Singapore should learn from Hitler's mistakes and idea

tvdog SG

Huh? Why learn from Hitler's mistakes? Europe WW2 is too remote and example.

The best lesson is how the Allies failed in defending Singapore. That's the best and most important lesson. The other lessons come from Israel's conflicts with the Arabs. They made some mistakes, the Arabs made some mistakes. We can learn from the mistakes of both.

I thought these are very obvious examples.

Shotgun SG

There are some questionable accounts regarding the air war in 1939-1940. In a rough break down of aircraft type, French Curtis 75A fighters downed 33 german fighters and lost 3 of their own. MS406s, downed 31 luftwaffe, while losing 6, Bloch 152 equipped units downed 156 Luftwaffe planes while losing 59, and Dewoitine 520 units shot down 175 Luftwaffe aircraft, while losing 44.

The Kill Lost ratio was clearly in favor of the french. How long can the Luftwaffe sustain this kinda kill lost ratio, given their high sortie rate. Comparing to the French 1-2 sortie per day, and the Luftwaffe 3-4 sortie. Problem with the French air force then, was that they were "not around." They were based far from the front, while the Luftwaffe aircraft were just about half an hour from their targets.

As for the RAF, they deployed 12 out of 40 operational squadrons, while the French, only deployed 580 of their 2200 aircraft. Out numbered? Only by sortie rate, and lack of resolve.

French Tanks were not obsolete. The French Souma S35 Tank, was faster, more heavily armored and its 47mm gun could disable any German vehicle. There were 400 produced, as compared to 381 of the inferior German Mark3s. As for MBTs, the B1 was a formidable opponent on the battlefield. It had no rival except for the 88mm anti aircraft guns that were pressed into anti tank service.

The Qty of the tanks the french had was also very impressive. 1200 R35 light tanks, 695 H35 light tanks, 200 D1 and D2 medium tanks, 285 soumas, and 175 B1 Tanks. Adding to that, another 3000 over FT tanks, and 400 "tankettes."

Now here comes the best part. More than 338000 men of the BEF, and 139000 French troops evacuated at dunkirk. The British, left behind 2400 guns, 63000 vehicles. Add those vehicles and AT guns to the already French Armored force, and not forgetting the Belgians. Don't you think the they actually STOOD a chance if they had stayed and fought decisively?

VikingS SG

Originally posted by Agenda:

1# Only defensible sector was Normandy, No other places to defend well as Hitler believed a back-up plan is a excuse to retreat

Singapore's case: We get attack we all hide in fort canning or sentosa?

Actually the Allieds did not capture ANY major harbour intact, most of the coastal towns were declared "festungs" and hold out until the end of the war

2# While retreating from the Ostfront, Many tanks were lost while the 500,000 strong 7th Army or something was wiped out or captured

Singapore's case: We have 350 tanks, Wouldn't that be a hindrance while retreating?

The German panzerdivisions acted as firebrigades and stopped many Russian breaktroughs that could have transformed the retreat into a rout.

3# Singapore is too small and all fronts must be protected or the enemy will roll into singapore like how Erwin Rommel rolled into the Ardennes with minimum loss and captured of dozens of French Battalions.

Singapore's case: If all fronts protected, Like what Rommel noticed in North Africa, The fronts of British were too sparsely occupied. Thus singapore too many fronts also die, Too little also die.

Ehh what ??

4# Ostfront, Germans rolled into Russia too quickly such that 100,000 of Russians were behind their lines and their lines were thin and wide

Singapore's case: What if people attack from the south? Those sentosa cannons aren't gonna do freak

To quickly ??? The Russians ended up i captivity

5# Germans had a strong airforce in the Luftwaffe while their submarines sunk too many british ships

Singapore's case: How many capital ships do we have? Laughing

the importance of capital ships ended in the forties

6# Germany took over France and Belgium too quickly was because, Their motorized division led by Erwin Rommel adopted a new strategy which the world never seen before which led to whole French battalions surrendering even before a single shot was fired

Singapore's case: Follow what is taught by Australia, British and US officers, Note, They definitely have counters to those tactics

Rommel lead ONE Panzerdiv, and the strategy was not new, it was used in Poland the year before.

