History Files For Fun

  It has been described as the turning point of WWII, and as Germany's greatest defeat ever. It was raised to near mythological proportions in propaganda, and foreign newspapers said: The Germans have lost. You cannot defeat an army which has accomplished Stalingrad. But is the battle really deserving of this status? Lets see. Casualties:  Stalingrad is often used as an example on how the Russians bled the Germans and their allies to death. To quote the book WWII, the World in Flames:"Stalingrad is the cataclysm that engulfed the Axis and bled it dry of men." And looking at the figures, it really did destroy vast numbers of Axis troops. Before Stalingrad, the Axis had 300,000 Romanians, 200,000 Italians and 150,000 Hungarians. After this battle,in January 1943, just 50,000 Romanians, 40,000 Italians and 35,000 Hungarians were still fit for combat. To make matters worst, the Italians were immediately withdrawn from their combat role to go to Africa. Germany lost over 430,0...

The Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel (German for swallow/storm bird) was the world's first operational jet fighter. Developed in Germany and deployed by the Luftwaffe in 1944, in the hope of restoring German command of the skies. Although it failed, it has nevertheless garnered for itself a fearsome reputation. But is it overrated? Technological advantage : The Me 262 was designed to counter materiel and numerical disadvantages with technological advantage.But was it as technologically advanced as books have made it out to be? tl:dr On the battlefield yes, in the labs it’s debatable. You see, in the skies the Me 262 dominated. When it was first introduced its design stunned Allied air commanders. It had sloped wings, advanced guns, and a jet engine, that the Chief of Staff convened an emergency meeting to discuss countermeasures. But, it sort of lagged behind this in the lab. People often state the fact that Germany cancelled/delayed many weapon projects such as the Tiger...