4 ms·

Against fixed targets battleships gave higher firepower. Aircraft cqrriers were the new technology for naval operations away from large land masses. The heavy f

by antman 14y ago

Against fixed targets battleships gave higher firepower. Aircraft cqrriers were the new technology for naval operations away from large land masses. The heavy fortification of the atlantic wall was only for first landing, the defence line was deep but it was annihilated with heavy bombardment from allied battleships. The Siegfried line was pretty much abandoned during the war and was hastily manned during the last defence. German efficiendy wasn't very good at this point since t was against the original planing and they had even lost their fortifications and underground plans in some places. The doctrine after WW1 was not keeping an advanced position but moving forward with tanks and keeping the enemy of balance. That was an extarpolation of Rommels "Infantry attacks" book, who was succesful in the WW1 and was already famous and a teacher in the german military academy in the interwar period.

WalterBright 14y ago
The problem with battleships is they were incredibly vulnerable to air attack. Ambrose's book "Citizen Soldiers" details the failure of Hitler's fixed fortifications, and Galland's book "The First and the Last" details Hitler's failure to understand air power.
- 001sky 14y ago
  The texbook counter-example on circumvention of fixed fortifications was done by Hitler's army, at the start of the war. Viz: The Manstein Plan is often seen as either the result of, or the cause of a mid-twentieth century Revolution in military affairs. In the former hypothesis, expounded by Fuller and Basil Liddell Hart immediately after the events, the Manstein Plan is presented as a natural outcome of deliberate changes in the German military doctrine during the twenties and thirties by men as Guderian or Hans von Seeckt implementing Fuller's or Liddell Hart's ideas.[1] Diesel-electric Submarines were ultimately also vulnerable to air power. But not before their use in warfare was pioneered by the Germans, to devastating effect. And france was germany's "aircraft carrier", don't forget its less than 100 miles from the UK, couldn't be sunk, and didn't need a fleet-escort. (etc). Further innovations: - Jet fighters - Cruise Missles - Ballistic Missles - Submarine Warfare - Armored Calvary It was a war, and 'improvisation' would be expected as losses mount and access to resources were curtailed. The general thesis that the Nazis were fighting "ww1" style is not really a teneble notion. At all. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manstein_Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manstein_Plan
  - WalterBright 14y ago
    1. Hitler basically stalled and wrecked the jet fighter development, diverting its resources to developing a fairly ineffective jet bomber. 2. The cruise missiles and ballistic missiles contributed essentially nothing to the war effort, while consuming vast resources. They simply weren't accurate enough, and were misused as well (London was a political target, not a military one). 3. You're right about that, but U-Boots were big in WW1, too. 4. Hitler still put his faith in fixed fortifications, despite the success of his generals with mobile warfare. There's no doubt that the German army had many forward thinking ideas. But I'm talking about Hitler overriding them and refighting WW1.

by antman 14y ago

WalterBright 14y ago

The problem with battleships is they were incredibly vulnerable to air attack. Ambrose's book "Citizen Soldiers" details the failure of Hitler's fixed fortifications, and Galland's book "The First and the Last" details Hitler's failure to understand air power.

001sky 14y ago
The texbook counter-example on circumvention of fixed fortifications was done by Hitler's army, at the start of the war. Viz: The Manstein Plan is often seen as either the result of, or the cause of a mid-twentieth century Revolution in military affairs. In the former hypothesis, expounded by Fuller and Basil Liddell Hart immediately after the events, the Manstein Plan is presented as a natural outcome of deliberate changes in the German military doctrine during the twenties and thirties by men as Guderian or Hans von Seeckt implementing Fuller's or Liddell Hart's ideas.[1] Diesel-electric Submarines were ultimately also vulnerable to air power. But not before their use in warfare was pioneered by the Germans, to devastating effect. And france was germany's "aircraft carrier", don't forget its less than 100 miles from the UK, couldn't be sunk, and didn't need a fleet-escort. (etc). Further innovations: - Jet fighters - Cruise Missles - Ballistic Missles - Submarine Warfare - Armored Calvary It was a war, and 'improvisation' would be expected as losses mount and access to resources were curtailed. The general thesis that the Nazis were fighting "ww1" style is not really a teneble notion. At all. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manstein_Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manstein_Plan
- WalterBright 14y ago
  1. Hitler basically stalled and wrecked the jet fighter development, diverting its resources to developing a fairly ineffective jet bomber. 2. The cruise missiles and ballistic missiles contributed essentially nothing to the war effort, while consuming vast resources. They simply weren't accurate enough, and were misused as well (London was a political target, not a military one). 3. You're right about that, but U-Boots were big in WW1, too. 4. Hitler still put his faith in fixed fortifications, despite the success of his generals with mobile warfare. There's no doubt that the German army had many forward thinking ideas. But I'm talking about Hitler overriding them and refighting WW1.