A coming WW2 TV drama and how to capitalize on it

[II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33]

Another sad excuse for BoS to move back to that boring (yes: Boring) WTO.

 

If the devs wanted to capitalize off the upcoming HBO flick, all they had to do were to run ads along the lines of:

 

"You've seen the pussyfied version of the air war in the skies over Europe. Now it's time for you to experience the REAL war, where it REALLY happened. Where REAL men (and women) fought to the bitter end, while the fate of the world hung in the balance in the most epic conflict in history! Here there is no 25 mission "tour of duty" (ha!), you fly 'till you die and it's a struggle for every living, breathing second!

Come see the realities of war, if you dare, and join the fight under the Red Banner in defense of the glorious Motherland and Comrade Stalin.

 

Not one step back!"

Yea call the B-17 crews pussys cuz Im sure your are brave enough to fly for 8 hours getting shot at by flak ,watching your friends burn to death and not being able to do a damn thing about it! Those men were heroes they are they reason the Russians won the war if it wasn't for them the Germans would still own Russia.

[mondog]

Yea call the B-17 crews pussys cuz Im sure your are brave enough to fly for 8 hours getting shot at by flak ,watching your friends burn to death and not being able to do a damn thing about it! Those men were heroes they are they reason the Russians won the war if it wasn't for them the Germans would still own Russia.

The Soviets would have with or without our help, eventually.

[II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33]

The Soviets would have with or without our help, eventually.

If it hadn't been for the US and British bombing German factories and keeping a large portion of the German military busy in Africa and later on Italy Germany may have had a chance. As they could have focused all production on material and equipment for the Eastern front. Edited November 4, 2014 by OCTz06z33

[mondog]

Oh dude, you're coming to an argument that's been discussed ad nauseam on forums for years. You'll get pulled apart making grossly inaccurate statements like that.

 

 

I have not seen the movie yet, but I do know that both American and British had standing orders for what to do when a tiger was encountered, send 4-5 Shermans and hope one comes back . The whole thing about the tiger was that it was not everywhere , it was used for special situations.

In reality the chance of seeing a real tiger was slim to none. I think in total there were 3 heavy tank battalions in France until the winter then you had 3 more King Tiger battalions added but 2 were sent to Hungary in December. I don't have the references in front of me so it's from memory but the number of tanks was very small.

 

We're talking maybe 50 heavy tanks in combat at any one time in the west, probably less for most of the time.

Edited November 4, 2014 by mondog

[Wulf]

Yea call the B-17 crews pussys cuz Im sure your are brave enough to fly for 8 hours getting shot at by flak ,watching your friends burn to death and not being able to do a damn thing about it! Those men were heroes they are they reason the Russians won the war if it wasn't for them the Germans would still own Russia.

 

 

Yes,  although let's not forget Bomber Command.  Over 55,000 RAF Bomber Command aircrew were killed maintaining a 'second Front' over Germany.  It should also not be forgotten that hundreds of thousands of German civilians - a number that may exceed half a million men women and children were also killed as a direct result of the Allied air campaign over Germany.  

[unreasonable]

@Mondog  yes, not only that, but for every theoretical 14 tank company usually 10-12 of them were out of action through breakdowns anyway.  Plus the British and Canadians had enough Fireflies to deal with them most of the time.

Edited November 4, 2014 by unreasonable

[Wulf]

The Soviets would have with or without our help, eventually.

 

 

Seriously Bro, that's just nonsense.  Western allied military campaigns aside (Nth Africa, the Atlantic, the Med, Italy and Northern Europe - on land and in the air) Lend-Lease saved the Soviets.  It wasn't just the little things like the 240,000 trucks and the tens of thousands of aircraft, tanks and weaponry in general that save them - it was the food.  Without the Spam, the Soviets would have starved.  That's just the facts of the matter.   You can be an apologist for the Soviets all you like but the simple reality is that without western support, the Germans would have triumphed in the East.

