Could the Germans Repel the Assault on Berlin?

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#21

Where do you get all this stuff from?[/quote]

Must be the same place a certain ferrous chap gets his “information” from :twisted:[/quote]

Ferrous chap… :?
Well first of all man of stoat i wasnt sure on what bomb they were dropping, you didn’t have to be an idiot about it anyway, second of all , firefly, i get my information from all over, i.e veterans from WW2, National geographic & discovery channels, Studying, and i can still remember alot of things my father told me about WW2.
If you want to differ with what i say thats fine you may be right sometimes, but you dont have to be rude.

#22

Im not being rude Im being serious. In all my time reading nat Geo and watching the History and Military channels and reading literally hundreds of books on WW2, I have never seen or read any reference to a chemical bomb that would make Germany uninhabitable for 1000 years?

Do you even imagine the scale of such a weapon? What Chemical was to be used? How many bombers would it require? What were the targets? How wuld it affect neighboring countries? How would it affect the UK?

Sorry to sound rude. But if you think about it, its totally preposterous.

#23

No way the assault on Berlin could’ve been stopped. With 1.6 million russian troops with more than 6000 tanks moving in…

i think that chemical bomb is B.S.

Well, germany had nerve gas, but even nerve gas isn’t as bad as the English superweapon.

This “chemical bomb” seems worse then a nuclear bomb.

#24

ok no worries mate, but that bomb i was talking about i wasn’t 100% sure about thats why i was asking about it, man of stoat said it was anthrax and i think hes right.

#25

The anthrax bomb- implied by man of stoat, would be so horrendous that human life could not live there for a long time, a nuclear bomb, thats totally irrelevant, human life can live possibly 40+ years after the incident.

#26

Err, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were re-inhabited relatively quickly after the bombs were dropped…

And they reckon that the anthrax-infected island is reinhabitable now (IIRC) 50 years after the incident.

#27

Err, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were re-inhabited relatively quickly after the bombs were dropped…

And they reckon that the anthrax-infected island is reinhabitable now (IIRC) 50 years after the incident.[/quote]

Really??, that would suprise me , it depends how much they dropped on the island, where did you hear that man of stoat ?

#28

This question is bonk.

Obviously they couldn’t cos they didn’t.

You try defending a large metropolitan area with nothing more than grandads and grandchildren.

It was ENDEX from the moment the two allied sides (Russian on East, Everyone else on West) met.

#29

Have done some research about this “bomb”.

The British had no chemical or biological plans during any part of WW2. There only efforts in this area was defence.

The Germans only ever used Chemical weapons on Eastern Europe. Although mainly at the start.

The Nuclear weapons from America (the manhatten project) would not have been ready for Berlin. So there would have had to have been a spectacularly bloody standoff as a ring of troops would have had to stay around Berlin, who also would have been in the fireing line had any bomb of this magnitude been dropped.

As mentioned, if a persistant, weapon was used and iradiated/infected Berlin for “years” then all the countries around would also have got a bit, every time the winds changed!!!

Dropping this kind of weapon in to the middle of Europe is a no brainer.

Besides the RAF and other allied air forces were, by this point, practically a conveyer belt over targets, dropping a tonnage of explosives that if added up would be similar to a Nukes yield anyway.

#30

Whatever no one can stop russians to take it berlin ,germany was lose war 1944 ,thats been obvious they dont want to accept capitulacion and stop the war ,and save millions lifes ,becouse in this two year 1944-45 died meny peoples then is last three .

#31

That shows what happens if you elect a complete nincompoop!!![/img]

#32

Big signature and you are sergeant well done.

#33

Danke.

#34

No, No, No, No and No, to even stand a chance in a War, you need to have air superiority!

#35

specially in modern times

#36

the answer to this is no.
at least according to my grandfather.
He got command of an understrength company of 120 panzergrenadiers with a mob of hitlerjugend in berlin

the only way he said that the attack on berlin could have been halted, for at least a short while, if they somehow managed to destroy almost every russian tank that was sent in with panzerfausts.

waffen-ss panzers were placed in front of certain streets and fired with good effect until they ran out of petrol and ammo, and then were abandoned.

so with no tanks and petrol, the only thing left was panzerfausten.

before the end, and determined not to die in berlin or a gulag, him and his men went against orders and pulled out of berlin at night. his force even killed some ss men and military police that tried to stop him. …

to him, military police and gestapo deserved to die.

long story short, he made it to allied controlled germany, but only with handful of men and boys.

#37

mate,the aircraft is totally necesary,as the artillery was in times of first world war,the bombers actue as fast air artillery literally “cleaning” the designed are,the infantry have the job of finishing the cleaning,also the tanks support infantry.
the fighters are necesary since the bombers are in the battlefield,and not always the infantry has anti aircraft weapons,and the latest times,this weapons have been unnefective,the aircrafts are now a totally improvement,they were necesary since they were used as combat unit.

the air superiority is necesary,and rules the modern battlefield.

#38

from what i’ve read and talked to my grandfather about his experences, he said that tactical air bombing in 1940s wasn’t as great a threat as people think.

Most of the bombs missed, and the few that actually landed into enemy positions didn’t do that much damage.

artillery was much greater threat. it was more accurate and continuous.

what the germans feared were the allied fighter bombers. while they were gennerally ineffective against tanks, they could tear up soft-skinned vehicles with ease. it was more the damage that was done to fuel and supply trucks that really hindered the germans.

#39

you don’t find the luftwaffle important?.

the artillery was more vulnerable in areas without anti-aircraft,and you will find the aircraft was more important than artillery.

#40

well, since this thread is talking about the battle of berlin, the presense of the luftwaffe was nil. even worse then in normandy, where the luftwaffe had only enough fuel to send 400 planes into the sky.

and, im comparing tactical bombing vs heavy artillery. artillery is a greater threat.