Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: LEDPIG on May 03, 2006, 04:23:28 AM
-
Simple question why were the allies so successful in ww2, was it better planes, better pilots, training etc? How were they able to win over such maneaverable and light airplanes. We all see how tactics are important in fighting dissamiliar aircraft, was it that? Anyone have any idea of how the actual planes such as P-38 and P-47 were actually employed against there much lighter and more maneaverable opponents? Do you think the combat in AH falls somewhere along the lines of real life in how we dogfight and use our simulated planes and environment. What are the political, tactical, or any other factors that caused the allies to win as to how the air war fit into the big picture?
-
- War economy
- Axis couldnt bomb US factories
- Hitlers stupidity
- Lots of friends = many fronts
-
Feet on the ground.
-
Ya know when ya think about the fact that the Axis could not attack US factories and cities with any real effect. They were pretty much screwed when the US joined the war......
-
In the Pacific fighters had specific orders.
Only attack when you have both altitude & numbers advantage.
Dive away when you lose the advantage. Our fighters had better dive, better control in dive, and better top speed. So basicly we dictated the engagements for the most part. We made them fight us on our terms, outnumbered, against better trained pilots. And in some cases against much better planes.
As for Germany, between escorted bombing raids killing lots of fighters. Plus killing them on the ground, fighter sweeps, airfield raids killing planes on the ground. Bombers totally disrupting supply as well as command & control..
Plus outnumbering them significantly.
Question isn't why the allies won, its why it took so long.
-
Remember a few things here:
WW2 was going for almost 2 years before the Germans invaded the USSR
WW2 was going on more than 2 years before Germany declared war on the USA
At the beginning, the Luftwaffe had the finest and arguably, the most powerful airforce in the world
The Germans sat on the main sources of Europe from May/June 1940.
There was however a catch, the Royal Navy was a bad obstacle for transport.
The USSR were still feeding the Germans untill 1941 with valuable products such as oil.
Way before the USA was fighting the Germans, either on land or in the air, the British were heavily engaged, - in N-Africa for instance.
The Germans had quite an ally, - Italy :D
(Italian navy and merchant navy larger than what the Germans had)
So, good question, why were the allies so successful?
-
Anyone have any idea of how the actual planes such as P-38 and P-47 were actually employed against there much lighter and more maneaverable opponents? Do you think the combat in AH falls somewhere along the lines of real life in how we dogfight and use our simulated planes and environment
Real pilot flew like what we refer to as "dweebs". They gang banged, cherry picked and run away as often as they could. From all the aces biographies I've read, most of their kills, save a few, were like that.
P47 was such a successful plane just becuase "manuverability" was way overrated for high alt fights. The most important thing for not getting shot down was to be able to take a hit and still run away. Most pilots shot down never saw their attacker. Ruggedness offered you a second chance (some times). The most important defensive ACM was "split S and dive for the clouds". 190s ruled this category and frustrated spits and P38s till the Jugs arrived.
Tree-tops fighting was a different issue due to the problem of not being able to run away effectively. Must be the reason why the russians weren't as impressed by the 190 (or the P47) as the RAF and USAF were.
What are the political, tactical, or any other factors that caused the allies to win as to how the air war fit into the big picture?
The air war had an important contribution but one has to remember that most of the work was done by a large bunch of angry russian foot soldiers.
Bozon
-
Yea it seems to me a large amount of kills and deaths in air combat occured by:
someone sneaking up and shooting someone from behind
attacking only when you had the advantage
diving on an opponenent with superior speed and running
attacking with superior numbers
In the MA we calls these moves "dweeb" moves but in real life this was how it was done. You can't respawn and try it again in real life this was no joke. I personally don't think these are "dweeb" moves i think this is smart fighting and caters to your best interests, i.e. you living other guy dying. Iv'e never heard a real fighter pilot be dishonored by his cowardly tactics iv'e only ever heard them say kill quick and run, try to avoid a long drawn out conflict. I suppose this was particularly important when pitting a 109 against a 47 for instance where a P-47 has no business figthing a 109 on it's terms. It's like a one armed man trying to beat Mike Tyson. As happens in the MA repeatedly the guy with the most altitude and speed rules the engagement and it appears the allies made this a rule, thus allowing them to whip some axis prettythang.
-
I would like to add :
1 German lack of heavy 4 engine strategic bomber.
Imagine how BoB would have went if instead of Ju 88 they had something similar to the 17 or the 24.
2 Starting a second front before the 1st is won
3 Hitler was his own worst enemy.
Didn't listen to his generals.
He also screwed up aircraft development. I think some say the 262 could have been in service much earlier if not for his meddling.
Also better aircraft were developed but because of cronyism, contracts went to Messerschmitt.
Bronk
-
They needed a longer range for the escorts in the BoB. The 4 engines won't matter that much when the range is as little as England.
There was hardly a finer bomber in the world than the Ju88 in 1940, - but again, He 111 was the main one.
But a 4 engined one for heavy strikes at night, that one could have come in handy for Germany. As for deep raids into the USSR.
So why were the allies so successful?
IMHO because they screwed up less :eek:
-
I should have added that also.
I'd think it would be much harder to down an aircraft the size of a 17/24 with .303s compared to a 88.
Bronk
-
It was summer 1940.
Nobody except perhaps the US had any fleets of biggies at all.
BTW, the JU 88 was almost as fast as the British fighters anyway...
-
What's interesting to me is that after the BOB, I was under the impression that the LW was on it's kness etc, however, after reading about large scale British Fighter sweeps beinf attacked by very very capabale LW units, this seems to not be the case.
Would I also be right in saying that even by the summer of 43, the LW still ruled the skies of Europe ?
I think a lot of the guys on here are correct, most used "Dweeb" tactics, nothing wrong with that inmho, smart flying, I'd still like to know how the LW shot so many buffs down, everyone knows it's a hard thing to do in here, with that big tater gun in the K4 for example, you have to get in close, fatal when attacking buffs usually..
-
Read "The economics of World War II : six great powers in international comparison," edited by Mark Harrison, Cambridge University Press, 1998
Assuming Russia & the US were in the war, Germany's only chance was to fully mobilize the economy in 1939. Even then it probably would not have been enough. Japan had no chance at all.
Now, if Germany had put her entire prewar navy budget into uboats, the UK might have been forced out of the war.
-Blogs
Originally posted by LEDPIG
Simple question why were the allies so successful in ww2, was it better planes, better pilots, training etc? How were they able to win over such maneaverable and light airplanes. We all see how tactics are important in fighting dissamiliar aircraft, was it that? Anyone have any idea of how the actual planes such as P-38 and P-47 were actually employed against there much lighter and more maneaverable opponents? Do you think the combat in AH falls somewhere along the lines of real life in how we dogfight and use our simulated planes and environment. What are the political, tactical, or any other factors that caused the allies to win as to how the air war fit into the big picture?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Remember a few things here:
WW2 was going for almost 2 years before the Germans invaded the USSR
WW2 was going on more than 2 years before Germany declared war on the USA
Heh. Those were the two best years that Germany had in that war, too!
The most accurate explanation I've ever heard for why the war ended the way it did was the subject of an old joke, which I attempt to recreate here:
Late one night in 1944, two friends sat in a Berlin bomb shelter while Royal Air Force bombers saturated the city above them with high explosives. One of the men had been a geography teacher before the war, and he took this opportunity to educate his friend about the countries engaged in the war.
“You see all of these red areas,” he said, pointing to a world map. “Those are the countries and colonies of the British Empire.”
“Ja, I see that.”
“And over here, this large yellow mass is the United States of America.”
“Ja.”
“While on the other side, this huge blue area is the Soviet Union.”
“Ja. Russkis.”
“That’s right. Now here, in the middle, this small green country is Germany.”
The teacher’s friend stared at the map in silence. The seconds ticked by as the room shook from the bombs going off overhead. Finally the man looked at the teacher, and said in awe,
“Mein Gott. Has anyone told the Fuehrer?”
- oldman
-
Hehehehe, nice one.
Now take that map to a spring day in 1941. May. 65 years ago.
The assembled "Reich", the other Axis, the conquered ones, and "friendly" (USSR) cover what? Oh, the biggest amount of landmass and resources on the globe.
This is vast and rich. Lots of oil, lots of land, lots of slaves, lots of loot, no campaign lost (Except the BoB which was a mere skirmish :D), in short, everything that was needed.
Their only enemy is the UK.
No wonder they went a bit sloppy......
-
WW2 was going for almost 2 years before the Germans invaded the USSR
WW2 was going on more than 2 years before Germany declared war on the USA
At the beginning, the Luftwaffe had the finest and arguably, the most powerful airforce in the world
The Germans sat on the main sources of Europe from May/June 1940.
There was however a catch, the Royal Navy was a bad obstacle for transport.
The USSR were still feeding the Germans untill 1941 with valuable products such as oil.
Way before the USA was fighting the Germans, either on land or in the air, the British were heavily engaged, - in N-Africa for instance.
The Germans had quite an ally, - Italy
(Italian navy and merchant navy larger than what the Germans had)
Interesting.
Almost alll of you what you've listed, ultimately points out to '1941'.
So what happened in 1941? Specifically, in the June, and December of 1941? Oh nothing much.. except the fact the Axis started a war with the world's two largest industrial countries... :D
-
Military numbers.
Germany - 20 million
Japan -. 9.7 million
Italy - 3.2 million
roughly 33 million
vs
UK - 5.8 million
USSR - Couldn't find info.. ets. 6.1 million dead and 14 million wounded
USA - 16 million
roughly 42 million
Germany was fighting two fronts with lower numbers, and they still almost pushed Russia to stalingrad. Britain was able to stalemate Germany, but would have eventually been over-run.
I think to the old times of knights and castles. The attacker always needs overwhelming numbers to beat the defender.
When the Japanese bombed pearl harbor they woke "The Sleeping Giant", and essentially seeled the fate of the war. If that had never happened, and the United States let the war play out without military involvement, i guarantee all of europe would be speaking german right now.
-
What remained from the fall of France untill 1941 is that the UK was the only enemy to the rest. Get it?
The RN actually was the main obstacle for the Germans to go shop in the US in 1940-1941.
The Germans just couldn't pick up the goods. However they were allowed to buy.
The lend-lease deal with the UK made it through congress with marginal votes inh it's favour.
So, it's quite intersting...this year...1941
-
Thing is, in that year Germany had to beat the UK, Russia, or both.
It did neither, and by then was 2 years behind in economic mobilization. That sealed Germany's fate.
-blogs
Originally posted by Angus
Hehehehe, nice one.
Now take that map to a spring day in 1941. May. 65 years ago.
The assembled "Reich", the other Axis, the conquered ones, and "friendly" (USSR) cover what? Oh, the biggest amount of landmass and resources on the globe.
This is vast and rich. Lots of oil, lots of land, lots of slaves, lots of loot, no campaign lost (Except the BoB which was a mere skirmish :D), in short, everything that was needed.
Their only enemy is the UK.
No wonder they went a bit sloppy......
-
Germany was doing business with the USSR in 1941. Oil....lots.
Germany had the backbone of the whole european mainland behind it, through conquest and business, - or at gunpoint. That is and was (I belive) very well on par with the industrial might of the USA. And...on a much smaller area.
But the UK was a nuisance, and ruled uncomfortably much of the seas, had colonies, and were trying with some success to be best friends of the USA.
And the USSR may have been plotting against Germany as well....
But, do not underestimate the vast access to various sources held by Germany in 1941.
-
Oil alone does not make tanks and airplanes.
You have to look at the manufacturing capacity of these countries and how much of it was allocated to military production. Germany had access to a lot of resources but did not mobilize most of them until late in the war. It did not begin to fully mobilize until after the defeat at Stalingrad.
And, except for part of 1994, Germany's capacity was not growing at anything like the rate seen in the UK, Russia or the U.S.
-blogs
Originally posted by Angus
Germany was doing business with the USSR in 1941. Oil....lots.
Germany had the backbone of the whole european mainland behind it, through conquest and business, - or at gunpoint. That is and was (I belive) very well on par with the industrial might of the USA. And...on a much smaller area.
But the UK was a nuisance, and ruled uncomfortably much of the seas, had colonies, and were trying with some success to be best friends of the USA.
And the USSR may have been plotting against Germany as well....
But, do not underestimate the vast access to various sources held by Germany in 1941.
-
When the Japanese bombed pearl harbor they woke "The Sleeping Giant", and essentially seeled the fate of the war. If that had never happened, and the United States let the war play out without military involvement, i guarantee all of europe would be speaking german right now.
I beg to differ. They sealed their fate when they crossed the steppes into Russia in June of '41.
It is true that the fate of Soviet Russia was looking grim in the first two years after Barbarossa, and it is also true that without lend-lease help from the West that Soviet Russia might not have made it through the winter of '42 to meet Uranos. That being said, once the Red Army (remarkably) reorganized itself in the face of total anihiliation, into something completely new, Germany just had no chance.
Without disrespect to the American effort to the war, and properly acknowledging their accomplishments in the Western front, still I dare say Germany would have been beaten without the US, but not without the USSR. The USSR tackled with roughly 80% of what the entire German military might had to offer until they were being pushed back towards their own borders in 1944 - when the US finally landed in Normandy.
Imagine the entire number of military personnel, aircraft, and vehicles that were pit against the USSR remained stationed at the West, in solemn defense facing the UK, without them having to worry about the road to Berlin. Bomber campaigns from the US/UK alone would not have been as effective, not to mention the risks of an Allied main-land invasion into Europe would have been unacceptably high, perhaps impossible.
-
I agree with Kweassa.. if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor (and Germany declared war on the US), then it is my belief that all of Europe would be speaking Russian right now... not German.