[mondog]

Seriously Bro, that's just nonsense. Western allied military campaigns aside (Nth Africa, the Atlantic, the Med, Italy and Northern Europe - on land and in the air) Lend-Lease saved the Soviets. It wasn't just the little things like the 240,000 trucks and the tens of thousands of aircraft, tanks and weaponry in general that save them - it was the food. Without the Spam, the Soviets would have starved. That's just the facts of the matter. You can be an apologist for the Soviets all you like but the simple reality is that without western support, the Germans would have triumphed in the East.

Of cause lend lease helped massively in the end, more than any contribution militarily.

 

However, I'm not an apologist (do you see me saying what they did was ok? No, how about less assumptions thanks), I'm just well read. Many top ranking Germans as well as those in positions of authority in the field knew the fight in the east was lost at the beginning of 1943. That was well before lend lease really kicked off properly.

 

I'm well aware of the bombing offensive, my own Grandfather was in bomber command then the 2nd Taf and have quite a few books on the topic as it's been something more than a fleeting interest. However it has to be put into context with everything else that happened. Guys making statements about how the bombing offensive won the war or even enabled the Soviets to win it are just showing their own ignorance in the face of well established facts. This isn't the 60's.

[unreasonable]

Seriously Bro, that's just nonsense.  Western allied military campaigns aside (Nth Africa, the Atlantic, the Med, Italy and Northern Europe - on land and in the air) Lend-Lease saved the Soviets.  It wasn't just the little things like the 240,000 trucks and the tens of thousands of aircraft, tanks and weaponry in general that save them - it was the food.  Without the Spam, the Soviets would have starved.  That's just the facts of the matter.   You can be an apologist for the Soviets all you like but the simple reality is that without western support, the Germans would have triumphed in the East.

It may be true, but it is not so obvious, and I have read just about every book on the subject I can find. Support from the UK was minimal - it had little enough to spare as it was. The US did not enter the war until Dec 1941 when Hitler declared war. So the failure of Barbarossa had nothing to do with western support. In 1942 the amount of lend lease to the Soviet Union was still very low. By the end of 1942 the Germans were already beaten in Russia, again with only marginal western support. Without the trucks and food flowing in from 1943 onwards, yes it surely would have taken the Ivans longer to grind the Germans down, but it is certainly possible that they could have done it unless Hitler had made some very different strategic decisions, and certainly possible for them to achieve stalemate.

 

Personally I think the bombing campaigns had far more effect.

[Gort]

Finally the truth-

 

There is no question that SPAM won the war. The greatest implement of war was canned, unidentifiable meat.

 

/thread

[unreasonable]

Finally the truth-

 

There is no question that SPAM won the war. The greatest implement of war was canned, unidentifiable meat.

 

/thread

If only Bomber Command had dropped that horrible stuff on the Germans instead of incendiaries they would have surrendered immediately to avoid further suffering.

[mondog]

Even today that mystery meat is plaguing our shores.

[Wulf]

Of cause lend lease helped massively in the end, more than any contribution militarily.

 

However, I'm not an apologist (do you see me saying what they did was ok? No, how about less assumptions thanks), I'm just well read. Many top ranking Germans as well as those in positions of authority in the field knew the fight in the east was lost at the beginning of 1943. That was well before lend lease really kicked off properly.

 

I'm well aware of the bombing offensive, my own Grandfather was in bomber command then the 2nd Taf and have quite a few books on the topic as it's been something more than a fleeting interest. However it has to be put into context with everything else that happened. Guys making statements about how the bombing offensive won the war or even enabled the Soviets to win it are just showing their own ignorance in the face of well established facts. This isn't the 60's.

 

 

Yes, as you point out, everything has a context as does the Soviet success.  In this respect you have to consider the resources that would have been available to the Germans in the East if they had a free hand in the west .  Take all the resources (including manpower) the Germans  were forced to expend defending the Reich against the Allied air campaigns (and the destruction those campaigns generated), the resources expended on the Battle of the Atlantic, the resources and manpower poured into the defences in France not to mention the Gustav and Gothic lines in Italy.  Then take lend-lease away from the Soviets and ask them to replace the shortfall in food and equipment.  Then factor in the urgent demands made by Stalin for the western powers to open a second (third actually) front to take pressure off the Red Army and then tell me the Soviets could have done it alone.  I don't think so.