7# Erwin Rommel destroyed the British lines when he landed in Africa with only a quarter of his Afrika Corps, He acted accordingly and defied clear orders not to attacked by the Supreme Command

Singapore's case: Disobey order = Die

One big reason behind Rommels success was that the Allieds moved troops to Grece and Kreta

coffeeortea SG

heres the post of a thinker. Laughing

UN = safety

tvdog SG

Yes, it is well recirded that at the beginning of Blitzkreig, the French had better tanks than the Germans, who had mostly Panzers mark 1 & 2's. These are fast but lightly armed and lightly armoured. But Hitler used them as part of a infantry/armour strike force supported by airstrikes. So the quality of the tanks itself was secondary. The combined air/land tactics and the willpower was what really won.

The French used the tanks poorly, I read. So their thick armour and bigger guns were wasted.

The defeat of the Allies in Europe, as well as the defeat of the Allies by Japan in Asia - namely Singapore - is nearly identical. Similarly, a smaller but well-led and well-motivated strike force was able to "Blitzkreig" a large and well-armed defending army.

Yes, the Japs had tanks, but they used their tanks poorly. They kept mostly to the roads and attacked without infantry support. The only reason they prevailed was the dire shortage of anti-tank guns and ammo. Otherwise they were easily defeated. One Australian anti-tank crew killed six tanks coming round a bend in the road without any infantry protection. Then the Aussies ran out of ammo.

tvdog SG

If we look at the big picture either at Hitler's mistakes, the Allies' mistakes in Singapore, Arabs defeat in Six Day War, Israel's near disaster in Yom Kippur etc...

They all had many things in common like poor tactics, lack of strategic weapons etc...

But the ultimate thing is this:

- Underestimating the threat.

If there is a lesson for all of us to learn, it is never to underestimate the enemy or let complacency set in.

Shotgun SG

I'm not sure if the French were such poor users of tanks as they are made out to be. The German 3rd and 4th armored division lost more than 150 vehicles , while the French lost more than a 100 of their own. And that was while the French Calvary Corps was vastly outnumbered. They're coordination of their artillery and armor forced the Germans to pay a heavy price.

The battle of Gembloux Gap saw the French prevailing against the Germans in a tank vs tank engagement under General Prioux. Instead of being reinforced, General Prioux was forced to withdraw. If they had been reinforced, they German front in Belgium may have collapsed. If the French really had no idea how to use tanks, would they have been able to defeat the combined might of 2 German armored divisions, packing more than 250 vehicles per division?

Shotgun SG

To me, I read the situation differently. In the case of Singapore and France.

In France, the Political leadership had lost the will to fight, even though their troops were still fighting.

In Singapore, the Political Leadership (colonial masters) were half hearted in defending their colony, and the troops, mostly weren't too interested in fighting for Singapore too.

To fight a battle, both the political leadership, AND the military must have the resolve to fight and defeat the enemy. Lack of resolve on either, will cause the battle to be lost.

|-|05| SG

The French werent all that bad in using their tanks. Yes they werent as good as the Germans in using them but the quality of their tanks compared to the Germans made up for that.

The problem with the French was a lack of a plan B. They had 1 plan to stop the Germans and when that failed they just panic and went everyway. Also some of their High command generals were far from the front and could not keep pace thus sometimes issuing orders that could now longer be carried out or were no longer relevant.

tvdog SG

The French were bad users of tanks because they did not co-ordinate their armour, infantry and air support. So what if you have tanks but no infantry to consolidate your gains or exploit a breakthrough made possible by tanks?

Shotgun SG

Well, I'm not sure about their Infantry.

Their Air Support was too far behind the front to be effective to help their armor. Most of their aircraft was about an hour away.

The French were fighting a desperate and defensive battle. It is a matter of fact that they dealt the Germans a very heavy blow at Sedan despite facing difficult odds against the Luftwaffe Junkers and 2 German Armored Divisions. Being heavily outnumbered, yet still being able to dish out more damage than they took... (though it was also a serious blow to them). In my view, I would think of them as rather effective users of Armor.

Whatever the way they used in back in WW2, the BlitzKrieg was only ONE way of fighting with Armor. It fascinated even the Soviets, who later adapted a version of it. BUT still, lets examine the real Armor strategies that won allies the war.

1. Montgomery used his Armor systematically. When the enemy retreated, he didn't just chase after them. Instead, he systematically captured and held strong points. Unlike his predecessor, who tried to "exploit" a counter-attack, and ended up chasing their enemies back to their strong points, only to be chased back in return. If it demonstrated one thing, it showed that mechanisation allowed a force to retreat faster than another force can chase.

2. The Soviets attacked the Germans on a broad front. Not a consolidated mass across a small front that broke through and raced towards an enemy's rear. No blitzkrieg no breakthrough.

