastern Front, to me, seems to underscore a certain type of incompetence.
As much as you deride the "popular belief of Gringos and Limeys," there is also a certain mythology that has grown around the German military of WWII. For example, Rommel, was, in large part, a product of propaganda. His superiors viewed him as an excellent tactician, but impulsive and terrible with logisitics. This often undermined his "brilliance." In fact, he was soundly defeated in N. Africa, despite having far superior equipment and defensive advantages. Many members of the General Staff were sycophants or politicians. The command structure throughout much of the war was a mess. Field commanders were also not immune to mistakes, some of which contributed to the failures in Russia. (Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not make all of those decisions.) And the Germans' military intelligence services were almost laughable.
Let's also give some credit to the Allies for the Herculean task of the D-Day invasion (amongst many other things.) The Mulberry harbors alone were a nearly incomprehensible feat, much less the planning and counter-intelligence that preceded June 6th.
And speculating about what could of happened teaches us nothing really about what did happen. England would have never agreed to peace. And even if the Germans had won the war, I doubt they would have been able to secure the whole of Europe and Russia by force for too long.
Forgive me, I'm not saying that the German military was ineffective, just that a clear asertation that they were a superior military force is not supportable. They didn't lose the war because they were better.
Sorry, can't agree. Given the conditions, geograhical features, and the highly defensible fortified positions of the flawed-but-still formidable Atlantic Wall, the Normandy invasion was no sure thing. Storming unprotected over an open beach with gun implacements reigning fire from high on the bluffs was a dangerous proposition no matter what.
The Germans had no one to blame but themselves for their lack of air power. They sqandered their air crews and equipment. The fact that they resorted to conscripting conquered Russians, Poles and Frenchmen (you forgot the French) because much of their better forces were mired in the disaster that was the Eastern Front, to me, seems to underscore a certain type of incompetence.
As much as you deride the "popular belief of Gringos and Limeys," there is also a certain mythology that has grown around the German military of WWII. For example, Rommel, was, in large part, a product of propaganda. His superiors viewed him as an excellent tactician, but impulsive and terrible with logisitics. This often undermined his "brilliance." In fact, he was soundly defeated in N. Africa, despite having far superior equipment and defensive advantages. Many members of the General Staff were sycophants or politicians. The command structure throughout much of the war was a mess. Field commanders were also not immune to mistakes, some of which contributed to the failures in Russia. (Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not make all of those decisions.) And the Germans' military intelligence services were almost laughable.
Let's also give some credit to the Allies for the Herculean task of the D-Day invasion (amongst many other things.) The Mulberry harbors alone were a nearly incomprehensible feat, much less the planning and counter-intelligence that preceded June 6th.
And speculating about what could of happened teaches us nothing really about what did happen. England would have never agreed to peace. And even if the Germans had won the war, I doubt they would have been able to secure the whole of Europe and Russia by force for too long.
Forgive me, I'm not saying that the German military was ineffective, just that a clear asertation that they were a superior military force is not supportable. They didn't lose the war because they were better.
Joined
·
47 Posts
I ride a Hyosung GV250. It's Hyosung's 250cc "cruiser"-style bike. This model's sold as an "Alpha Sports" in the US and as an "Aquila" or "Mirage" in Europe and elsewhere.
My engine's great. It always starts immediately (given the battery's fully charged). I've had no problems over two years of daily use and abuse.
(Non-engine problems, though, include a post-crash battery leaking water, a carburator clogged with black carbonated muck, coughing acceleration, a foot peg snapped off, rear suspension bottoming out with fat passengers on board, a short circuit in the tankbag/stereo draining the battery, and a plastic wheel guard that snapped when someone drove into me.)
The bike is great for touring, commuting and even for leaning _way_ over when cornering along mountain roads.
I'm glad to see the Hyosung engine being considered as a serious race engine. Warms my heart to know my little 250cc has a racer in its blood.
-gregory
Seoul, Korea
Hyosung GV250
My engine's great. It always starts immediately (given the battery's fully charged). I've had no problems over two years of daily use and abuse.
(Non-engine problems, though, include a post-crash battery leaking water, a carburator clogged with black carbonated muck, coughing acceleration, a foot peg snapped off, rear suspension bottoming out with fat passengers on board, a short circuit in the tankbag/stereo draining the battery, and a plastic wheel guard that snapped when someone drove into me.)
The bike is great for touring, commuting and even for leaning _way_ over when cornering along mountain roads.
I'm glad to see the Hyosung engine being considered as a serious race engine. Warms my heart to know my little 250cc has a racer in its blood.
-gregory
Seoul, Korea
Hyosung GV250
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
You are getting this tragically wrong. It was only for one man, and one man alone that the English did not agree to peace. In the beginning British were doing very badly indeed, losing their planes and losing their merchant ships. GW himself commented (=admitted the possibility) that if they lose England they will fight from the colonies.
When Hess flied to Scotland offering peace observed one cabinet member: "Only fool or a poet would refuse peace at this moment".
But what did GW do, doggedly bit the cigar and the rest is history. Without UK as the launch pad, they would still greet you in German in Paris today: "hände hoch, amerikaner".
- cruiz-euro
You are getting this tragically wrong. It was only for one man, and one man alone that the English did not agree to peace. In the beginning British were doing very badly indeed, losing their planes and losing their merchant ships. GW himself commented (=admitted the possibility) that if they lose England they will fight from the colonies.