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

Guys.... it was a WORLD WAR and they were called Allies for a reason..... they teamed up and threw everything they had at the Axis forces because they had to.... it's pointless specualting and arguing over who did what.

[MarcoRossolini]

Yes, as you point out, everything has a context as does the Soviet success.  In this respect you have to consider the resources that would have been available to the Germans in the East if they had a free hand in the west .  Take all the resources (including manpower) the Germans  were forced to expend defending the Reich against the Allied air campaigns (and the destruction those campaigns generated), the resources expended on the Battle of the Atlantic, the resources and manpower poured into the defences in France not to mention the Gustav and Gothic lines in Italy.  Then take lend-lease away from the Soviets and ask them to replace the shortfall in food and equipment.  Then factor in the urgent demands made by Stalin for the western powers to open a second (third actually) front to take pressure off the Red Army and then tell me the Soviets could have done it alone.  I don't think so.

 

Stalingrad had been won before much of what you describe took place.

 

It would have been far slower undoubtedly and far bloodier, but ultimately by the end the Soviets would have won. And even though the allies made a significant contribution in men and materiel. It's the Soviets again and again who prove themselves the most significant front and the most significant part of the war. 

 

It's all very well to go on and on about all the supplies the allies gave, but I think the Soviets gave back a lot more in return, in that they provided the tens of millions of men and women who defeated the Germans. I think the idea that our world today was won by communists, the enemy of the west for much of the 20th century, most of whom are unknown to us, is quite a disturbing though, that has to be rationalised by how nice the West was in helping the Soviets with their supplies. As I said, supplies are vital. But so's the blood and the Soviets provided vastly more blood than any of the Western powers.

[Wulf]

Stalingrad had been won before much of what you describe took place.

 

It would have been far slower undoubtedly and far bloodier, but ultimately by the end the Soviets would have won. And even though the allies made a significant contribution in men and materiel. It's the Soviets again and again who prove themselves the most significant front and the most significant part of the war. 

 

It's all very well to go on and on about all the supplies the allies gave, but I think the Soviets gave back a lot more in return, in that they provided the tens of millions of men and women who defeated the Germans. I think the idea that our world today was won by communists, the enemy of the west for much of the 20th century, most of whom are unknown to us, is quite a disturbing though, that has to be rationalised by how nice the West was in helping the Soviets with their supplies. As I said, supplies are vital. But so's the blood and the Soviets provided vastly more blood than any of the Western powers.

 

Ummm ... the War in Europe began in 1939.  The attack on the Soviet Union didn't get under way until June 1941.  The RAF began bombing Germany (and 'Happy Valley' in particular) right from the commencement of the shooting war in 1940, the same year the Germans were involved in the invasion of the Low Countries, the attack and occupation of much of Scandinavia, the  Battle and occupation of France and then the BoB.   The Germans then invaded Greece and Crete.  It wasn't until after these early campaigns that Germany launched it's attack on the Soviet Union.  So, given that collectively, these initial campaigns cost the Germans tens of thousands of men (close to 50,000 killed during the Battle of France), hundreds of tanks and aircraft (over 800 fighter aircraft in 1939-40, almost 30% of the Luftwaffe's bomber force during the month of May alone in 1940), not to mention almost the entire air transport fleet during the invasion of the Low Countries) how can you be so sure that a full strength German Army wouldn't have completed the destruction of the Red Army in '41?  Exactly, you can't.  So why even mention Stalingrad? If the western democracies had looked the other way after the German-Soviet assault on Poland in 1939, Stalingrad may not have even happened.   

Edited November 4, 2014 by Wulf

[mondog]

I think you have a typo in there somewhere.  

[Wulf]

I think you have a typo in there somewhere.  

 

 

Do you? Okay...