-
One word: Airpower[/size] aka Flyboys... :D
The Allies engaged in an air war that pulverized Germany's war industry. Germany underestimated the impact airpower has on war. The Allied military strategy included destruction of factories, supply lines, and resources. They could not defeat the German army until they had won the airwar. After doing so, the German army essentially starved itself of supplies and more importantly, morale, and was defeated on this alone.
If the Allies had invaded in 1942/43 with a similar size of D-Day, it would of been a very short, very deadly engagement. They would of wiped ever British, American, and Canadian solider off the map with deadly precision. They found that out with Dieppe and the Canadians.
Knowing that the Germans possessed the worlds strongest army, they decided to cut them off by starving the German empire. If Hitler had any smarts, he would of realised the importance of strategic bombing, especially during the BoB. But since he was a complete lunatic, it was obvious to the outcome.
In short, US Airpower won WWII on both PTO and ETO fronts. It's what won Desert Storm, and the Baltic war. When governments think two-dimensionally, they tend to get into trouble. ;)
-
The Russians had already turned the tide long before the UK & US bombing campaigns were having a significant effect on the German economy.
-blogs
Originally posted by Mister Fork
One word: Airpower[/size] aka Flyboys... :D
The Allies engaged in an air war that pulverized Germany's war industry. ..
-
I love these lively debates . . .
First, although it is often said Japan's attack is what brought the US into the war, this is not entirely the case. The US was already involved in every way short of committing troops. IIRC, Roosevelt made his "Arsenal of Democracy" speech early in 1941, indicating we were willing to put the US industrial might behind anyone fighting Fascism. China and Britain, and later Russia, were all benefitting from the Lend Lease program. Volunteer airmen were sent to both Britain and China. US destroyers were escorting merchant convoys half way across the Atlantic before handing them off to the British, who in some cases were using "lent" US destroyers. The US was already drafting and training its army, navy and air forces early in 1941. The US produced more combat aircraft in 1941 than did Germany and Japan combined. Clearly, the US was gearing up for war -- it was only a matter of time.
The "last straw", which is what lead to Pearl Harbor, was the US oil embargo on Japan -- which was intended to cripple Japan's war economy. Pearl Harbor "woke the sleeping giant" only to the extent that it galvinized public opinion. Japan didn't so much wake the giant as kick him in the rear while he was putting on his britches.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
I beg to differ. They sealed their fate when they crossed the steppes into Russia in June of '41. . . ..
Imagine the entire number of military personnel, aircraft, and vehicles that were pit against the USSR remained stationed at the West, in solemn defense facing the UK, without them having to worry about the road to Berlin. Bomber campaigns from the US/UK alone would not have been as effective, not to mention the risks of an Allied main-land invasion into Europe would have been unacceptably high, perhaps impossible.
You can also turn this around a bit. Had England sued for peace in 1940, then the entire might of the German and Italian armies would probably have been enough to go the extra few miles to Moscow, thus dooming the Soviet Union. But the threat of invasion held German divisions in France, and the desert campaign tied down some German and most Italian forces.
The Soviets would have been doomed anyway had it not been for the barbaric racial policies of the facist occupation. Stalin was none too popular, and the Germans were initially greeted at liberators. But, it became clear shortly thereafter that the Germans were starving Russian POWs if not executing them outright. Thus, the Red Army was galvinized by the knowledge that if they succeeded, there would be a chance to survive Stalin's barbarity -- if they lost, there was no chance of survival at all.
-
Hi Ledpig,
>Simple question why were the allies so successful in ww2
Recommended reading: Richard Overy, "Why the Allies Won".
Overy casts a slightly different light on the events of WW2 than many of the posts in this thread. For example, he points out that there was a real danger of the Soviet Union collapsing as a result of the German invasion, and that the rebuilding of the Soviet production capability after the loss of most of the best-developed areas was a major achievement whose success shouldn't be taken for granted.
>was it better planes, better pilots, training etc?
At the end of a complex chain of events, more and better pilots had more and better planes available than the Luftwaffe. However, for much of the war, the Allies had inferior planes and inferior pilots. And even in the end, the Allies had nothing approaching the Me 262.
>How were they able to win over such maneaverable and light airplanes. We all see how tactics are important in fighting dissamiliar aircraft, was it that?
No. It was tactical cooperation that won battles. Performance was of secondary importance, manoeuvrability of tertiary ...
>Anyone have any idea of how the actual planes such as P-38 and P-47 were actually employed against there much lighter and more maneaverable opponents?
... which also explains why the heavier USAAF fighters could do very well with good tactics. I think John C. Meyer wrote a report standardizing the successful USAAF tactics, it might be worth it looking for this one.
>Do you think the combat in AH falls somewhere along the lines of real life in how we dogfight and use our simulated planes and environment.
I have very little Aces High experience, but as Bruno pointed out, if death is final, different tactics are called for. With all the online flight simulations I tried, the most realistic situations were scenarios where players had just one life (or at least a limited number of lives).
The potential for very realistic missions is there, it all depends on how the actual game element of the simulation is set up.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
IMHO the Allies were not particularly succesful in the beginning but in the long term they learned their lessons better than the Axis side and became more and more succesful. Of course the industrial potential etc. helps a lot.
gripen
edit: typing errors
-
Hi again,
>I have very little Aces High experience, but as Bruno pointed out ...
Apologies to Bronk who actually made the comment I meant to refer to!
I'm struck with a memory that remembers initial capitals only :-/
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The Russians had already turned the tide long before the UK & US bombing campaigns were having a significant effect on the German economy.
I think that a lot of folks need to be reminder of this fact.
As you also said the full mobiliztion of the German economy wasn't achieved until it was far too late. There was simply very little planned in terms of a pro-longed war. When the German's failed to defeat the Soviets by '41 (early '42 at the lastest) the gig was up.
-
Russian Blood and American Money won the war.....
-
That's too simplistic...
A lot of folks bled and a lot of nations spent their wealth, some went bankrupt, to defeat Hitler.
-
You can also turn this around a bit. Had England sued for peace in 1940, then the entire might of the German and Italian armies would probably have been enough to go the extra few miles to Moscow, thus dooming the Soviet Union. But the threat of invasion held German divisions in France, and the desert campaign tied down some German and most Italian forces.
True to an extent I guess. However just what kind of impact the fall of Moscow would have had could be subject to debate. The Soviets had already evacuated and totally rebuilt most of its political/economical functions out of Germany's reach, which ultimately led to the critical reorganization of the Soviet military and the decisive counter attack. It would have had a tremendous political impact for sure, but whether that alone would be enough to signal the total downfall of the Soviet war machine is contestable IMO.
Besides, the halt in German advancement into Russia had less to do with the overall numbers concerning military resources, than the conditions surrounding the levels of preparation and strategical decision. By the looks of the first two years it seems that by on a tactical scale the "80%" was already more than enough to topple the Soviet Union into its final demise. However, in the end, the USSR survived it all, which sort of leads to the doubt that it wasn't exactly the lack of available manpower or resources that led to the German failure in conquering the USSR in under a year. In other words, my guess is whether Germany put "80%" or "100%" against the USSR, they'd never have achieved their final destination.
The Soviets would have been doomed anyway had it not been for the barbaric racial policies of the facist occupation. Stalin was none too popular, and the Germans were initially greeted at liberators. But, it became clear shortly thereafter that the Germans were starving Russian POWs if not executing them outright. Thus, the Red Army was galvinized by the knowledge that if they succeeded, there would be a chance to survive Stalin's barbarity -- if they lost, there was no chance of survival at all.
IMO that's a slightly warped picture of what was happening after the German occupation of Soviet territories. It is true that the USSR had inherent political problems in maintaining the state as a "Union" of multiple nationalities, with most of such problems coming from the very earliest days after the Revolution of 1917. However in the Russian sense, regardless of what kind of ruthless dictator Stalin proved to be to our own eyes after all these years, whether by propaganda or patriotic fervor, Stalin still remained as the savior to the USSR to the public eye in those days. In other words he was immensely popular - in the darkest hours of the USSR he was the only person on the media to address to the public in the name of 'Mother Russia' and reassure them that the country will not fail. The Soviet people answered to the call - whether by patriotism or by sheer state terror, they did.
Therefore, it is true that the German advancement did lead to a considerate number of Soviet turncoats and revolts against local Soviet occupation in the areas with highest frustration levels against the USSR, but overall most of the people of the Soviet Union were fully intent to stand against the German invaders. As much as it is silly to believe that the USSR was mobilized into action by voluntary efforts alone without any kind of state terror involved, it is also wrong to believe that state terror alone was able to hold the USSR together. In short most of these guys knew it would be a take-no-prisoners, battle-to-the-death, type of war, and they accepted it as their own fight to be fought out. Like you've mentioned, Hitler's "wipe out the degenerate Slavs" attitude did not help either.
There are multiple questions concerning just how the USSR maintained its solidarity throughout the war, but nonetheless, one thing for certain is that it wasn't going to break-up so easily, just giving up their posts and going turncoat. They weren't the French! :D
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
The Russians had already turned the tide long before the UK & US bombing campaigns were having a significant effect on the German economy.
-blogs
Actually, it was because OF the Allies bombing the German industries impacted Germany's ability to fight a two front war. The soviets just reaped the benifits. :)
-
Originally posted by mipoikel
- War economy
- Axis couldnt bomb US factories
- Hitlers stupidity
- Lots of friends = many fronts
mipoikel got it right. it what little reading i've done, japan knew they could fight for about 10 months before eating up resources, ones they didn't have on hand to replace.
and germany's story was not much different. after summer of 1940 the luftwaffe was trumped.
and what enemy did germany face that was remotely comparable to britian?
this is just from memory and i'm going to try to name them in order and i know i'll make mistakes . . .
1) annexed austria
2) lol (can't recollect but i want to say czechoslovakia)
2a or 3b yugoslavia
3) poland
4) low countries
5) france
6) STYMIED in England
7) russia
was not france the only surprise? really?
also someone with a better memory plug in the scandinavian countries in order . . . was it after the russian offensive.
the tragic element for me in ww2 was both germany and japan were defeated early on (in that they could not win) yet they continued to fight with great loss of life.
hap
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
However just what kind of impact the fall of Moscow would have had could be subject to debate.
Agreed. The Nazi generals after the war tried to make it seem like some sort of football game - cross the line, take Moscow, the referee would blow his whistle, and the war would be over. So close, so close, that madman Hitler screwed us when we were on the verge of victory.
I've never, ever, seen any plausible argument as to just why the capture of Moscow would have ended the war.
- oldman (who agrees that after June 22, 1941 the Germans should have just saved the Earth a lot of trouble and surrendered to someone, anyone).
-
Originally posted by LEDPIG
Simple question why were the allies so successful in ww2, was it better planes, better pilots, training etc? How were they able to win over such maneaverable and light airplanes. We all see how tactics are important in fighting dissamiliar aircraft, was it that? Anyone have any idea of how the actual planes such as P-38 and P-47 were actually employed against there much lighter and more maneaverable opponents? Do you think the combat in AH falls somewhere along the lines of real life in how we dogfight and use our simulated planes and environment. What are the political, tactical, or any other factors that caused the allies to win as to how the air war fit into the big picture?
none of the above, straight numbers.
Given historical planes if the numbers were reversed the result would have been reversed.
And germans would be on here saying that the RAF pilot with 352 kills was lying.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Agreed. The Nazi generals after the war tried to make it seem like some sort of football game - cross the line, take Moscow, the referee would blow his whistle, and the war would be over. So close, so close, that madman Hitler screwed us when we were on the verge of victory.
I've never, ever, seen any plausible argument as to just why the capture of Moscow would have ended the war.
- oldman (who agrees that after June 22, 1941 the Germans should have just saved the Earth a lot of trouble and surrendered to someone, anyone).
Losing Moscow wouldnt have ended the war, it would have ended the war the germans were interested in. Its easy to say the goverment moved and factories moved. But the transportation center didnt move. The north south and east west rail ways and roads went through moscow. I think they would have pretty much cut off even leningrad by taking moscow.
-
All you guys are making some interesting points, i agree i love these lively debates also:aok
-
Originally posted by Speed55
When the Japanese bombed pearl harbor they woke "The Sleeping Giant", and essentially seeled the fate of the war. If that had never happened, and the United States let the war play out without military involvement, i guarantee all of europe would be speaking german right now.
US/German ships were already engaged in the Atlantic when FDR told US merchant ships/escorts to "fire on sight" of German vessels. It was only a matter of time before US/Germany went to all out war.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Losing Moscow wouldnt have ended the war, it would have ended the war the germans were interested in. Its easy to say the goverment moved and factories moved. But the transportation center didnt move. The north south and east west rail ways and roads went through moscow. I think they would have pretty much cut off even leningrad by taking moscow.
Just came back on, and Pongo beat me to the punch . . . Moscow was the heart of the transportation network, the logistical nerve center of a very centralized system. Add to that fact that Stalin issued something akin to a "no retreat" order, and at least claimed he himself would not budge from Moscow, and most of the people responsible for the logistics of the country would have been surrounded and captured/killed as well. This would have crippled the Soviets if not completely knocked them out of the war.
As for Stalin rallying the people, yes, he did that . . . eventually. Initially (for two weeks, IIRC) he basically sat in a stupor in his Dacha, apparently fully expecting someone to come put a bullet in him and take over. But his earlier purges must have worked, as there was no leader willing/able to do the deed.
