WW2 - Were German forces tactically more competent than their Allied counterparts

[Holmes]

I just read this and feel the need to point out that you are being a little bit of a condiscending and arrogant. You can say as much as you like ... Doesn't make it true.

Your the onen making a claim, your the one who has to support your claim.I posted data for combat effectivness, that which shows your opinion is not based on the evidence but contradicts it.

Yet the Dupuy analysis which was made before the opening of the Soviet archives in the 90s does?

Yes, self evident that SU archives have no input on Italian/ US Germany combat records. Kursk database otoh was conducted with acess to SU archives. Your 80s manuals have nothing to add of worth but hey very little else yopun post has either so hey ho.

And you know this by having attended the officer training at one of the world's leading military academies?

Try reading a book sonny, its a good way to learn. If you dont know combat effectivness, and how to achieve it at the tacticle level, is taught at mil academys, thats your problem, but will explain a lot of your posts.

The maths is only as accurate as the data it uses.and for example, the numbers from Typhoon vary substantially depending ding on whether you use the pre or post Soviet data. They also vary widely depending on how you interpret them, within what dates etc.

Post whatever data you like sonny, to support your post claim.

 

[Holmes]

You dont seem to understand what tactical means. Considering your replies to my post you also dont know even remotely what strategy or strategic is.

Funny.

Not as funny as your other posts content mind you.

Jutland as a part of a strategy of winning the war, it failled to controll the high sea, and prevent a blockade, was badly damaged in the operation and never came out to fight again, it failled in its tactical mission, it failled startegicly as , unrestruicted sub marine warfare was instead turned to, as a result of the failure of the high seas fleet, which was a discarded aset for the rest of the conflict. Its hard to fail at every level, but they achieved it.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Your the onen making a claim, your the one who has to support your claim.I posted data for combat effectivness, that which shows your opinion is not based on the evidence but contradicts it.


Yes, self evident that SU archives have no input on Italian/ US Germany combat records. Kursk database otoh was conducted with acess to SU archives. Your 80s manuals have nothing to add of worth but hey very little else yopun post has either so hey ho.



Try reading a book sonny, its a good way to learn. If you dont know combat effectivness, and how to achieve it at the tacticle level, is taught at mil academys, thats your problem, but will explain a lot of your posts.




Post whatever data you like sonny, to support your post claim.

And this is where you fail. You have begun to attack the person as opposed critically analysis and addressing the argument. And this is the important part where your premise falls over - you have presented a lot of technical information which is highly relevent and helps to tell part of the picture. What I do not believe you have done is to critically analyse the detail you presented - you have taken it and presented it verbatim without explaining to the reader why it is important in terms of answering the question you are seeking to answer. When I am marking student essays (military students at the post graduate level) the marking guide I use states that they must notionally repeat sources, but critically analyse that source and tell the reader how that information is relative to their primary point. I instruct them to 1) tell me what you are going to tell me 2) tell me, 3) Tell me what you told me. That is, it usually takes an author saying something three times for the reader to understand what they are saying.

Of course you are going to say 'no you aren't' so please PM me and I will send you my LinkedIn profile where it's all in the public.

I actually made no claim in my initial post. I personally believe that the Germans were not superior at the tactical level ... However I am interested in people with an understanding of German operations to tell me otherwise. I just don't like being insulted while you do it.

 

[XYN]

Of course you are going to say 'no you aren't' so please PM me and I will send you my LinkedIn profile where it's all in the public.

That's quite a dedication in arguing with anonymouses on the internet

 

[Easy-Kill]

My tactical sensibilities want to engage and begin hammering on the corners of this conversation. But, given the war of attrition being waged by opponents seeking to bleed each other white, I will choose a strategic withdrawal across the golden bridge and wait until my moral ascendancy encircles and annihilates the participants.

I am inclined to agree. Imust attract them some how.

 

[Easy-Kill]

That's quite a dedication in arguing with anonymouses on the internet

More than happy to share with anyone if they are willing to do the same. Personally, I dont like the anonymity of the internet so happy to un-anonomyse it with anyone who will reciprocate.