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Ummm ... the War in Europe began in 1939.  The attack on the Soviet Union didn't get under way until June 1941.  The RAF began bombing Germany (and 'Happy Valley' in particular) right from the commencement of the shooting war in 1940, the same year the Germans were involved in the invasion of the Low Countries, the attack and occupation of much of Scandinavia, the  Battle and occupation of France and then the BoB.   The Germans then invaded Greece and Crete.  It wasn't until after these early campaigns that Germany launched it's attack on the Soviet Union.  So, given that collectively, these initial campaigns cost the Germans tens of thousands of men (close to 50,000 killed during the Battle of France), hundreds of tanks and aircraft (over 800 fighter aircraft in 1939-40, almost 30% of the Luftwaffe's bomber force during the month of May alone in 1940), not to mention almost the entire air transport fleet during the invasion of the Low Countries) how can you be so sure that a full strength German Army wouldn't have completed the destruction of the Red Army in '41?  Exactly, you can't.  So why even mention Stalingrad? If the western democracies had looked the other way after the German-Soviet assault on Poland in 1939, Stalingrad may not have even happened.   

 

The Germans even with their full strength would still not complete the destruction of the Red Army in 1941, simply put, capturing the capital of the Soviet Union meant nothing, and the Luftwaffle lacked the capability to strike the Soviet industries that had been evacuated beyond the Ural mountains.

 

If we're playing into the "what if" scenario for the Germans then it would be fair to play the "what if the Great purge hadn't happen?", which was the primary reason for the atrocious Soviet military performance in the early years of the war. Keep in mind: The Soviets didn't lack revolutionary minds, it's just that most of them were executed/sent to the gulag. And competently led Soviet armed force would easily be more than a match for the Germans.

Edited November 4, 2014 by GrapeJam

[mondog]

Lack of planning for Winter beat the Germans in 1941. The Soviets in 1941 were not just poorly led but poorly trained and logistically in a very poor state. 

 

There is a really interesting book called Ivan's War which people should read. It's not about how the Soviets won but it's a study of the average Soviet soldier from that era and what life was like for them. I do not envy any of them. 

[FlatSpinMan]

That's a great book. Just read it about a month ago. 

PRO TIP: "Don't join the ranks of the Red Army in World War II" - would be my take away. Just about everything was awful for everyone all the time.

Really interesting book though, and extremely readable.

Whoa. Just read the preceding posts. 

This thread is going off  topic. It's supposed to be about tieing in to a TV series (which I for one am reeeeaaaalllyy looking forward to - love the 8th AF vs LW scenarios).

[Wulf]

The Germans even with their full strength would still not complete the destruction of the Red Army in 1941, simply put, capturing the capital of the Soviet Union meant nothing, and the Luftwaffle lacked the capability to strike the Soviet industries that had been evacuated beyond the Ural mountains.

 

If we're playing into the "what if" scenario for the Germans then it would be fair to play the "what if the Great purge hadn't happen?", which was the primary reason for the atrocious Soviet military performance in the early years of the war. Keep in mind: The Soviets didn't lack revolutionary minds, it's just that most of them were executed/sent to the gulag. And competently led Soviet armed force would easily be more than a match for the Germans.

 

Well, you say they wouldn't have but given how close the Germans came to doing just that in 41-42, with a military that had by no means recovered from the previous year's campaigning, I really wonder how you can state that view with any confidence.   I strongly suspect that had the Germans been at full strength on the eve of the assault, they probably would have finished the Soviets.

 

And we're playing the "what if" game because certain individuals here actually believe that the Soviets had the capacity to win WW 2, on their own.  In reality, only the United States had the economic power necessary to grind Germany down on their own.  We know this because they alone developed a war winning weapon.  The soviets didn't even have the capacity to feed themselves.  And the Soviets certainly didn't have the capacity, beyond the Urals or anywhere else, to manufacture the material they received from the US and UK via lend/lease.  Even by 1942, the Soviet economy was only two thirds of what it had been pre-War.  So the Soviet ability to produce large quantities of tanks and aircraft, for example, only occurred because they could obtain other essential equipment, like trucks, from the USA.  The Soviet economy simply wasn't big enough to do it all. 