Since we are dealing with a lot of "what ifs" (which, granted, at the end of the day are mostly worthless), let us consider Japan acting as an Axis ally and launching an attack into Siberia in 1941. Many accounts of the war consider the Siberians to have saved the day with their arrival in the west just before winter. If this transfer of men and material from the Manchurian-Soviet border made the difference, then offsetting it either by a Japanese incursion or, as in my original point, more men and material on the European Axis side could have won the Soviet war for the Axis.
At least these are my humble opinions. As I have said, I always love hearing everyone elses. Thanks, all, for the interesting reads!
:aok
-
The Russiams won on account of their own blood. The bombing campaign from the west assured there could be no change in the direction after December 1942.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Actually, it was because OF the Allies bombing the German industries impacted Germany's ability to fight a two front war. The soviets just reaped the benifits. :)
-
That has been said more than once here in this thread I respectfully disagree. Read the book.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Actually, it was because OF the Allies bombing the German industries impacted Germany's ability to fight a two front war. The soviets just reaped the benifits. :)
-
More years ago than I care to admit, I wrote a thesis that described what the German General Staff told Hitler: The other side has lost; they should forfeit the game.
Only trouble was that Stalin did not see the game that way, even if Moscow was to be evacuated,
-Blogs
Originally posted by Pongo
Losing Moscow wouldnt have ended the war, it would have ended the war the germans were interested in. Its easy to say the goverment moved and factories moved. But the transportation center didnt move. The north south and east west rail ways and roads went through moscow. I think they would have pretty much cut off even leningrad by taking moscow.
-
This is all true.
But read Lidell Hart's history of the eastern front - the roads trapped the Germans, not the Russians. Even before the invasion, the Russians were moving their factories back and reorganizing the transportation network. The guys who got caught were the Germans and that was because they did not have enough motorized transport...
-Blogs
Originally posted by E25280
Just came back on, and Pongo beat me to the punch . . . Moscow was the heart of the transportation network, the logistical nerve center of a very centralized system. Add to that fact that Stalin issued something akin to a "no retreat" order, and at least claimed he himself would not budge from Moscow, and most of the people responsible for the logistics of the country would have been surrounded and captured/killed as well. This would have crippled the Soviets if not completely knocked them out of the war.
As for Stalin rallying the people, yes, he did that . . . eventually. Initially (for two weeks, IIRC) he basically sat in a stupor in his Dacha, apparently fully expecting someone to come put a bullet in him and take over. But his earlier purges must have worked, as there was no leader willing/able to do the deed.
Since we are dealing with a lot of "what ifs" (which, granted, at the end of the day are mostly worthless), let us consider Japan acting as an Axis ally and launching an attack into Siberia in 1941. Many accounts of the war consider the Siberians to have saved the day with their arrival in the west just before winter. If this transfer of men and material from the Manchurian-Soviet border made the difference, then offsetting it either by a Japanese incursion or, as in my original point, more men and material on the European Axis side could have won the Soviet war for the Axis.
At least these are my humble opinions. As I have said, I always love hearing everyone elses. Thanks, all, for the interesting reads!
:aok
-
By the way, sorry for the hijack, if indeed this qualifies. . .
One thing the Soviets had going for them that no other major power had is that they essentially fought their entire war on one front - granted a large one, but one nonetheless. Even the Italians had divisions in Russia at the same time they were fighting in North Africa.
The war in Europe had been over for 3 months before they engaged the Japanese. Due to the non-aggression pact before that point, the Soviets kept a relatively small, stable force in the east that was not actively draining resources from their fight in the west.
Despite this "advantage" they still came very close to losing.
If you consider the Axis as a single unit, how many fronts did they have to cover? Brings to mind one of my favorite lines from a series called "Babylon 5":
Originally stated by Londo Mulari:
Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots fights a war on twelve.
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
This is all true.
But read Lidell Hart's history of the eastern front - the roads trapped the Germans, not the Russians. Even before the invasion, the Russians were moving their factories back and reorganizing the transportation network. The guys who got caught were the Germans and that was because they did not have enough motorized transport...
-Blogs
"Trapping the Germans" is not an angle I have looked at, and insofar as the transport network goes, it makes sense. I still think, though, that "cutting the head off" in Moscow would have been devastating to the Soviets.
I'll look up Lidell Hart next time I have more reading time (too much time spent reading BBs for books. (or flying, for that matter) :lol ) Thanks, Blogs, for the recommendation.:aok
-
I still think that the USA saved europe from certain demise.
Aside from the provisions supplied to England, and the USSR, think of the tremendous battles that took place on the pacific front.
Eliminate the USA from the equation, and Japan would have been able to eventually send support to there allies.
Then consider what's been mentioned about airpower.
Although the lancasters did do damage, they didnt have a never ending supply of them, and think what would have happened if you eliminate the American bombing factions, not to mention wildcats, hellcats, hogs, jugs, mustangs etc. No Patton to help Monty stop Rommel in a country rich with resources.
The germans would have still been able to get supplies to both fronts and things would have been ALOT different.
If you want to take it a step further, imagine if the USA stayed totally out of the war on all levels from the beginning, and pearl harbor never happened?
-
I still think that the USA saved europe from certain demise. Aside from the provisions supplied to England, and the USSR, think of the tremendous battles that took place on the pacific front.
If the size and scope of the battle equates to its importance, then every WW2 battle performed by every other participants of WW2 is absolutely dwarfed in scale against what the Germans and Russians were doing in the Eastern front between '41 and '44. With a bit of exaggeration, a single day of battle in Stalingrad '42, outdoes the entire Normandy Landing of '44, in the scope of ferocity and viciousness, with each side locked in a catastrophical fight quite uninmaginable to even the most seasoned veterans of the Western Allies.
Again, I'm not trying to belittle the war effort of the USA in WW2... but just what kind of grave and utmost importance the USSR held in turning the entire tide of war in WW2 still goes way unnoticed, even up to this date when the Cold War has been finished for nearly two decades.
Eliminate the USA from the equation, and Japan would have been able to eventually send support to there allies.
I sincerely doubt the possibility of this ever happening. Even before the US entered the war in the Pacific the Japanese advancement was meeting a critical limit due to the lack of manpower, resources, and fore-planning. It is said that the Japanese high command was actually in confusement as to what to do next - since they've already reached South-Eastern Asia much too quickly. Some Japanese strategists suggested sending reinforcement troops across India and Middle East to North Africa, but this idea was quickly rejected as being technically inplausible according to the current state of the Japanese military.
The entire front was stretched out too thin and signs of problems in maintaining it was becoming more and more clear. It is at this point the US threathened to cut off important strategical resources - which would prove catastrophic for the Japanese in maintaining their already fragile extent of the Empire. That crossed the final line of patience the Japanese held.
Then consider what's been mentioned about airpower. Although the lancasters did do damage, they didnt have a never ending supply of them, and think what would have happened if you eliminate the American bombing factions, not to mention wildcats, hellcats, hogs, jugs, mustangs etc. No Patton to help Monty stop Rommel in a country rich with resources.
The germans would have still been able to get supplies to both fronts and things would have been ALOT different.
However, beating down German airpower in the defensive was no picnic either. With the bulk of its military resources allocated in the Eastern front the Luftwaffe was still powerful enough to cause such high loss rates to the US bombing campaigns that the entire daylight bombing raids were halted for a period. The survivability of a bomber crewman was becoming dangerously low for the US and as a result they had to redevise the entire bombing tactics to something that was much safer, with reduced accuracy in bombing compensated only by a massive number of bombs dropped - and despite this threat the German economy was still reaching its peak in production rates well up to 1944. Ofcourse, such production under war pressure would prove ultimately suicidal for a single country's overall economic structure, but the point is they were still making more planes in 1944 when the US was bombing the hell out its industry, than they were in 1941 when they were on the offensive.
Unending fights in the skies over France and West Germany no doubt cost a certain amount of skilled pilots for the Germans, but in that aspect the fights over Russian soil also caused as much - if not more - losses to the Luftwaffe pool of manpower. Detailed accounts of German aces such as Grislawski describes how the Eastern front in 1943 was nothing like he rememberd in 1941 - he actually suggested his friend from the training camps that he'd make some phone calls to have his friend moved to his own squadron where he could 'protect' him, and ensure his survival for at least 50 missions. Grislawski goes so far as to comment that every single pilot his friend will fly with, will be dead in two weeks, and the only way he could survive was by flying with himself.
If you want to take it a step further, imagine if the USA stayed totally out of the war on all levels from the beginning, and pearl harbor never happened?
If the 'all levels' includes aids in the form of economic leases of materials and supplies then I admit that I believe the war might have been victorious for the Germans.
However, concerning military intervention alone, the WW2 would still have been victorious for the Allies even without the US forces in the ETO or the MTO. Like joeblogs said, the tide of the war was already turned by the Red Army, long before the US landed on Omaha beach. When the US was just beginning the bombing raids on a worthy scale in 1943 the Soviets were on a series of decisive counter attacks in the aftermath of operation Uranos, follwed by Saturn. The German offensive at Kursk, Operation: Zitadel, proved fatal in the bloodiest tank battles in history of mankind and the road to Germany's doors were pried open by the Red Army.
The Red Army needed no "surprise landings" at an unexpected spot to drive through enemy lands. They met the cream of the Wehrmacht head-on and still smashed through (although not without considerable number of casualties, even after the early years). By 1944, the Red Army proved to be strongest standing army the world has ever known, outperforming every army in the world, in the most advanced mobile infantry tactics which the Germans once boasted they were best at. The survivors of the bloody early years have been toughened to become the most effective and ruthless breed of veteran soldiers, and the terror both from the enemies and from the state has molded the Russian officers and commanders into brilliant tacticians, strategists, and leaders
Although USSR did not win WW2 single handedly (no country has single handedly wone the WW2), when it comes to determining who was the most decisvie force behind Germany's surrender, I vote for the USSR, hands-down.
-
You know, today it's the 4th of May, the day my country remembers the war victims of WWII.
Anyway, I think that the symplistic statement that America's money and Russian blood won the war, isn't that far from the truth after all.
American equipment was used extensively by all allies, including the USSR, but one has to look at the number of lives lost to see what price the USSR really paid. Annihilation on an incomprehensible scale.
-
dont forget... it wasnt just Germany that you are making out to be vs the allies.
Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor
Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Orange: Axis Powers
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/WWII.png)
Tripartite Pact :-
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Yugoslavia
Independent State of Croatia
Italian Social Republic
Siam
Co-belligerent:-
Finland
Dependent on (or controlled by) the Axis:-
Albania
Austria
Belarusian Central Rada
Belgium
Denmark
Ethiopia
Lokot Republic
Luxembourg
Manchukuo (Manchuria)
Mengjiang
Nanjing puppet state
Provisional Government of Free India
Reichskommissariats of Ostland and Ukraine
Vichy France
White Russian client state in Soviet Far East
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_Powers#Membership_of_the_Axis
-
However, beating down German airpower in the defensive was no picnic either. With the bulk of its military resources allocated in the Eastern front the Luftwaffe was still powerful enough to cause such high loss rates to the US bombing campaigns that the entire daylight bombing raids were halted for a period.
The Americans never halted their bombing raids. They thought of going to night bombing as the British did, but instead only bombed targets that could have escorts.
Yes the tide had turned against the Germans with the Allied landings in Sicily which happened at the same time as Kursk. The Allies were past Rome and the Russians were still fighting on Soviet soil.
It is said that the SBC kept at least 1,000,000 'men' at home.
Sept 43 to oct 44
1. During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.
2. During this period, a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.
3. During this period, 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.
4. During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West..
5. During this period, a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 27,060/8600 = 3.41 to one.
-
What Milo said.
I once browsed through the LW loss records in the IWM. I was stunned to see that they were losing equal or more aircraft in N-Africa alone than in the east. (1942, at the time of Stalingrad)
Would have taken days to compile it properly though.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
However, beating down German airpower in the defensive was no picnic either. With the bulk of its military resources allocated in the Eastern front the Luftwaffe was still powerful enough to cause such high loss rates to the US bombing campaigns that the entire daylight bombing raids were halted for a period. The survivability of a bomber crewman was becoming dangerously low for the US and as a result they had to redevise the entire bombing tactics to something that was much safer, with reduced accuracy in bombing compensated only by a massive number of bombs dropped - and despite this threat the German economy was still reaching its peak in production rates well up to 1944. Ofcourse, such production under war pressure would prove ultimately suicidal for a single country's overall economic structure, but the point is they were still making more planes in 1944 when the US was bombing the hell out its industry, than they were in 1941 when they were on the offensive.
There is a good study available freely on German production:
"DEMYSTIFYING THE GERMAN “ARMAMENT MIRACLE” DURING
WORLD WAR II. NEW INSIGHTS FROM THE ANNUAL AUDITS OF
GERMAN AIRCRAFT PRODUCERS"
by Lutz Budraß - Jonas Scherner - Jochen Streß
Available from here (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=661102)
Note that Lutz Budraß has also written larger study on German aircraft industry:
"Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918-1945"
That is a huge book written in german but worth to read if some one is really interested about the subject.
gripen
edit: Forget to told that the focus on these studies are in production and economics; hard core stuff :)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
1. During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.
Well, that is a bit misleading due to LW used a lot fighter bombers in east front. IIRC during 1944 about half of the Fw 190 production went to east.
gripen
-
What Milo said.
Thanks for the correction. Duly noted.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Well, that is a bit misleading due to LW used a lot fighter bombers in east front. IIRC during 1944 about half of the Fw 190 production went to east.
gripen
Gripen what does Points 2 > 5 say?
-
Milo,
Points 2 and 3 talk about the day fighters.
Points 4 and 5 talk about the all operational LW aircraft.
My point is simply that the LW used large amount of fighter bombers in east and these were mostly out of Fw 190 production and pilot training.