The last demonstration of the Blitzkrieg resulted in the Battle of the Bulge. We all know how that story ended.

Strategies were meant to be used according to the situation. And its sad that when people think about armor, they only think of a blitzkrieg style, exploit, breakthrough and attack enemy's rear. There ARE other ways to use armor, together with air , infantry and artillery support.

|-|05| SG

Well the problems with the Soviets was that they were quite poor logistically. Their infantry and supply lines simply could not keep up. They did adopt german methods of break throughs but unlike the germans, they simply could not manuver enough. In the end hitting on a broadfront did them more good. Because trying to match the germans meant that they were taking the masters of manuver warfare who both knew how to and had the ability to keep their units supplied while running all over. The Russian simply could not. That's why most of their attacks fizzled out. Heck if it wasnt for the US supplying them with 100's of thousands of jeeps and trucks, they most prob would not have been able to do much.

Guess they realised that hitting the Germans on a broad front would simply stretch them way too much.

And for the guy who said that they did not organize their tanks properly. Yes that was true at the start of the war. However as the war went on and commands got mixed, the French generals did infact use their tanks together and in coordinated strikes.

As shotgun said, the French lost mainly cuz they lost the will to fight.

btw shotgun, i nv did rate Montgomery highly. I honestly think he's was average. And if it wasnt for numirical advantages he would have got his ass kicked.

Also personally the things that really won the allies the war was their air bombing I mean come on....Panzer Lehr was destroyed from the air. panzer detachment 501 i believe was it's name was also destroyed from the air right?
That's for the western front.

On the east......it was called pretty close....if the allies hadnt open another front the germans just might have won. Too close to call i think.

Lakiun SG

pardon me but my 2 cents worth of opinion is that his ultimate mistake was to make his country go to war

Shotgun SG

The strategic bombing of Germany is also quite dubious. I'm not sure if it really did as much damage as allied propaganda claimed. Mainly cos of the inaccuracies of high altitude bombing. Sometimes, the targets were smoked, and they just dropped their payload anyways.

In fact, their target was not defined as a structure, or series of structures. But a target area that was 16km in diameter. Further more, they found that less than a third of the bombers hit anywhere near the 16km diameter target; Near meaning with 8km of the 16km target.

What really dropped German production was the loss of France and Romania in 1944. France was their main source of Iron ore, and Romania; oil.

Strategic bombing cost the lives of more than a hundred thousand airmen, and killing many times that number of civilians. Furthermore, they failed to hit their targets. Of course, one can also argue, that with lesser civilians, there were fewer workers to work in the factories? Rolling Eyes

Texcoco II SG

The germans have the largest railway gun i (dora) n the world, the heaviest and the most powerful tanks (the maus), not to mention all their tanks are more heavily armoured and armed (88mm gun compared to allied 75mm gun) then its allied equilvant, likewise the Japanese have the largest and the most powerful capital ship, the battleship Yamato and Musashi, their guns are designed to outgunned all known battleship class at that time, but all of em were destroyed. The dora were knocked out by allied aircrafts, the maus were too slow and were not used, destroyed by its own crew. Battleship Yamato and Musashi were attacked and sunk by American fleet aircrafts and submarines without meeting American battleships which it have been built for. Big guns does not mean anything, it's the strategy used, maximise one own strength and attack enemy's weakness

|-|05| SG

nah i meant tactical bombing. The kind that made movement during day time impossible for the Germans. meaning they were pretty slow to respond to certain situations.
They also pounded troop concentractions and stuff so yea i think it affected the Germans some.

The Germans had some 6 guns with 800mm,3 with 1200mm and i believe 1 more of 1400mm? I'm not to sure but they sure as hell had alot of them deployed to leingrad!!!
Some took almost 2hrs to reload!!!!
Then the Germans had 600mm guns which didnt do jack shit
And like u said the maus(mouse) which i believe had a naval gun.....erm....200++MM?

king108 SG

Cool The real truth is that Hilter and Napoleon both had make the same mistake. They attacked the russian. Russia is considered the worst country to invade, the cold weather is a killer. The long stretched logistic is another.

You can't beat russian, they are mainly hungry man.. Laughing

Shotgun SG

Ah yes the tactical bombing. That was why Rommel wanted armor nearer to his anticipated landing site. Cos he knew that it was very difficult to move them under allied air superiority.

He learnt that in Africa, but the German higher ups insisted that the situation in Africa was unique and cannot be applied in Europe. So much for that.

« Previous Page