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Well, you say they wouldn't have but given how close the Germans came to doing just that in 41-42, with a military that had by no means recovered from the previous year's campaigning, I really wonder how you can state that view with any confidence.   I strongly suspect that had the Germans been at full strength on the eve of the assault, they probably would have finished the Soviets.

 

You forgot this one thing:

The Germans might have lost quite a bit of men in the war against France and the BoB, but those wars earned them very valuable experience. Anyway, there's a reason that Hitler only became confident about conquering the Soviet Union after the Soviet disastrous performance against the Finns in the Winter war.

 

And we're playing the "what if" game because certain individuals here actually believe that the Soviets had the capacity to win WW 2, on their own.  In reality, only the United States had the economic power necessary to grind Germany down on their own.  We know this because they alone developed a war winning weapon.  The soviets didn't even have the capacity to feed themselves.  And the Soviets certainly didn't have the capacity, beyond the Urals or anywhere else, to manufacture the material they received from the US and UK via lend/lease.  Even by 1942, the Soviet economy was only two thirds of what it had been pre-War.  So the Soviet ability to produce large quantities of tanks and aircraft, for example, only occurred because they could obtain other essential equipment, like trucks, from the USA.  The Soviet economy simply wasn't big enough to do it all. 

 

This myth about Lend-lease saving the Soviets again?

 

You might wanna know the Lend-lease was only in full swing  from late 1943 onward, way past the date that Soviet Union was in danger. Until that point, the effect of Lend-lease on the Soviets was at best, negligible.

 

Did you get your history from this?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLHQ5XJxaWE

Edited November 4, 2014 by GrapeJam

[FlatSpinMan]

Please see my previous comment. Why not start another thread or a PM if you want to discuss your tangent?

[[KWN]T-oddball]

America, Britain, Soviet union....pfffft the best Allie the allies had was Hitler!

 

1. Stop bombing the British RAF and move to city's allowing them to recoop

2. Attack Soviet union....

3. lose all you offensive power in on ill advised battle (kursk)

4. last and maybe most important, Don't listen to the experts you have at your disposal (your generals!!!)

 

S!

[FlatSpinMan]

Okay, look, you are fine to discuss this topic but do it elsewhere. If you continue I will edit/move/remove these comments for being offtopic. 

I would rather not do so.

[unreasonable]

I find it very difficult to take any WW2 TV series seriously after Dad's Army.

[Feathered_IV]

I wonder what sort of war movie cliches will become set pieces for the new mini series?

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

OK - should I go ahead and dowlnoad that baby Chief?

I purchsed the Dora, but with so little stick time I haven't bothered with it. I haven't even dowloaded DCS world yet.

I was waiting for a map first.

 

I'm afraid that will have to be your choice Gambit but I like her. It's actually easier to start than the Mustang, but in my opinion the Mustang is easier to get air born. I think the key to the Dora take off is watch the tork and don't try to climb too quickly. Perhaps a not too steep level climb till she feels the air around her first. Hell if your waiting for the map and you like the Dora, I guess I would recommend going ahead and getting her. But only IF you plan on flying her. If you plan on being a Mustang pilot, why bother?

 

Chief

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Fly both and learn their quirks. Helps on combat

[[KWN]T-oddball]

I wonder what sort of war movie cliches will become set pieces for the new mini series?

 

make a  list of them and lets start placing bets

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Friends dying?  Ethical dilemmas? Injuries?  Fatigue?  Mechanical issues?  Fear of the unknown ? 

[Feathered_IV]

I tried lootenant, honest. But the morphine froze!

[Cybermat47]

Not really surprising considering one study claims 26% of White Americans have German ancestry, myself included.

True, but there have still been a lot of American movies (not that America is the only country that does this, such a suggestion would be lunacy) that just portray Germans as the bad guys, so I was still pleasantly surprised by BoB's realistic portrayal of both sides.