BTW those points are directly from Les Butler's web site and seem to be some kind of argument against Gröhler's data. IMHO both (Butler and Gröhler) are biased.
gripen
-
Yet, Gripen, the loss records say a lot ;)
-
I am an Anglophile in terms of WWII stuff.
In my opinion, in order of the part they played in the defeat of Germany, I would rank the major Allies in this order:
1) USSR
2) USA
3) UK and the Commonwealth
4) France
We are aviation enthusists here, but we must remember that airplanes still cannot take and hold ground. The scale of the Eastern Front numbs the mind and what the Russians fought through dwarfs anything that the Americans or British or Canadians or ANZACs or French fought through. This is not to diminish the very real and noble accomplishments and sacrifices of the Western Allies, but rather to put into scope how horrific the Eastern Front was.
When we honor what "the greatest generation" did, I always think of the Russian soldiers too.
What happened after the war happened and the Soviet leadership was evil, but the soldiers of the Red Army should not be burdened with the sins of their leaders in this regard.
At a crucial time in history the people of Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth stood up and through blood, toil, tears and sweat tore down the evil that was the Reich meant to last a thousand years.
We owe thanks to them all.
-
This is an interesting discussion.
I've always wondered why the Russians had such high losses in WWII. As mentioned before, the Russians fought on a single front. They outnumbered the German army in personnel and equipment. They had comparible equipment (some better, some worse). They never suffered strategic bombing. They had the arguably the best intelligence network in the world during the war. Even though the German invasion was technically a surprise attack, the Russian intellegence services and military knew it was coming. Through their own sources and those that England supplied, the Russians new every move the Germans were making (at least the large operations). How did the Russians get pushed back so far so fast? Even at the end of the war they were still taking staggering casualties. For example in the batlle for Berlin the Germans lost approx 175,000 killed and wounded. The Russians lost approx 400,000 killed and wounded. Was there a flaw in Russian military doctrine or was the German army that good (or both)?
63tb
-
63tb -- the "easy answer" is that the Russians simply didn't care about casualties. Their strategy often boiled down to overwhelming the enemy with numbers. Certainly this is a bit oversimplified, but basically sound.
Also remember that in the very beginning of Barbarossa, the Russians had virtually all of their armies against the Nazi-Soviet partition line in Eastern Europe. With relatively few casualties, the initial Axis attacks against the Soviet army cut off and forced the surrender of millions. The Soviets then pressed millions more into immediate military service, at times handing rifles off the backs of trucks to civilians. Much of '41 was spent trading lives and space for time.
Also, the military leadership was largely inept at the early stages due to the purges that occurred before the war. Even after hard-earned experience was gained, with very few exceptions (Zhukov being one of the few) the Soviet commanders were afraid to argue against or disobey a bad order, knowing it would mean an accusation of defeatism or mutiny and execution. Thus they often fought clumsily and with inadequate preparation rather than delay, and once started would press attacks despite casualties rather than fall back, regroup, and find a more successful alternative.
This is not to deminish the Germans, who had clearly developed good defensive tactics, often had superior weaponry, and certainly knew what defeat would mean to their homeland. They did their job expertly in many cases, but there are a lot of examples where the Soviets made their job easier.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
. . . However, concerning military intervention alone, the WW2 would still have been victorious for the Allies even without the US forces in the ETO or the MTO. Like joeblogs said, the tide of the war was already turned by the Red Army, long before the US landed on Omaha beach. When the US was just beginning the bombing raids on a worthy scale in 1943 the Soviets were on a series of decisive counter attacks in the aftermath of operation Uranos, follwed by Saturn. The German offensive at Kursk, Operation: Zitadel, proved fatal in the bloodiest tank battles in history of mankind and the road to Germany's doors were pried open by the Red Army.
The Red Army needed no "surprise landings" at an unexpected spot to drive through enemy lands. They met the cream of the Wehrmacht head-on and still smashed through (although not without considerable number of casualties, even after the early years). . . .
I must beg to differ . . . 250,000 Axis casualties in North Africa made no difference? Knocking Italy out of the war in 1943 made no difference? And in 1942 there was obviously somebody watching the channel, or else the Candians would have had it a bit easier at Dieppe.
My point is, the US was engaged in more ways than the air war before Normandy. And the British were never "disengaged". These actions, granted smaller in scale than what was going on in the East, were still draining significant amounts of personnel and material away from the Russian Front. I don't mean to sound pissy, but I think your comment deminishes the very real sacrifices and significant contributions occurring elsewhere during this timeframe.
Originally posted by Kweassa
Although USSR did not win WW2 single handedly (no country has single handedly wone the WW2). . .
I definitely agree with you here. The USSR definitely paid the highest price in blood -- no argument there. I still maintain they could not have done it alone, and would never have "turned the tide" by 1943 without the other mentioned factors.
I guess it is best summed up this way -- I fully give the USSR their due for the incredibly important role in defeating Nazism, but in doing so I will not ignore or denigrate the simultaneous important role of the US and Britain.
Sorry if I am reading too much into your comments -- I am sure I inferred something you did not imply.:aok
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
If the Allies had invaded in 1942/43 with a similar size of D-Day, it would of been a very short, very deadly engagement. They would of wiped ever British, American, and Canadian solider off the map with deadly precision. They found that out with Dieppe and the Canadians.
Brian L. Villa makes an an excellant arguement, in his book "Unauthorized Action: Mountbatten and the Dieppe Raid", for a theory that the whole purpose of the Dieppe raid was to convince the Russians that it was impossible. Hence the crap planning, lack of support, and frontal assult on a well defended position.
-
I must beg to differ . . . 250,000 Axis casualties in North Africa made no difference? Knocking Italy out of the war in 1943 made no difference? And in 1942 there was obviously somebody watching the channel, or else the Canadians would have had it a bit easier at Dieppe.
In the Eastern Front;
- 1,400,000 killed in action
- 1,000,000 missing
- 3,500,000 wounded
.. and that's counting the Germans alone.
Look, I'm not saying the US effort was not worth anything. I've never said such. However, in the scope of things the German military pretty much threw everything they had againt the USSR to stop them from closing in and that still wasn't enough. The Russians had them beaten, and there was no turning back. Ofcourse, the battles of 1944 were still as much bloody as the earlier years, and even though they were being driven back the Germans were putting up a helluva fight. Also most of the fighting was still on Russian soil, though it was pretty evident to everyone else in the World that the borders of Germany would be reached soon.
Without the US military the war would have lasted longer, with many more people dying. That's for sure. But with or without them, the Red Army would have finished the war as the victor, and that is also for sure.
My point is, the US was engaged in more ways than the air war before Normandy. And the British were never "disengaged". These actions, granted smaller in scale than what was going on in the East, were still draining significant amounts of personnel and material away from the Russian Front. I don't mean to sound pissy, but I think your comment deminishes the very real sacrifices and significant contributions occurring elsewhere during this timeframe.
Point taken.
But the signifcance of such actions usually comes pale in contrast to the significance of the Eastern front. I'm sorry if that sounds like belittling the other Allied nations and their noble efforts, but its just how it is. If the amount of blood shed accounts for how bravely people fought in the war then the figures of 11,444,100 military casualties and 17,000,000 civilian casualties (Sokolov's numbers) alone is enough to admit that the USSR was in the leading role in defeating the 3rd Reich.
Like Karnak said aerial warfare alone doesn't win wars. In the end soldiers are needed to finally capture enemy territories. The Allied aerial offensive played a huge part in weakening German conditions, and opening up the second front in the mainlaind of Europe signed the ultimate doom for the Reich. Also, like you've mentioned, long before the beacheads the battles that raged in the Mediterranean and North Africa also played a significant role in tying down a certain amount of Axis resources. I have no problem with accepting that as a fact. However the crushing blow, the coup-de-grace, has been performed by the Red Army, and none other than the Red Army.
-
I would like to point out that the USA had troops fighting in WWII LONG before D-Day, Sicily, Italy, and prior to that North Africa all came before D-Day.
To say that Russia had the Germans in check by the time we entered the war is just wrong on the face of it. The Russians did make a great contribution to the destruction of Nazi Germany to be sure but they needed the other allies to get all done.
As for air to air combat comparisons between RL and AH there are really none. Combat Air Patrol and Escort duty often were flown with NO contact of enemy planes (unlike AH). German fighters were after the bombers and so in many instances never attempted to attack the escort planes (unlike AH) and planes like the P-51 got good marks because they shot down planes that were NOT engaging them but rather the bombers.
Germany didn't send its Aces to the rear like we did to train others and they simply "ran out" of experienced pilots. The same happened in Japan.
Having been born in 1943, I had a chance to listen to my father and others speak of their war experiences and of course the history of the event was fresh as a kid growing up (of course Korea kinda took our minds off WWII).
-
Eh?
"I must beg to differ . . . 250,000 Axis casualties in North Africa made no difference?"
250-300.000 POWS in the mopping up in Tunisia alone.
More lost aircraft than on the eastern front that year.
Would be nice to see some figures in France and the Rhein campaigns.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Eh?
"I must beg to differ . . . 250,000 Axis casualties in North Africa made no difference?"
250-300.000 POWS in the mopping up in Tunisia alone.
More lost aircraft than on the eastern front that year.
Would be nice to see some figures in France and the Rhein campaigns.
Yes, Angus, I believe you are right, but in making my point I would have rather understated than overstated. I have no idea how many troops the Axis lost prior to Tunisia, but the 250,000 number is one I have stuck in my head, so felt safe using it. It also coincided with the 1943 year that seemed to be popping up in both Kweassa's and Blogs' posts.
And Kweassa, the casulaty counts are indeed staggering, which is actually IMHO supporting my point. The Axis were eventually ground down on the East front, no question. But the cost was absolutely staggering. An extra half-millon, million, 2 million (whatever the number is) Axis troops on the East front instead of the West over the course of the 3 years 41 to 44 would have doomed the Soviets.
In essence we are arguing a matter of degree. You are saying . . .
Originally posted by Kweassa
But with or without them, the Red Army would have finished the war as the victor, and that is also for sure.
. . . and I am saying that is far from sure. Don't misunderstand . . . I am in no way attempting to argue the opposite, that Britain and the US could have done it without the USSR, because I am not sure whether or not they could have (Well, could have, yes, had the will to take the losses necessary, I have doubts). But I do not see the logic that says the USSR could continue to absorb the losses they did indefintely without the actions of the West.
Slightly off topic -- I will argue that the US and Britain (and China and Australia and etc.) would have won against Japan without the USSR. Japan was already defeated before the USSR crossed the border in August 1945. And as it relates the war of the Axis vs the USSR, I hope you can at least agree that without Western "involvement", Japan most likely would have supported their German allies and attacked Siberia, which again would have doomed the USSR. But Japan was never given that option due to the actions of the West in the years leading up to 1941.
-
Basically nobody could have done it without the others IMHO.
As a sidenote, the German conquest of mainland Europe as well as the BoB (1939 to fall 1940) might have proved a tough one without resources from the USSR.....buggers :noid
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Although USSR did not win WW2 single handedly /QUOTE]
Duhhh...It was John Wayne, or was it Tom Hanks? You need to watch more Hollywood.
:D
As a European I think we are indebted to the USA for it's contribution. Not a pc thing to says, especially in some countries (France eg) but a fact. Without the US there would've been no D-day. We would have been in an uncomfortable stalemate with the Germans; India and Burma fallen to Japan and probably Australia & New Zealand. Meanwhile the Russian bear would have continued pushing it's steamroller west. Many commentators think the Russians wouldn't have stopped at Germany - why should they? The Allies had to invade mainland Europe not only to dislodge the Nazis, but to prevent a Communist dominated Europe - unthinkable to the Americans.
The Russians were the main force in defeating the Nazis. The US buffered us against USSR domination. 40 yrs of cold war highlights that.
Regards
-
I think the most valuable contribution that America made to Europe in WW2 was in stopping the Russian army.
I don't think that Japan would have intervened and gone into Siberia... I think the battle of Khalkin Gol scared them too much. I do vaguely remember reading that Richard Sorge reported to Stalin that the Japanese would come into the war if Stalingrad fell... but Stalingrad didn't fall. The most valuable role the U.S. played in the war in Europe was in supplying the Soviets with material. Trucks especially.. I forgot the number of trucks that were given to the Soviets but the number is staggering.
-
The Soviets had infiltrated Japanese decision making and were well aware that Japan had no plans in invading the Soviets from the east. In fact this is what allowed the Soviets to stop, then counter-attack at Moscow and ultimately for Operation Uranus. Siberian troops were pulled west because the there was no threat of attack by Japan.
The Soviets had weathered the storm of German attacks before the US entered the War. The Soviets had chewed up most of Germany's war production before the effects of strategic bombing were realized. In fact the German war economy didn't entirely collapse until the situation on the ground was all but decided.
The impact of lend lease wasn't realized until mid - late '43 at which time the Soviets were well on their way to victory. The most valuable lend lease commodities to the Soviets were trucks and canned meat products.
WW2 was won on the ground, it was won in the East. An operation like Bagaration was epic in scale.
-
The agent in Japan was...Sorge right?
But this:
"The Soviets had chewed up most of Germany's war production before the effects of strategic bombing were realized"
Care to explain this a wee more? I presume you mean smallarms, tanks and manpower, etc.?