When Hess flied to Scotland offering peace observed one cabinet member: "Only fool or a poet would refuse peace at this moment".
But what did GW do, doggedly bit the cigar and the rest is history. Without UK as the launch pad, they would still greet you in German in Paris today: "hände hoch, amerikaner".
- cruiz-euro
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
I'm assuming by "GW" you mean Churchill.
Oh, please. Whether Churchill was the lone voice or not makes not one bit of difference. But the fact is that Churchill was summoned to power by elements from all political parties, and supported by the public, as a REACTION to the failed Nazi-appeasement policies of Chamberlain. As long as he was running the show, the British were not going to surrender. They were holding out until the U.S. entered the war, despite what one cabinet member may have said.
And why do you keep insisting that the Germans were superior based on their early success? None of the allied nations were prepared for war. Britain was the least prepared. The Germans militarized when everyone else had gutted their millitaries, and then essentially sucker-punched Europe. With all of those advantages, they still managed to lose.
I'm assuming by "GW" you mean Churchill.
Oh, please. Whether Churchill was the lone voice or not makes not one bit of difference. But the fact is that Churchill was summoned to power by elements from all political parties, and supported by the public, as a REACTION to the failed Nazi-appeasement policies of Chamberlain. As long as he was running the show, the British were not going to surrender. They were holding out until the U.S. entered the war, despite what one cabinet member may have said.
And why do you keep insisting that the Germans were superior based on their early success? None of the allied nations were prepared for war. Britain was the least prepared. The Germans militarized when everyone else had gutted their millitaries, and then essentially sucker-punched Europe. With all of those advantages, they still managed to lose.
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
The point about my drivel about Winston was that it was veeery close that England would have agreed to peace. Had there been another prime minister, the chances for peace would have been 95%. Because that would have been the rational choice. Why? Because Britan had not lost any territory and was not about to gain anything either. People were openly asking was it worth sacrificing their country for Poland that did not exist any more.
And had peace happened, Herr Hitler would have beaten Russia without lend-lease. Yes, he was a maniac, yes he was throughly evil, but yes, he almost won the war.
About the competency of Wehrmacht? They were the guys who dunnit. Had Rommel had only 3-1 disadvantage he would have won. Yes, he showed it many times. Same thing with the eastern front. They took Crete with 10-1 disadvantage. They held the Italy front over similar odds. Had there been only 5-1 disadvantage in Normandy they would have prevailed.
Damn lucky for us Europeans they lost. After running out of Jews and gypsies they would have exterminated most of the peoples of Europe one by one.
- cruiz-euro
The point about my drivel about Winston was that it was veeery close that England would have agreed to peace. Had there been another prime minister, the chances for peace would have been 95%. Because that would have been the rational choice. Why? Because Britan had not lost any territory and was not about to gain anything either. People were openly asking was it worth sacrificing their country for Poland that did not exist any more.
And had peace happened, Herr Hitler would have beaten Russia without lend-lease. Yes, he was a maniac, yes he was throughly evil, but yes, he almost won the war.
About the competency of Wehrmacht? They were the guys who dunnit. Had Rommel had only 3-1 disadvantage he would have won. Yes, he showed it many times. Same thing with the eastern front. They took Crete with 10-1 disadvantage. They held the Italy front over similar odds. Had there been only 5-1 disadvantage in Normandy they would have prevailed.
Damn lucky for us Europeans they lost. After running out of Jews and gypsies they would have exterminated most of the peoples of Europe one by one.
- cruiz-euro
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
You know, I think we're looking at this from two different points of view. You are taking a very tactical view on things. Yes, the Germans were largely an excellent force in the field, but very short-term in their outlook. But I feel you are essentially counting body bags, which as us Americans learned so painfully in Vietnam, is not really how to win a war. However, from a stragegic point of view, which I prefer, the Germans had a number of fatal flaws. You also prefer to engage in supposition, like what if Churchill wasn't leading Britain? Well, to me, that is completely immaterial. You can't remove the strengths or weaknesses of one side or the other and then come to a definitive conclusion based on what didn't happen. And while it is interesting, and valid, to wonder what would or could of transpired, drawing conclusions from that alone is essentially revising history.
So, to end this debate on a consiliatory note, I would say that we are both correct to a degree, which was the point of my original post. If you'd like to get a taste of my view, read "Why the Germans Lose at War" by Kenneth Macksey. It's a very plodding read, ponderous at many points, but it's very comprehensive and worth reading if you're interested.
You know, I think we're looking at this from two different points of view. You are taking a very tactical view on things. Yes, the Germans were largely an excellent force in the field, but very short-term in their outlook. But I feel you are essentially counting body bags, which as us Americans learned so painfully in Vietnam, is not really how to win a war. However, from a stragegic point of view, which I prefer, the Germans had a number of fatal flaws. You also prefer to engage in supposition, like what if Churchill wasn't leading Britain? Well, to me, that is completely immaterial. You can't remove the strengths or weaknesses of one side or the other and then come to a definitive conclusion based on what didn't happen. And while it is interesting, and valid, to wonder what would or could of transpired, drawing conclusions from that alone is essentially revising history.
So, to end this debate on a consiliatory note, I would say that we are both correct to a degree, which was the point of my original post. If you'd like to get a taste of my view, read "Why the Germans Lose at War" by Kenneth Macksey. It's a very plodding read, ponderous at many points, but it's very comprehensive and worth reading if you're interested.
101 - 117 of 117 Posts