 

It's certainly nice to see after encountering several people in my country who still think of the Germans as the bad guys (and they were talking about WWI Germans!). But I already ranted about that

[unreasonable]

The trouble is that portraying the Germans as the good guys would be, well, shall we say distasteful to the audience, unless it was some SS reunion. Even portraying them neutrally would be problematic.

 

I remember seeing "Das Boot" which was an excellent film, but it had an absurd scene in which the U boat revisits the site of a previous attack on a tanker, and the crew watch horrified as burning crew men jump into the water, and then the officers launch into a condemnation of the escorts for not rescuing all the survivors!

 

It really is hard to see why anyone should portray a nation that attacked its neighbors with the intent of enslaving their workforce, looting their cultural artifacts and natural resources and murdering their Jewish population should be treated sympathetically.

[Feathered_IV]

Can't argue with that.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

The trouble is that portraying the Germans as the good guys would be, well, shall we say distasteful to the audience, unless it was some SS reunion. Even portraying them neutrally would be problematic.

Well they weren't, so why should they be portrayed as such?

 

Still there were some pretty good movies that portrayed Wehrmacht soldiers as normal and decent human beings, Stalingrad (the 1993 movie) was one example. Even Russian made WW2 movies usually have specifically good German characters(the German guard who sacrificed his life to save the Russian spy's newborn baby in the 17 moments of spring TV series came to mind). It's a bit off topic but it's actually the Russians who usually portray humane German soldiers in the cinema while Hollywood's almost always portrayed Germans as mindless evil lemmings.

Edited November 5, 2014 by GrapeJam

[johncage]

The trouble is that portraying the Germans as the good guys would be, well, shall we say distasteful to the audience, unless it was some SS reunion. Even portraying them neutrally would be problematic.

 

I remember seeing "Das Boot" which was an excellent film, but it had an absurd scene in which the U boat revisits the site of a previous attack on a tanker, and the crew watch horrified as burning crew men jump into the water, and then the officers launch into a condemnation of the escorts for not rescuing all the survivors!

 

It really is hard to see why anyone should portray a nation that attacked its neighbors with the intent of enslaving their workforce, looting their cultural artifacts and natural resources and murdering their Jewish population should be treated sympathetically.

i don't see the trouble. band of brothers just portrayed them neutrally. considerin this is going to be about the air war, that should be an even easier task. but the scene you're talking about did seem rather superfluous

Edited November 5, 2014 by johncage

[MarcoRossolini]

Well they weren't, so why should they be portrayed as such?

 

Still there were some pretty good movies that portrayed Wehrmacht soldiers as normal and decent human beings, Stalingrad (the 1993 movie) was one example. Even Russian made WW2 movies usually have specifically good German characters(the German guard who sacrificed his life to save the Russian spy's newborn baby in the 17 moments of spring TV series came to mind). It's a bit off topic but it's actually the Russians who usually portray humane German soldiers in the cinema while Hollywood's almost always portrayed Germans as mindless evil lemmings.

It's interesting you should say that, because every Russian film I've seen has portrayed German soldiers like brutish monsters... Even the ones they attempt to make sympathetic are still flawed, whereas the Russian heroes are perfect beacons of humanity...

[unreasonable]

Band of Brothers could portray them (the Germans) neutrally because as I recall they hardly enter into the series as characters: you get a couple of captured soldiers enjoying a cigarette before they are executed, a young soldier surprised in battle etc. So given the context that they are really only extras, they can be neutral.

 

As soon as the German is portrayed as a character with motivations and reactions to his environment, people are going to ask the old chestnuts about how is it possible for ordinary people to fight - and not just fight, but fight hard, skillfully and enthusiastically - for a rotten regime. This will be true particularly in the case of aircrew, since they were all volunteers and cannot use the old "they made me do it" excuse.

 

So if the new series is just about the US aircrew with the Germans only as anonymous fighters and flak bursts, the issue can be avoided. But anything including the German "point of view" is going to raise these concerns.