And this:
"The Soviets had weathered the storm of German attacks before the US entered the War"
The USSR was quite close to collapsing. But they didn't (I argued with someone on this board that said they basically did, - Kurfie probably)
And this:
"The most valuable lend lease commodities to the Soviets were trucks and canned meat products"
Don't forget the boots :D
-
Just for fun, quoting R. Overy's collection of figures in the lendlease;
-14,204 aircraft (9,438 fighters, 3,771 bombers)
- 6,196 tanks
- 363,080 trucks
- 43,728 jeeps
- 32,200 motorcycles
- 325,784 tons of explosives
- 35,089 tele-communcation shacks
- 380,135 telephones
- 5,889 radio receivers
- 956,688 miles of telephone wires
- 782,973 tons of canned meat
- 14,793,000 boots
- 2,577,000 belts
- 339,599 tons of copper
- 261,311 tons of aluminum
-
14,793,000 boots :D
And some rough 100 lbs of meat to go with the pair as well as the rough 50 lbs of explosives.
A mean army of 14 million on the march :D
Or if it's single boots, - then a 7 million strong with twice the ordnance :D
-
Not to sure of your point.
I know that Stalin was not about to surrender ever, But discounting the effect of the loss of Moscow as a transportation hub is hard to support.
It would have in effect "trapped" the russians east and "freed" the germans in the west. Its tough to exaclty surmise what German occupation of a line moscow west would have been like for them in 1942, but it certainly would have been a drastically better postion for them then they held at the kick off of the 42 summer offensive in the south and a drastically worse postition for Stalin.
Originally posted by joeblogs
More years ago than I care to admit, I wrote a thesis that described what the German General Staff told Hitler: The other side has lost; they should forfeit the game.
Only trouble was that Stalin did not see the game that way, even if Moscow was to be evacuated,
-Blogs
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Not to sure of your point.
I know that Stalin was not about to surrender ever, But discounting the effect of the loss of Moscow as a transportation hub is hard to support.
It would have in effect "trapped" the russians east and "freed" the germans in the west. Its tough to exaclty surmise what German occupation of a line moscow west would have been like for them in 1942, but it certainly would have been a drastically better postion for them then they held at the kick off of the 42 summer offensive in the south and a drastically worse postition for Stalin.
Good points. Losing Moscow would have made it far more difficult for the Russians, but that's a far cry from saying that they would have thrown in the towel and surrendered, which is what the German generals' theory seems to have been.
- oldman
-
Well, if the Germans would have gained a proper foothold of Moscow, I'd think the deal would have been over for the USSR.
No big scale war after that, more like skirmishing.
-
Glad to see not everyone believe US won WW2 alone (with little help their minor friends).
Kweassa, Karnak, joeblogs, Oldman and others.
Dont sure was it posted before or not, it was made year ago in 60th anniversary of the WW2 victory. If you dont seen it yet look it now, it worth your time.
http://english.pobediteli.ru/
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Just for fun, quoting R. Overy's collection of figures in the lendlease;
This is but a small example of the volume of Lend-Lease material sent to the USSR. And looking at the casualties on the eastern front, the western Allies got away cheap.
The Arsenal of Democracy was also the Arsenal of all Anti-Nazi nations.
Much of the machine tools used in Soviet factories was American made. The great irony was that the USA basically provided the Soviets much of the industrial base for the cold war.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Along with lots of stuff that the USSR harvested in conquered Germany :D
Anyway that link Oleg sent is nice.
-
Originally posted by Angus
What Milo said.
I once browsed through the LW loss records in the IWM. I was stunned to see that they were losing equal or more aircraft in N-Africa alone than in the east. (1942, at the time of Stalingrad)
Would have taken days to compile it properly though.
Hi,
this isnt a suprise. Simply look to the tactical circumstances.
While the LW fighters had the tactical advantage in russia till the end, they got forced into a tactical disadvatage after El Allamain, cause they had to protect the particular unorganisated rearward going DAK (after Hitlers crazy 'Stand or die" command, which disalloved a organisated withdrawal when it was time to.) and short time after this they had a 2nd front in Algeria/Tunesia. And instead of evacuating the german troops from Tunesia(like the brits did in Duenkirk), Hitler now brought the former badly needed supply to tunesia. But this did lead to a tactically hopeless position for the LW. They had to protect the lot of low and slow flying Ju52´s and also the low flying bombers and Jabo´s. With other words they got presured into the same poor tactical position like Stalin´s VVS, but the LW was much less in numbers and dont had the resources.
Similar it was while intercepting the escorted bombers. The topcover simply was to smal in numbers to defend the 'Schwere Gruppen", while the Bombers itself brough a not to smal number of losses(specialy before the FW190A7-R8 was available).
Over russia the LW could dictate the rules, they had hordes of low flying enemys, anyway in most cases with poor high alt performence.
So here it was "easy" for the german pilot to get home with a kill, while in the west it was pretty much more difficult not to end with a higher enemy on the tail.
Only my opinon!
Greetings, Knegel
-
All nonsense we all Know the USa singlehandedly won the War with its Chuck Norris P-51 Mustang, it wasn't a self inflicted wound that killed hitler it was a 50 cal roundwith 8 feet penetrating power that entered the bunker and blew up in the door and a part of it made from steel lodged itself in Hitler's cranium thus causing him his death twittler Wulf Yeah!
-
This debate doesnt need to be soo long....there is only one answer to this whole thing....
The Allies' greatest ally was there Enemy...
Hitler's Number one enemy was himself...
His stupidity and "unrealistic" tactics caused him the war...
It was NOT That the allies had better airpower....
The LW, despite losing the war had better pilots and aircraft...
has everyone failed to realized that germany had been rebuilding their military since the end of WW1?
Although recources was an issue... if it had not been for Hitlers lack of intelligence and wanting to fight a war on 3 different fronts the war wouldve had a different outcome...
On PTO side of things the pilots and A/C were also better than american airpower.... keep in mind that im not talking about numbers...Americans had an advantage over numbers...but the fact is that the japanese were fighting way before they attacked pearl harbor..
Bottom line is that the reason allies won the war:
-Allies had better recources
-American factories couldnt be bombed
-Hitler was a cuddlinghunk that didnt listen to his generals or pilots.. and his tactics were horrible....AND he didnt realize the significance or RADAR.....
I mean really who in the world tries to win a war by bombing civilians (bombing attacks on London) instead of using his recources to hit british aircraft factories, oil refineries or radar installations...
-
Originally posted by Platano
I mean really who in the world tries to win a war by bombing civilians (bombing attacks on London) instead of using his recources to hit british aircraft factories, oil refineries or radar installations...
Worked for the Brits and Americans in Japan and Germany.
-
Originally posted by LEDPIG
Simple question why were the allies so successful in ww2,
was watching a millitary channel special on the battle of brittian last night, one point they made was that during BOB the brits were fighting with homefield advantage, ie when a german got shot down it was in enemy teritory hence more pow's, the brits however useually just cuaght a ride back to base......
so less trained pilots for the LW......
another good reason. we stopped thier ability to make war materials.
and hitler was crazy too.....
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Worked for the Brits and Americans in Japan and Germany.
didnt work for germany...
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Worked for the Brits and Americans in Japan and Germany.
Didn't even come closing to working on Germany. If it worked, German production numbers would have gone down. They continued to climb until the end of the war. They were out of fuel, not machines or warm bodies to stuff in them. It didn't even have a large impact on civillian morale, due to a totalarian regime. Civil unrest did not unseat the Fuhrer either (but some angry generals almost did).
-
Originally posted by indy007
Didn't even come closing to working on Germany. If it worked, German production numbers would have gone down. They continued to climb until the end of the war. . .
I don't want to read too much into your post, so this isn't necessarily directed at you or anyone else in particular . . .
I have heard it said, sometimes even by so-called "experts", that strategic bombing had no impact on the war. They use as evidence the fact that German war production increased right up until 1945.
Well, I ask this. If you have a factory that produces 100 tanks in 1940, and it produces 120 in 1944, does that mean allied bombing had no effect on that factory? After all, production went up 20%.
Now, lets say that factory was producing fewer than 10 tanks per month in 1940, but was producing 20 tanks per month in 1944 -- but was SHUT DOWN for 6 months due to bombing. Now would you say bombing had an effect?
Said another way, we don't know how much MORE prodution would have increased had bombing not occurred. Bombing certainly had an impact on the distribution, or rather dispersal, of production facilities. How much more efficient would those facilities have been had they had very large complexes like the USA and USSR relied upon rather than the more dispersed network they ended up with? How much more efficient would their production have been had the transportation networks not been bombed? How much better would their defenses and fortifications (read:West Wall) have been had constructon crews been busy building them instead of repairing and replacing factories and transportation? How many more tanks could have been built with all the steel that went into replacing rail lines and for structural support for bombed buildings?
Granted, these are rhetorical questions and no one can answer them with any degree of certainty. But I don't think it is logical to say that because production increased, strategic bombing didn't have a large impact.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Didn't even come closing to working on Germany. If it worked, German production numbers would have gone down. They continued to climb until the end of the war. They were out of fuel, not machines or warm bodies to stuff in them. It didn't even have a large impact on civillian morale, due to a totalarian regime. Civil unrest did not unseat the Fuhrer either (but some angry generals almost did).
From Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won," W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., London and New York 1995, at pp. 131-133 (footnotes and sources omitted):
"The stifling of industrial potential caused by bombing is inherently difficult to quantify, but it was well beyond the 10 per cent suggested by the post-war bombing survey, particularly in the cluster of war industries specifically under attack. At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 per cent fewer tanks than planned, 31 per cent fewer aircraft and 42 per cent fewer lorries as a result of bombing. The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion, and eased the path of Allied armies.
"The indirect effects were more important still, for the bombing offensive forced the German economy to switch very large resources away from equipment for the fighting fronts, using them instead to combat the bombing threat. By 1944 one-third of all German artillery production consisted of anti-aircraft guns; the anti-aircraft effort absorbed 20 per cent of all ammunition produced, one-third of the output of the optical industry, and between half and two-thirds of the production of radar and signals equipment. As a result of this diversion, the German army and navy were desperately short of essential radar and communications equipment for other tasks. The bombing also ate into German's scarce manpower; by 1944 an estimated two million Germans were engaged in anti-aircraft defence, in repairing shattered factories and in generally cleaning up the destruction. From the spring of that year frantic efforts were made to burrow underground, away from the bombing. Fantastic schemes were promoted which absorbed almost half of all industrial construction and close to half a million workers. Of course, if the German efforts to combat the bombing had succeeded the effort would not have been wasted. As it was the defences and repair teams did enough to keep production going until the autumn of 1944, but not enough to prevent the rapid erosion of German economic power thereafter, and not enough to prevent the massive redirection of economic effort from 1943. Bombing forced Germany to divide the economy between too many competing claims, none of which could, in the end, be satisfied. In the air over Germany, or on the fronts in Russia and France, German forces lacked the weapons to finish the job. The combined effects of direct destruction and the diversion of resources denied German forces approximately half their battle-front weapons and equipment in 1944. It is difficult not to regard this margin as decisive.
****
"The impact of the bombing was profound. People became tired, highly strung and disinclined to take isks. Industrial efficiency was undermined by bombing workers and their housing. In Japan absenteeism from work rose to 50 per cent in the summer of 1945; in the Ford plant in Cologne, in the Ruhr, absenteeism rose to 25 per cent of the workforce for the whole of 1944. At the more distant BMW works in Munich the rate rose to one-fifth of the workforce by the summer of 1944. A loss of work-hours on this scale played havoc with production schedules...
****
"There has always seemed something fundamentally implausible about the contention of bombing's critics that dropping almost 2.5 million tons of bombs on tautly-stretched industrial systems and war-weary urban populations would not seriously weaken them. Germany and Japan had no special immunity. Japan's military economy was devoured in the flames; her population desperately longed for escape from bombing. German forces lost half of the weapons needed at the front, millions of workers absented themselves from work, and the economy gradually creaked almost to a halt. Bombing turned the whole of Germany, in Speer's words, into a 'gigantic front'. It was a front the Allies were determined to win; it absorbed huge resources on both sides. It was a battlefield in which only the infantry were missing. The final victory of the bombers in 1944 was, Speer, concluded, 'the greatest lost battle on the German side...' For all the arguments over the morality or operational effectiveness of the bombing campaigns, the air offensive was one of the decisive elements in Allied victory."
-
Read these & see if you get the same conclusion.
Strategy: Second Revised Edition, by B.H. Liddell Hart (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452010713/ref=pd_bxgy_img_b/103-8379962-3839809?%5Fencoding=UTF8)
and
History of the Second World War, by B.H. Liddell Hart (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306809125/ref=pd_sim_b_5/103-8379962-3839809?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155).
Even if you don't agree with everything he says, he's really sharp.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Granted, these are rhetorical questions and no one can answer them with any degree of certainty.
I think Oldman just pwned my statement . . . :)
-
Oldman : :aok
BTW, the Brits didn't know how far they went in the first heavy bombing on Hamburg. It caused a firestorm and some 40.000 casualties at least.
Speer said that if a couple more of such raids had taken place within some few months Germany would have had no option than to resign.
Now that is a big statement for 1943?
-
A bombing campaign might be called a success if the other guy's output rose substantially less than it otherwise did.
In the case of Germany, the boom in output was primarily due to the very late decision to completely mobilize the economy - roughly at the end of Stalingrad. If the boom had ocurred earlier, it would be easier to separate these two effects.
Strategic bombing really didn't make its mark for a year or more after that and it did seriously damages the German gasoline industry and the transportation network. They built a lot of planes, but they were too short of avgas to train the new pilots...
-Blogs
Originally posted by indy007
Didn't even come closing to working on Germany. If it worked, German production numbers would have gone down. They continued to climb until the end of the war. They were out of fuel, not machines or warm bodies to stuff in them. It didn't even have a large impact on civillian morale, due to a totalarian regime. Civil unrest did not unseat the Fuhrer either (but some angry generals almost did).