 

[Narwhal]

Can we agree that Jutland was a strategic defeat, an operative defeat and a tactical victory at the minimum.
Because on that one E-K and Holmes only disagree with the definition of "tactical", eg tactical at the level of the operation (=operative) vs tactical at the level where you can simulate with dices, figurines and a lot of patience.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I am inclined to agree. Imust attract them some how.

Perhaps because you go unto the breach, unto the breach, once more unto the breach, until you fill it with your English dead.

 

[Holmes]

And this is where you fail. You have begun to attack the person as opposed critically analysis and addressing the argument.

Since you have citied 3 authors to hold posistions they do not hold, what does that say about you?.
Since you have citied 3 authors to hold posistions they do not hold, what does that say about you?.
Since you have citied 3 authors to hold posistions they do not hold, what does that say about you?.

And this is the important part where your premise falls over - you have presented a lot of technical information which is highly relevent and helps to tell part of the picture. What I do not believe you have done is to critically analyse the detail you presented - you have taken it and presented it verbatim without explaining to the reader why it is important in terms of answering the question you are seeking to answer. When I am marking student essays (military students at the post graduate level) the marking guide I use states that they must notionally repeat sources, but critically analyse that source and tell the reader how that information is relative to their primary point. I instruct them to 1) tell me what you are going to tell me 2) tell me, 3) Tell me what you told me. That is, it usually takes an author saying something three times for the reader to understand what they are saying..

If you understand i have not provided where to look and what it will explain, then the problem is at your end not mine.
If you understand i have not provided where to look and what it will explain, then the problem is at your end not mine.
If you understand i have not provided where to look and what it will explain, then the problem is at your end not mine.

I actually made no claim in my initial post. I personally believe that the Germans were not superior at the tactical level ... However I am interested in people with an understanding of German operations to tell me otherwise. I just don't like being insulted while you do it.

Your belief is uniformed.
Your belief is uniformed.
Your belief is uniformed.

No. Beer on the beach is what commoners drink.

Snobbery, how apt.
Snobbery, how apt.
Snobbery, how apt.[/QUOTE]

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

SInce both E-K and Holmes have both made past claims to being lecturers at Sandhurst, surely you two should have no problem checking each others CV.

 

[Holmes]

Can we agree that Jutland was a strategic defeat, an operative defeat and a tactical victory at the minimum.
Because on that one E-K and Holmes only disagree with the definition of "tactical", eg tactical at the level of the operation (=operative) vs tactical at the level where you can simulate with dices, figurines and a lot of patience.

At the tacticle level, success is measured in achivement of mission goals, German navy failled to achieve any of its tacticle mission goals. Calling it anything else is propoganda.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Since you have citied 3 authors to hold posistions they do not hold, what does that say about you?.

I don't think you know how critical analysis works. I have take factual information that others have provided and used it form my own argument. Yes, that author used the information to form a different point, but the information doesn't change.

 

[Holmes]

I don't think you know how critical analysis works. I have take factual information that others have provided and used it form my own argument. Yes, that author used the information to form a different point, but the information doesn't change.

You used 3 authors to support your own posistion, yet they are against your posistion, its called cherry picking when it applies to data, what you did was just flat out lie.

 

[Holmes]

SInce both E-K and Holmes have both made past claims to being lecturers at Sandhurst, surely you two should have no problem checking each others CV.

I have made no such claim.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I have made no such claim.

You have. And I quote: "lectured on war studies at Sandhurst and Staff college".

You said this to me directly.

 

[Holmes]

Not to my knowledge in any of my 140 posts.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Not to my knowledge in any of my 140 posts.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't want to push this further. I'd let it drop.

I'm not trying to call you out, but it is what it is.

 

[Holmes]

You have quoted me, where have you quoted me from?.

Search function here only shows your post to contain the following:
lectured on war studies at Sandhurst and Staff college

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

You have quoted me, where have you quoted me from?.

Check your PM. You know exactly what I am talking about.

But I'd let it drop if I was you.

 

[Easy-Kill]

You used 3 authors to support your own posistion, yet they are against your posistion, its called cherry picking when it applies to data, what you did was just flat out lie.

No, I have used the information presented by others (which is why i only quoted thoae parts) and formed my own opinion. Why is there even a conversation about this. Discussions are not just about presenting other people's ideas!