InToXiCaTeD

15 Astonishing World War 2 Photos That Bomb Your Senses.

15 Astonishing World War 2 Photos That Bomb Your Senses | WW2 in Color

mercenary2k

very nice

firenze

great !

Das Reich

whats so astonishing about them? regular ww2 action pics

this is an astonishing pic
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/876/mnzs62203wi3.jpg

bosnian SS in fez like caps

mAd_ScIeNtIsT

I can top that. SS soldier in a pugree/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion_France.jpg

File:Freies Indien Legion Soldier.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Freies Indien standard.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-263-1580-05, Atlantikwall, Soldaten der Legion "Freies Indien".jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mercenary2k

^^ they were captured indians in north africa and fought for the Germans ....

same thing happend to the indians who were captured in singapore...they fought for the japanese

zxcvb

They were soldiers of the Indian National Army under Subash Chander Bose and recruited indian origin plantation workers in Singapore/Malaysia. The soldiers had defected to the Germans and Japanese and fought against the British.

Subash Chander Bose himself was killed in 1944 when the Japanese plane taking him to Japan crashed in Taiwan. Subash Chander Bose ashes are interred at the Renkoji temple in Japan.

Subhas Chandra Bose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

somali_pirate

Going back the original photos in the first post...
Too bad the GIs didn't go up against the German Wehrmacht from '39-'42....otherwise they'd have their collective butt handed back to them...lucky for them they were up against conscripted teenagers and old men, with no equipment, supplies or air cover, and not the 100 division force that was subdued by Russians, the real victors who won the war for allies not the american...

mercenary2k

For once I agree with you....

In Normandy

The Germans had 400,000 men with 1,000 Tanks and 1,200 Guns and 200 Aircraft which represented less than 10% of their entire force....

vs

2,300,000 Allied troops, with 12,000 Tanks, 10,000 Guns and 14,000 Aircraft

Its amazing that the Germans held the allies in Normandy for 3 Months

Das Reich

lol ...i have only seen the second pic before
indeed u have topped that !

SS Hind was a shame ..it was useless as a fighting force unlike the other foreign nationalities who served in SS

Das Reich

gentlemen not only that they had a nutcase for a supreme leader
plus the strategic bombing campaign was at its height


it was nothing short of a miracle ...infact on every front ( save poland,norway/balkans in 1940 /1941) germans were outnumbered , and were up against a technically superior force

mercenary2k

The strategic bombing was a failure

All it did was kill innocent German civilians and neither did it sap morale

The Germans were producing more weaponry in 1944 than they did in any time in World War II

The Germans learned this during the Blitz over England in 1940
The allies learned this during their bombing campaign over germany in 1943-1945

and the Americans learned this during the Vietnam War

Strategic Bombing campaign does not win Wars...all it does is destroy infrastructure and kill innocent civilians

Tactical bombing campaign where air strikes are targeting enemy concentrations is devastatingly effective

Das Reich

^ I disagree
strategic bombings biggest contribution was to tie down a million men nearly 400 fighters sorely needed on the battlefield and 100s of flak guns including many of the 88s ...evn if half of them had been present on the front the germans might have fought the russians to a stalemate on the plains of hungry and poland.

true that strategic bombing did not cripple german industry as allies have hoped ...ur right the production did go up year by year
part of that was also reorganization of industry and use of slave labor in later stages of war.

German "strategic bombing" of blitz was a joke germans never had any bombers carying payloads capable of truely hurting the british industry (imagine brits bombing germany with just wellingtons and mosquitoes), they did not have any attrition reserve nor their bombers had any meaningful range...in short strategic bombing was far beyond the capabilities of luftwaffe ( atany stage of the war) only a unrealistic , egotistical leader like goering wud force them to take on this job.
....and by the time of steinbock it was too little too late.

I fully agree though the targeted tactical bombing always brings better results classic example being battle of britain germans came very close to victory with repeated attacks on RAF airfields till hitler turned them on the cities.

I wud say this effort was dwarfed by what luftwaffe bomber arm achieved in early stages of barbarossa with only 1500 bombers ( 900 operational) truly a staggering achievement unsurpassed in military history.

Das Reich

but US strikes were far more effective in achieving strategic objectives like destroying inrastructure they failed when startegic bombers were used in a tactical role i.e B-52s against ho chi min trail

mAd_ScIeNtIsT

Infrastructure destruction falls under tactical strikes, not strategic bombardment.

The policy of strategic bombardment is now thoroughly discredited. The last effort at that was "shock and awe" in Iraq which is now widely ridiculed for its sheer ineffectiveness.

Strategic bombardment was a seductive opportunity that 20th century technology empowered for the first time ever. It was tempting to beliebe that you could break the will of a population to fight by unleashing massive firepower upon them but it has never worked once : it just hardens the resistance and motivates unity against the attackers.

Many non-Nazi sympathising Germans fought hard against the Allies in WW2 not so that they could ensure Nazi superiority: rather they fought to try and achieve victory so that their friends and families would be safe and protected from bombing raids that would kill them in their homes and workplaces.

The USA is one of the very few countries that continues to maintain strategic bombing forces. Most modern air forces have phased them out.

Das Reich

few others could afford it apart from the big powers...plus the nature of warfare has changed other traditional powers like france and britain have other domestic worries

missile replaced the bomber in 50s and without nukes they are of minimal use in the strategic sense

i doubt that destroying infrastructure , factories etc falls under tactical missions though

also dont forget japs were beaten to submission by submarine blockade and strategic air bombartment ...only example i think of douhet like theories working

Das Reich

true infact i wud say that nazism itself was nothing more than a reaction to the injustices and crimes against german people over the last hundreds of yrs ...there were some really evil nazis but by and large nazis were no worst than fascists and imperilaists in any other country

mAd_ScIeNtIsT

Technology changes have meant that these are now tactical.

In the 1940s, unless you attacked from a very low level, it would be impossible to accurately hit a factory, as the margin of error from bombsights at altitude was so high that to destroy a factory you would have to target not only the factory but an area of several square kilometres around it - hence and entire formation of heavy bombers would be sent to drop hundreds of bombs around a factory in the hope that enough of them hit the target and destroy it.

Today, between cruise missiles, laser-guided bombs, and GPS-guided bombs, a single plane can deliver more bombs on target with a greater certaincy of hitting the target and taking it out. Collateral damage is limited to buildings only within about a block that will be destroyed by blast waves or errant ordnance that fails to be guided to the right building.

Most (but not all) strategic bombing raids in WW2 by either side were not terror bombings by intent; rather they were targetted attacks. Technological limitations of the age though meant that large areas of a city would need to be targetted to have a good chance of destroying selected buildings.

Today, a single F-16 can deal more destruction to a factory than an entire squadron of B-17s. The B-17 squadron may drop over 100 bombs and have only 5 of them actually land on the target factory; the F16 can release 12 bombs, every single one of which will hit the factory.

Das Reich

^ i see what ur saying ...tactical weapons can destroy strategic targets with better accuracy ...i dont doubt that

but the f-16 in this case is still acting as a strategic bomber ...regardless of the fact that it was designed as a tactical fighter-bomber

the target remains strategic no matter what u use to destroy it

sandhu786

Indians were traitors in WW-II. SS Hind must have been a joke of WW-II. One such was Bhagat Singh from my town of Faisalabad(then Lyallpur). Even now Bhagat Singh is looked down upon by the muslims. Despite living in Pakistan area of the then British sub-continent, he refused to convert to Islam and fight for the cause of Pakistan.