-
While its proponents have always made great claims about the effectiveness of strategic bombing, the results have rarely lived up to those claims. As a means of destroying the industrial base of the enemy, strategic bombing during World War II failed. Bombing Germany became devastating only in the final year of the war, at a time when the military outcome of the war was already reasonably predictable. While the bombing campaign certainly had an impact on Luftwaffe deployments and interfered with production to some extent, this cannot be argued to be of decisive importance to the war.
Richard Overy, in his book Why the Allies Won, makes the following statement about the effectiveness of British and American bombing of the Third Reich: "At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 percent fewer tanks than planned, 31 percent fewer aircraft and 42 percent fewer lorries as a result of bombing. The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies."
On the surface, Speer's analysis tells us that the Allied strategic bombing campaign had a decisive impact on the German war effort in 1944. Based on figures found in Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," the Germans produced in 1944: 17,800 tanks, 39,807 aircraft. So that, on the basis of Speer's statement, they aimed to produce 24,030 tanks and 52,147 aircraft. For comparison, Allied production of tanks and aircraft in 1944 resulted in 51,500 tanks (USSR: 29,000; UK: 5,000; USA: 17,500) and 163,079 aircraft (USSR: 40,300; UK 26,461; USA: 96,318). Therefore, even with the additional production that would have resulted from no bombing at all, the Allies still produce twice as many tanks and more than three times the number of aircraft as the Third Reich.
Such figures do not support Overy's conclusion that bombing Germany had "fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies." In terms of the kind of war of attrition fought in 1944 the additional German production would not have made a decisive difference. Allied production for 1944 is clearly overwhelming. Looking at the military situation on the ground in 1944 is even more telling of how the war is going.
Overy goes on to say: "The indirect effects were more important still, for the bombing offensive forced the German economy to switch very large resources away from equipment for the fighting fronts, using them instead to combat the bombing threat." At least, an ever-increasing number of Luftwaffe units were devoted to the air defense of the Reich as the war progressed. And, new aircraft production shifted towards fighters and away from bombers. The question remains as to whether this impact of the Allied bombing campaign was decisive to the outcome of the war or had just a marginal effect on it.
Furthermore, the converse of Overy's remark was also true. The production of bomber forces represented a significant resource expenditure for the US and especially Great Britain. Was this a worthwhile military expenditure? The results of the campaign are debatable. Certainly the German capitulation did not come about because of the Allied bombing campaign. That honor must go to the land campaigns fought by the allies. So, could the resources devoted to the bomber force been more effectively employed elsewhere?
Perhaps the greatest oversight in an analysis that focuses on the latter part of the war is that the crucial period to consider is from 1941 to 1943. It is in this period that German power is substantial and the possibility of a German military victory exists. How effective was the Allied bomber campaign during this period? According to a table found in the Penguin Atlas of World History, the Allies dropped about 10,000 tons on Germany in 1940, 30,000 tons in 1941, 40,000 tons in 1942 and 120,000 tons in 1943 while in 1944 they drop 650,000 tons and in 1945, about 500,000 tons are dropped in the first four months (at that rate, 1.5 million tons would be dropped over the course of 1945). Considering that Germany dropped about 37,000 tons on the UK in 1940, another 22,000 tons in 1941, with a few thousand tons every year thereafter with marginal results, there is little reason to believe that the scale of Allied bombing between 1940 and 1943 was substantial enough to alter the military balance in 1941 or 1942 either. Yet those are critical years to consider because that was when Soviet survival hung in the balance and British possessions in the Middle East were threatened by conquest.
Indeed, a look at the effectiveness of strategic bombing during the Second World War suggests that it is only effective against an enemy that has already been defeated militarily. In the case of the air war against the Third Reich, bombing only caused serious economic disruptions in the final year of the war, roughly from June 1944 to May 1945. By this time a German military defeat was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Based on such results, it is impossible to demonstrate that the bombing campaign would have achieved an economic breakdown of Germany since by the time such destruction was being caused; the fronts were already collapsing in both east and west. The Soviet Union, for all intents, had won the land war by the middle of 1944 and the successful Normandy invasion delivered the coup de grace. To make a case for the bombing campaign being decisive the reverse would have to be expected. That is, the fronts would have had to collapse after the industrial damage was done. As it was, strategic bombing merely contributed to the wholesale destruction caused by the general weakness of German resistance in the final year of World War II.
-
Interesting view, Bruno.
So, according to that logic, if the Allied bombings were truly 'decisive' then only after such bombings had sufficiently occured wuld the Germans be pushed back from all fronts, indicating catastrophic destruction of the war machine.
However, only after the tide of the war has been completely turned against the Germans by the Soviets, did the collective toll of bombings start to manifest. Therefore the strategic bombing had effectively destroyed all hopes of the Germans making a rebound, or prolonging its resistance to much longer years - but it was not a decisive factor in pushing the Germans into the corner in the first place. Effectively, they were already defeated by the Russians, heading towards the inevitable, and strategic bombing was responsible for speeding up the process of defeat, not necessarily working as a factor for producing the defeat itself.
...
Personally, this view seems more consistent with how I view the WW2 as a war primarily between the Russians and the Germans, with the Western Allies taking part in a much smaller role than what the traditional Western view on WW2 claims it to be.
May I ask the source for the quote?
-
I think the point has already been made. The air war had a significant effect on the outcome of the war, but it did not by itself decide the war.
The sheer difference in economic capacity, and the decision by the allies to mobilize it sooner, was more important.
-blogs
Originally posted by Bruno
-
mmmm, there's a bit of a difference in what you are all arguing.
Grand Strategic Bombing = blowing up ball bearing factories, airframe assembly buildings, forges, population centers, etc.
Strategic Bombing = bridges, fuel dumps, railyards, communication hubs, logistics centers, etc.
Tactical Bombing = individual enemy units
To me, Grand Strategic Bombing smacks horribly of attrition warfare. I believe it's a stupid way to fight. It had impact. It'd be hard not to unloading millions of tons of ordnance into a country. However, that impact is nowhere near as critical as what is taught in US history books & potrayed in movies. Remember, this was a strategy espoused by visionaries that thought after we obtained nuclear weapons, no other armed service would even be needed... from the same country as the guys who told our soldiers the Sherman was more than a match for German armor... hell, I wouldn't be suprised if they were all related to the guys who said the F-4 didn't need a cannon. Our armed forces make mistakes. I happen to feel strongly that grand stategic bombing was one of them.
Strategic bombing was obviously far more of a success. They had thousands and thousands of completed tanks & aircraft, but nothing to fuel them with. If you have 2,000 Tigers & Panthers guarding your lines, but only enough gas for 5... you've got just another Maginot Line.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
While its proponents have always made great claims about the effectiveness of strategic bombing, the results have rarely lived up to those claims. As a means of destroying the industrial base of the enemy, strategic bombing during World War II failed. Bombing Germany became devastating only in the final year of the war, at a time when the military outcome of the war was already reasonably predictable. While the bombing campaign certainly had an impact on Luftwaffe deployments and interfered with production to some extent, this cannot be argued to be of decisive importance to the war.
This is a great example of what Overy was talking about, I think. Simplified, the author is saying "the war was already lost by the time the bombing campaign became effective, and so the bombing campaign was not effective." There's no doubt that the Germans had lost the war by 1943, and really it's pretty plain that they had lost it by the end of 1941. But I don't see how anyone can say that strategic bombing didn't significantly shorten the war. Arguing, as this author does, that the Allies produced more tanks than the Germans could have produced in the absence of the bombing leads only to the conclusion that the Allies ultimately would have won by ground forces alone. Fine, I think we can all agree to that. But if the Germans had had all the extra tanks, trucks, guns, aircraft, ammunition, personnel and petroleum that the bombing eliminated, the Russians certainly wouldn't have advanced as far or as fast as they did, nor would we.
- oldman
-
How much longer would the war have gone on?
-Blogs
Originally posted by Oldman731
This is a great example of what Overy was talking about, I think. Simplified, the author is saying "the war was already lost by the time the bombing campaign became effective, and so the bombing campaign was not effective." There's no doubt that the Germans had lost the war by 1943, and really it's pretty plain that they had lost it by the end of 1941. But I don't see how anyone can say that strategic bombing didn't significantly shorten the war. Arguing, as this author does, that the Allies produced more tanks than the Germans could have produced in the absence of the bombing leads only to the conclusion that the Allies ultimately would have won by ground forces alone. Fine, I think we can all agree to that. But if the Germans had had all the extra tanks, trucks, guns, aircraft, ammunition, personnel and petroleum that the bombing eliminated, the Russians certainly wouldn't have advanced as far or as fast as they did, nor would we.
- oldman
-
Simplified, the author is saying "the war was already lost by the time the bombing campaign became effective, and so the bombing campaign was not effective."
That's not all he says:
The production of bomber forces represented a significant resource expenditure for the US and especially Great Britain. Was this a worthwhile military expenditure? The results of the campaign are debatable. Certainly the German capitulation did not come about because of the Allied bombing campaign.
So with out the bombing campaign the Germans would have produced more war materials. However, not in any quantity that would have turned the tide.
How many more tanks and fighters could the western allies have produced without the resources tied up in bomber production? How about just the B-29 alone..?
They could have shifted production from strategic bombers to tactical bombers and attack aircraft. By utilizing these assets to shut down the transportation (preventing the extra war materials from ever reaching the front; German transportation was already beyond capacity as it was) and overwhelming German resources at the front. This is what the Soviets did... This what western allies did once they were turned loose from escort duty. Allied interdiction raids by fighter-bombers and tactical bombers played a huge roll in isolating Normandy etc...
But if the Germans had had all the extra tanks, trucks, guns, aircraft, ammunition, personnel and petroleum that the bombing eliminated, the Russians certainly wouldn't have advanced as far or as fast as they did, nor would we.
The Russians still would have taken Berlin. They may have been forced to pause longer between attacks to build up for the next offensive but the outcome would have been the same.
The Soviets had already turned the tied long before lend lease provided any meaningful quantities of war materials and before the effect of the bombing campaign was felt on German War production.
The bombing campaign like a lot of other things gets rationalized after the fact. 'Well, it had to do something or why would we do it...' Of course it contributed to the end of the war but it wasn't as decisive as it was advertised to be, and it wasn't the only solution available to the war planners. The cost in materials and resources to the allies, not to mention the the loss of civilians lives and the lives of air crews, it seems a bit much to pay for merely contributing.
I am glad we don't plan wars like that any more...
-
Well, you have to look at it like this.
Did the contribution to ending the war cost more money/lives/material than would have been spent in defeating Germany than concentrating on the Japanese would have.
Or to put it better, would the Soviets have lost more men/money/stuff in defeating the Germans solo then we did in helping them defeat the Germans? I think even saving Soviet lives (and actually... even German lives by ending the war sooner) is worthwhile, and we got the added bonus of keeping them from occupying Western Europe along with Eastern Europe.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
So with out the bombing campaign the Germans would have produced more war materials. However, not in any quantity that would have turned the tide.
How many more tanks and fighters could the western allies have produced without the resources tied up in bomber production? How about just the B-29 alone..?
...er....not enough to change the course of the war?
Production decisions, probably for all modern wars, are made long before hostilities begin. The Russians could be fairly certain that they would be able to advance their armies overland against all anticipated enemies. They could get along with just tac air. Neither we nor the British could, because of all that water between Us and Them. In the end I guess you try to diversify your efforts enough that you can deal with the most likely scenarios, one of which was that the Russians wouldn't be in the war (either because they were still allied with the Nazis or because they were defeated or made a separate peace). We needed the option, we planned for it, and it helped.
They could have shifted production from strategic bombers to tactical bombers and attack aircraft. By utilizing these assets to shut down the transportation (preventing the extra war materials from ever reaching the front; German transportation was already beyond capacity as it was) and overwhelming German resources at the front. This is what the Soviets did... This what western allies did once they were turned loose from escort duty. Allied interdiction raids by fighter-bombers and tactical bombers played a huge roll in isolating Normandy etc...
[/b]
All true, but also all hindsight. As it was it took the English nearly four years to get their strategic bombing to pay dividends, and it took us two, building on their experience. And these production decisions couldn't have been made overnight.
The Russians still would have taken Berlin. They may have been forced to pause longer between attacks to build up for the next offensive but the outcome would have been the same.
The Soviets had already turned the tied long before lend lease provided any meaningful quantities of war materials and before the effect of the bombing campaign was felt on German War production.
[/b]
Agreed. But this all this says is that strategic bombing didn't win the war by itself, and no one disagrees with that statement.
The bombing campaign like a lot of other things gets rationalized after the fact. 'Well, it had to do something or why would we do it...' Of course it contributed to the end of the war but it wasn't as decisive as it was advertised to be, and it wasn't the only solution available to the war planners. The cost in materials and resources to the allies, not to mention the the loss of civilians lives and the lives of air crews, it seems a bit much to pay for merely contributing.
I am glad we don't plan wars like that any more...
Speaking of hindsight! Right after the fact there was no doubt in the Germans' minds that the strategic bombing campaign had been decisive. I don't think I've seen a single post-war interview with any of their generals that didn't make that point. The USAF Strategic Bombing Survey made the same point. It wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s, when bombing over Viet Nam wasn't winning the war, that people started dissing the WWII campaign. That revisionism never made sense to me. If, in March of 1944, we could suddenly have decided to melt down all the B17s and mold them into P47s, and turn their crews into fighter pilots, then maybe that would have worked better than continuing the bombing campaign. But we obviously couldn't. More, by then, as a direct result of the bombing campaign, we had established air superiority. I don't think there was any other way to do that. Simply waiting until the invasion, and then filling the skies with a cloud of planes, would have been answered by a corresponding German cloud of planes. We had to take the air war to a place where the Luftwaffe had no choice but to respond, so that we could kill their pilots with our escort fighters, in order to get air superiority.
AND I don't think ANYONE argues that our strategic bombing campaign was not decisive against Japan. That campaign grew directly out of all our efforts and experience in Europe.
- oldman
-
Neither we nor the British could, because of all that water between Us and Them. In the end I guess you try to diversify your efforts enough that you can deal with the most likely scenarios, one of which was that the Russians wouldn't be in the war (either because they were still allied with the Nazis or because they were defeated or made a separate peace). We needed the option, we planned for it, and it helped.
The English Channel isn't a lot of water... besides British pre-war policy was always to ally with France if war in Europe broke out. No one envisioned the fall of France and as such the British couldn't foresee the need for long range bombers as an 'only resort'. The Brits always viewed strategic bombing as means to an end.
America didn't have a viable design for a cross ocean bomber until late, they certainly didn't have any foresight into how the opening phases of the the war in Europe went. War planners there believed as the British did, that strategic bombing was a means to an end.
Soviet war planning and production was completely upset by the German invasion and had to be completely re-constructed while at the same time fighting with the tools at hand. It was evident to the Soviets that the immediate threat was those German forces at the front or re-enforcing the front and they didn't have the time to develop a strategy utilizing long range bombers. They did not pre-plan a tactical air force... They would strap bombs and rockets on anything that could fly.
All true, but also all hindsight. As it was it took the English nearly four years to get their strategic bombing to pay dividends, and it took us two, building on their experience. And these production decisions couldn't have been made overnight.
British experience lead them to believe daylight bombing of German would be costly and futile.
Speaking of hindsight! Right after the fact there was no doubt in the Germans' minds that the strategic bombing campaign had been decisive. I don't think I've seen a single post-war interview with any of their generals that didn't make that point.
You find that a lot of what those 'generals' said vary with who it is they are talking to. Not to mention many times the quotes are taken out of context. Even Speer tripped all over himself with contradicting claims about the effect of allied bombing. I can post quotes but I don't have time as I need to head out for dinner...
The USAF Strategic Bombing Survey made the same point.
Well the THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY (Summary Report) (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#pagei)
Allied air power was decisive in the war in Western Europe. Hindsight inevitably suggests
Page 16
that it might have been employed differently or better in some respects. Nevertheless, it was decisive. In the air, its victory was complete. At sea, its contribution, combined with naval power, brought an end to the enemy's greatest naval threat -- the U-boat; on land, it helped turn the tide overwhelmingly in favor of Allied ground forces. Its power and superiority made possible the success of the invasion. It brought the economy which sustained the enemy's armed forces to virtual collapse, although the full effects of this collapse had not reached the enemy's front lines when they were overrun by Allied forces. It brought home to the German people the full impact of modern war with all its horror and suffering. Its imprint on the German nation will be lasting.
I gotta run I will post a better reply later...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
The English Channel isn't a lot of water... besides British pre-war policy was always to ally with France if war in Europe broke out. No one envisioned the fall of France and as such the British couldn't foresee the need for long range bombers as an 'only resort'. The Brits always viewed strategic bombing as means to an end.
Come on...
No-one could have forseen the fall of France? Your joking. I hope.
French roll over faster than a 2 dollar hooker.
NATO startegy during the cold war was to consider it a foregone conclusion France would fall, yet again.
As the old joke goes -
Why does Paris have tree lined streets?
So the Germans can march in the shade :) .
-
Hi Oldman,
>Right after the fact there was no doubt in the Germans' minds that the strategic bombing campaign had been decisive. I don't think I've seen a single post-war interview with any of their generals that didn't make that point.
Absolutely. And it weren't just generals - Speer shared that view, as did Milch. According to Speer, the Dambusters' Raid had very serious consequences due to the resultant loss of electrical power, and the Schweinfurt raids came very close to stopping the supply of the industry with ball bearings of certain important sizes. After the Schweinfurt raids, the Germans soon recognized their petrol industry was critical to their war effort and highly vulnerable - and the USAAF attacks that followed had a heavy impact.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of the resources and the efforts that went into defense against the Allied bombing campaign, and the damage caused by the Allied bombers.
There is a tendency in the US literature to deny the effectiveness of their bombing strategy, though it really had a major impact on WW2 Germany. This does not seem to be in line with the historical dimensions of the USAAF and - to a lesser degree - RAF successes against the German industry.
Had strategic bombing been better understood in WW2, the historical results could even have been surpassed, but there probably was no other way to understanding than to make mistakes and then to learn from them ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Yeah IMO it played an important part in bringing the war to and end, but not by itself.
What would have happened if the war in Europe had dragged on?
Less resources for the Far east.
In fact makes you wonder - If the war against Germany was still going on would they have used one of the nukes against Berlin?
-
Ponder on this:
What would have become of the eastern front war if the British had decided to negotiate for peace in the summer of 1940?
(Hitler's appeal to reason)
I'd put my money on the Germans. Reasons:
1: Much more infantry (Less tied up all over the place)
2: Much more airpower (Same as above, and no late 1940 losses)
3: Much more resources (No embargo. Remember that the Germans could "legally" shop in the US!
4: Only one front (No other enemy to guard, no upcoming desert war)
5: Naval power (Would have helped in the black sea)
6: Time. The invasion would most likely have started earlier.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Come on...
No-one could have forseen the fall of France? Your joking. I hope.
French roll over faster than a 2 dollar hooker.
NATO startegy during the cold war was to consider it a foregone conclusion France would fall, yet again.
As the old joke goes -
Why does Paris have tree lined streets?
So the Germans can march in the shade :) .
Hope this is tongue in cheek ;) No I'm not French. Anyway, France had a considerable army, reasonably modern aircraft, tanks etc. So how did the Germans defeat France so easily? The only quick answer I can come up with is Blitzkrieg and going thorugh the Ardennes. But what about the quality of the French forces and their morale? Was their political infighting? Old fashioned military thinking? The French may have been beaten quickly but the British forces had to be rescued at Dunkirk if I'm not mistaken. If it weren't for the English Channel Hitler would have swept away the British as well as the French.
Anyone have a good insight in that? And those stale jokes about the French are really getting old btw.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I'd put my money on the Germans.
Well. The thing is, in real life the Germans did way better than they had any reasonable expectation of doing. The Soviets generally played straight man to the German routine, walking into just about every trap that was set for them. It seems to me that any "what if" discussion ought to include the possibility that the Russians would actually do something brighter than what they did, rather than just continuing to play punching bag to Hitler.
Under those circumstances, with England out of the war or in it, what would have happened if Stalin had heeded his intelligence and pulled his armies back from the frontier? What if he had begun relocating his industry in 1939? Suppose he had eliminated the commissar system, encouraged initiative in his officers, and/or retired the old civil war cavalry generals and replaced them with tank men, like Hitler did? Or pointed out that they had a lot of space to use, and let them use it, like Alexander I did in 1812 and as Stalin actually did in the summer of 1942?
When you allow the possibility for both sides to improve on their historical actions, there are two huge truths to the Eastern Front: It was a really big place, as Europe goes; and the Soviets had a lot of resources.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
Anyone have a good insight in that?
If you have a chance, nab a copy of Shirer's "Collapse of the Third Republic," and a copy of Alistair Horne's "To Lose a Battle: France 1940." The former is more comprehensive than the latter, but both are good. It's a pretty complicated topic.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
Hope this is tongue in cheek ;) No I'm not French. Anyway, France had a considerable army, reasonably modern aircraft, tanks etc. So how did the Germans defeat France so easily? The only quick answer I can come up with is Blitzkrieg and going thorugh the Ardennes. But what about the quality of the French forces and their morale? Was their political infighting? Old fashioned military thinking? The French may have been beaten quickly but the British forces had to be rescued at Dunkirk if I'm not mistaken. If it weren't for the English Channel Hitler would have swept away the British as well as the French.
Anyone have a good insight in that? And those stale jokes about the French are really getting old btw.
Yes it was tongue in cheek.
As for "swept away" - could of, would of, should of --- DIDN'T, COULDN'T.
In the words of the British attache in the movie B of B - "The last little corporal who tried it came a cropper"
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
As the old joke goes -
I guess it depends on which "old joke," kev. Nations seem to "have their 15 mins of fame" within the roll of the centuries.
Would your assessment of France hold up in the 19th century? Would Cornwallis have anything to say on the matter in the 18th century?
France's 1.3 million lost in ww2 might ask for a more judicious assessment. No?
And I for one, am stymied at their collapse. "Underprepared/not-prepared probably goes a long way. Though explaning it by the general notion that they can't fight their way out of a paper bag runs into the 1700's and 1800's. 1800's most conspicuously. Untill Wellington, of course.
That was then, and this is now. And our "now" is changing.
hap
p.s. ah crud the man cannot read. "Tongue in cheek." Yes.
-
The French aren't the rollovers people think. Read about the Old Guard's last stand at Waterloo, Paris Taxi's in ww1, pockets in the maginot line, the underground resistance in ww2, or Diem Ben Phu. Their fatal mistake was just upgrading their equipment, and not their tactics. No country is immune to that. They simply didn't have the space (assuming space = time) to recover like the Soviets did in the East, the English in North Africa, or the US in the Pacific. Bad strategy does not equal cowardice, just defeat. :(
-
Errrr....Oldman:
"When you allow the possibility for both sides to improve on their historical actions, there are two huge truths to the Eastern Front: It was a really big place, as Europe goes; and the Soviets had a lot of resources"
I was referring to the difference it would have made to the warif the British had decided to stop fighting after Dunkirk.
At that time, they were basically on enemy terms with the USSR BTW.
So, what-if, given the same setup to both Germany and USSR, the UK being out.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Errrr....Oldman:
"When you allow the possibility for both sides to improve on their historical actions, there are two huge truths to the Eastern Front: It was a really big place, as Europe goes; and the Soviets had a lot of resources"
I was referring to the difference it would have made to the warif the British had decided to stop fighting after Dunkirk.
At that time, they were basically on enemy terms with the USSR BTW.
So, what-if, given the same setup to both Germany and USSR, the UK being out.
You mean, an all-other-things-stay-the-same notion? My guess is, probably the same result. Germans left very little in Western Europe to guard against the English in 1941, and they'd still have had to garrison all of the occupied countries. In 1941 Rommel had, what, two German divisions? Pocket change on the Eastern Front. Same with the Luftwaffe forces left in the West, and lack of air power isn't usually considered to have been one of the reasons the Germans fell short in 1941 (inasmuch as there was really no Russian air force to oppose them after Day 3). Russians lost their Baltic Fleet trying to run from Riga as it was, and naval ops in either the Baltic or the Black Sea were never more than a small footnote to the Russian campaign. I don't think the Germans wanted to buy anything in the US in 1940 or 41. Most of the writers in the past 25 years or so seem to agree that starting Barbarossa in May wouldn't have made much difference, mainly because the spring thaws weren't over yet in Leeb's area.
What might have changed with Britain out of it would be Stalin's perception of the threat. Wouldn't have been any further question of who the Germans were after. That might have been enough to make him stop deluding himself, so that he'd have pulled his troops 50 miles back from the border and alerted his air force that the attack was imminent.
Just a guess, but these things can be fun.
- oldman
-
Fun is the right word. Sort of, for speculators like us...now.
Some points :
The Kriegsmarine could have proved very effective on the southern side of the Ukraine, as much as unhampered transport. Sevastopol was quite a fight right?
Unlimited transport and trade always makes a bit.
The troops tied up guarding the occupied countries could yet have been haired down quite a bit. A few divisions at least. (The resistance does not have an ally without the UK)
Anyway, just two divisions (with all the fuss it takes to sent them to Africa) would have meant more than pocket change in the outskirts of Moscow.
The Time, yes. Well, although the Germans couldn't have moved before the spring thaws, - they were still a month or more behind the optimal moment.
A month only would have made quite a bit.
The airpower. Ok, the Germans lost 1200+ aircraft just in the BoB. 4 months. Experienced crew. And then again they had to keep an airforce from Norway, through Denmark, France and down south.
The Italians. Imagine that the Eyeties had aided much more on Barbarossa with Aircraft and naval power instead of jostling with the Brits.
And...the sense of realism. If the Brits had withdrawn, would Stalin have come more to his senses? Tough one ;)
-
see rule #5
-
LOLOLOLOL
-
see rule #2
-
Bruno I have a question for ya.
Why did Stalin DEMAND a second front at Yalta???
If what you espouse is all true he didn't need us at all and could have won the war without us and have "owned" all of Germany alone with no other "allie" to mess with.
The problem with your arguements is that "history" keeps getting in the way.
-
Why did Stalin DEMAND a second front at Yalta???
Your problem is you don't history at all.
The Yalta conference took place from 4-11 Feb '45. I wonder why Stalin would DEMAND a second front then?
Thanks for the laugh...
-
ah hell so I got the wrong meeting but he DID demand it and PRIOR to D-day so answer the question.
I was thinking Yalta but it was obviously before that, Cario?? Gebalter not sure now without looking it up but at one of the first meetings Stalin demanded and got assurances of a "second front"
-
The Tehran Conference is probably what you're thinking of
-
Don't help him...
However, the Tehran Conference wasn't about reassuring the Soviets of the western allied invasion (or of Stalin's DEMAND to open a second front) but of coordinating the invasion with a Soviet offensive (among many other things):
(4) Took note that Operation OVERLORD would be launched during May 1944, in conjunction with an operation against Southern France. The latter operation would be undertaken in as great a strength as availability of landing-craft permitted. The Conference further took note of Marshal Stalin's statement that the Soviet forces would launch an offensive at about the same time with the object of preventing the German forces from transferring from the Eastern to the Western Front:
(5) Agreed that the military staffs of the Three Powers should henceforward keep in close touch with each other in regard to the impending operations in Europe. In particular it was agreed that a cover plan to mystify and mislead the enemy as regards these operations should be concerted between the staffs concerned.
The Tehran Conference took place in Dec '43. The Americans were already engaged with the Nazis in NA since Nov '42.
The Soviet offensive, Operation Bagration, originally set to co-incide with the invasion of France was delayed until 22 June '44. This was the largest offensive launched in Europe.
By '43 the Soviets were well on thier way to defeating Hitler. This followed the Nazi defeat at the Gates of Moscow, the defeat at Stalingrad, the defeat at Kursk etc...
Of course the Soviets were happy about the impending invasion of France but the Soviets had the situation in the east well under control.
-
"Brute Force, How the allies won WW2"
John Ellis
-
Well if you force it upon me I will look up the exact date when Stalin asked for a second front, I am sure I can find it without much effort. The facts are that D-day was in response to his request, since we were already on the continant in Italy.
We actually pulled the "Big Red One" out of the line in Italy so they could participate in the D-day landings so there was no need from the US-Brit side to attack Normandy other than to appease and go along with Stalins request.
To attempt to rewrite history based on some facts not in evidence IMO is silly and if I were one of the Merchant Marine who risked my life to bring lend lease to Russia and then be told it wasn't necessary I would be livid.
I simply do not agree with your assement and I doubt many Americans will. but hey if thats your position so be it I just don't buy it.
-
Originally posted by E25280
see rule #5
Skuzzy, That took me by surprise . . .
I didn't think it was particularly offensive, but since you gave Angus the #2 for his response, a pre-emptive edit must have been in order.
So, I apologize to anyone who found it offensive.
Back to the topic at hand, Bruno, you said:By '43 the Soviets were well on thier way to defeating Hitler. This followed the Nazi defeat at the Gates of Moscow, the defeat at Stalingrad, the defeat at Kursk etc...
and
The Americans were already engaged with the Nazis in NA since Nov '42.
So do you think the latter had something to do with the former? If, for example, the axis had been able to deploy the hundreds of thousands of troops to defend against Uranus/Saturn instead of Torch / Monty, would the defeat at Stalingrad have occurred?
More to the point, I guess I am trying to peg down your opinion. It is obvious you are no fan of the strategic bomber campaign. But are you also saying that without the US and UK, the Soviets would have won anyway? Kweassa seems to think so, obviously most others do not. Most of your posts have dealt with bombing only, so I am having difficulty "reading your mind" on that subject.
(Not looking for a fight, just genuinely curious)
-
This was the initial conference between Roosevelt and Churchill only weeks after Pearl Harbor. At the conference they set a timetable for an invastion of the continent, which proved to be unrealistic.
In any case, Churchill's memoirs are pretty clear that Stalin demanded a second front early and often. There were times that Stalin intimated the USSR might seek a separate peace if the ground war was to be fought entirely with Russian blood.
When it was clear the British generals were not confident an early invasion in France could be pulled off, an invasion of North Africa became a political necessity. Both the US and the USSR wanted to see more action in the West than Montgomery could provide on his own.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Bruno
Don't help him...
However, the Tehran Conference wasn't about reassuring the Soviets of the western allied invasion (or of Stalin's DEMAND to open a second front) but of coordinating the invasion with a Soviet offensive (among many other things):
The Tehran Conference took place in Dec '43. The Americans were already engaged with the Nazis in NA since Nov '42.
The Soviet offensive, Operation Bagration, originally set to co-incide with the invasion of France was delayed until 22 June '44. This was the largest offensive launched in Europe.
By '43 the Soviets were well on thier way to defeating Hitler. This followed the Nazi defeat at the Gates of Moscow, the defeat at Stalingrad, the defeat at Kursk etc...
Of course the Soviets were happy about the impending invasion of France but the Soviets had the situation in the east well under control.
-
Well if you force it upon me I will look up the exact date when Stalin asked for a second front,
Aren't you the one that typed out:
The problem with your arguements is that "history" keeps getting in the way.
..?
The problem with your arguments is you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about...
When you figure it out get back to me.
To attempt to rewrite history based on some facts not in evidence IMO is silly
You mean this:
Why did Stalin DEMAND a second front at Yalta???
FYI I quoted the USAAF Startegic bombing Survey:
Allied air power was decisive in the war in Western Europe. Hindsight inevitably suggests
Page 16
that it might have been employed differently or better in some respects. Nevertheless, it was decisive. In the air, its victory was complete. At sea, its contribution, combined with naval power, brought an end to the enemy's greatest naval threat -- the U-boat; on land, it helped turn the tide overwhelmingly in favor of Allied ground forces. Its power and superiority made possible the success of the invasion. It brought the economy which sustained the enemy's armed forces to virtual collapse, although the full effects of this collapse had not reached the enemy's front lines when they were overrun by Allied forces. It brought home to the German people the full impact of modern war with all its horror and suffering. Its imprint on the German nation will be lasting.
My point is that Germany was defeated on the ground and in the east. I am not to worried if that doesn't sit well with some Ami's history channel education.
E25280,
If, for example, the axis had been able to deploy the hundreds of thousands of troops to defend against Uranus/Saturn instead of Torch / Monty, would the defeat at Stalingrad have occurred?
As Operation Uranus was under way the Soviets were engaged with Operation Mars. (See Zhukov's Greatest Defeat by Glantz).
The problem with the German position at Stalingrad arose from bad command decisions and not so much from the lack of troops. Hitler ordered his forces split, Gruppe B heading to Stalingrad (was not an original objective) and Gruppe A to move south toward the oilfields. He split his strength and sent them in opposite directions. They could not support each other.
Also, before moving into Stalingrad the Germans failed to eliminate Soviet bridge heads south and west of the Don. On top of that the flanks were protected by the weakest formations. Hitler had forces to divert to Stalingrad from the Crimea, he sent them else where instead. Hitler also could have ordered his forces to withdraw to better defensive positions and avoid the encirclement.
Now I don't know what units you think Hitler could have pulled from NA but there was active fighting going on in NA which had been going on long before the Americans got there. Those forces would not have significantly altered what happened at Stalingrad. It's not entirely clear Hitler would have reinforced the south with those forces anyway. The center was under massive assault, the North was bogged down around Leningrad.
Of course the Allies coordinated their efforts but don't make the assumption that 'if it weren't for the Americans and Operation Torch Hitler would have won at Stalingrad...'
It is obvious you are no fan of the strategic bomber campaign.
It has nothing to do with being a fan of anything. My opinions aren't mine exclusively and shared by many others. The bomber campaign's impact on the overall course of the war is much smaller then the epic battles fought on the eastern front.
But are you also saying that without the US and UK, the Soviets would have won anyway?
By the time the impact of the American entry in the war was fully realized the Soviets had already turned the tide in the east and were well on their way to victory.
-
It was probably the "Arcadia Conference"
IIRC Arcadia Conference wasn't attended by representatives of the Soviet Union.
It was where Churchill and Roosevelt developed their Europe first strategy and the UN etc... This was in Dec '41 - Jan '42. The Germans delared war on America on 11 Dec '41.
What Boxboy is claiming that Stalin DEMANDED a second front because with out one they would lose. Of course the Soviets wanted a second front but even they realized it was unrealistic to expect the United States to be fully moblized in Jan '42.
The Soivets put constant pressure on the western allies for a second front. Stalin even made the statement to the effect that the British were doing nothing more then dropping bombs on German cities. This may or may not have contributed to the futile attempt at Dieppe. The Soviets had the suspicion that the west was content to let the Nazi and the Soviets beat up on each other while the West 'sat on their hands'.
But what ever Stalin 'DEMANDED' or didn't 'DEMAND' a second front in Europe didn't open until 6 June 44. By that time the Soviets had the Nazis by the balls and Bagration was just over 2 weeks away. So it's obvious that this whole 'demand for a second front' is a red herring.
-
Bruno, thanks for the reply. I see you are sticking closely with the history and not delving into the "hypothetical" arena as deeply as I am, and the way I posed my question is partially to blame. My basic question was supposed to be a little more fundamental. There is an opinion that the Axis - Soviet war was a foregone conclusion before ever being waged, that there was no reason the Axis should have ever dared hope to defeat the USSR. It often goes so far as to say the US and UK may as well have never played a part in the war at all, as once the USSR was in conflict with the Axis, the Axis were doomed. It is the exact reverse of the view that the "US won the war by itself" -- it seems to say the US/West was irrelevant.
Posing hypothetical questions is one way to evaluate competing theories (granted, not the best way, but one way). A lot of the discussion/debate centers around degree, but there have been hints of the "West was irrelevant" creeping in here and there. So I pose more specifically now the hypothetical that Britain sues for peace and disarms in 1940 when France surrenders, the US remains pacifist, and in 1941 the Axis invade the USSR. (After all, that was the goal all along - defeat of the "Bolshevik Threat" was what united most of the Axis countries, Finland as "co-beligerent" the most extreme example of this.)
I brought up Monty and Torch, really meaning the entire NA campaign, as regards to Stalingrad more in that vein. The area to the Northwest of Stalingrad was defended mainly by Romanian, Hungarian and Italian troops while the Germans were on the offensive elsewhere. Without the NA campaign to destroy the bulk of the Italian army, the Italians alone have hundreds of thousands more troops in the East, likely concentrated in that area. Would it have been enough to prevent the encirclement of the 6th Army? Would it have at least weakened the Soviets enough that a subsequent counter-attack is able to relieve them?
Every hypothetical has alternative hypotheticals that could completely offset (yeah, but the Italians are deployed against Leningrad, so Stalingrad occurs as did historically), so I understand anyone's reluctance to delve in hypotheticals. But I will also pose the point that the "West was irrelevant" theory itself is a hypothetical. The USSR did not go it alone, Axis resources were diverted elsewhere, so we will never know with any certainty that they would have prevailed without the West. In my opinion, they would not have -- but it will always remain opinion, there is no way to "prove."
Once again, thanks to everyone for the opinions and insights. This has been a truly enjoyable thread. :aok
-- BTW Bruno, the "second front in Europe" in June 1944 was actually a third -- the west was already in mainland Italy. Of course, you knew this, but for some reason Italy is easy for people to overlook and/or forget.
-
I see you are sticking closely with the history and not delving into the "hypothetical" arena as deeply as I am, and the way I posed my question is partially to blame. My basic question was supposed to be a little more fundamental. There is an opinion that the Axis - Soviet war was a foregone conclusion before ever being waged, that there was no reason the Axis should have ever dared hope to defeat the USSR.
I have no interest into what-ifs because usually the one posing the what-if always re-adjusts the parameters to come up with whatever solution he wants. For example you mention Torch and German troops in NA, now its the Italians.
The inability of the Italians to pacify NA and the Med. was of concern to Germany (so was the Balkans and Greece for that matter). As such German intervention in NA and the Med. was necessary. Torch didn't keep German troops 'tied up' they were already tied up and would not have be withdrawn had Torch not happened.
In fact the push through NA into the Mid East was strategically viable. The Germans had support among some Arabs (in Iraq in particular) and if the British were defeated this could open another lane of attack into the Soviet Union and provide the Reich with resources. I don't think there are any 'what-if' circumstances that free up German troops from NA to be re-deployed at Stalingrad.
So I pose more specifically now the hypothetical that Britain sues for peace and disarms in 1940 when France surrenders, the US remains pacifist, and in 1941 the Axis invade the USSR.
Germany still looses...
Even if the Soviet Union were occupied the Germans would be fighting insurgency and partisan forces that would have eventually lead to defeat. Had Germany entered the USSR as liberators and had achieved their original goals they may have won. They way things went historically the Red Army Service man was fighting a 'patriotic war' against an aggressor who came to enslave them. They never would have given up. In fact in the Baltic states the 'forest brothers' continued to fight against the Soviets until the mid 50s...
I brought up Monty and Torch, really meaning the entire NA campaign, as regards to Stalingrad more in that vein.
Answered above.
The area to the Northwest of Stalingrad was defended mainly by Romanian, Hungarian and Italian troops while the Germans were on the offensive elsewhere. Without the NA campaign to destroy the bulk of the Italian army, the Italians alone have hundreds of thousands more troops in the East, likely concentrated in that area.
Italian troops were a proven liability to the Germans. See the Balkans, Greece, NA, Sicily and mainland Italy itself. More Italian troops on the eastern front wouldn't have made any difference. Italians never had enough modern equipment to be a viable fighting force, especially facing the Soviets. Italians were brave and many fought hard. However, they were under equipped and under motivated for the type of fighting taking place on the eastern front.
But I will also pose the point that the "West was irrelevant" theory itself is a hypothetical. The USSR did not go it alone, Axis resources were diverted elsewhere, so we will never know with any certainty that they would have prevailed without the West. In my opinion, they would not have -- but it will always remain opinion, there is no way to "prove."
I never said the West was irrelevant. The West had it's own reason for war and to open a second front in Europe. All nations who fought the Nazis contributed to victory. That's not the point.
The original poster asked the question:
Why Were The Allies So Successful
The only answer some Ami's will accept is that 'Ami's won the war'.
Axis resources were diverted elsewhere,
Everywhere the Axis forces went that left 'diverted' German forces. What about those tied up in occupying Norway, France, Balkans etc...
Its a bit silly to say well these tied up troops here made the difference. As I said Hitler had troops to reinforce 6th Army. He sent them else where. Hitler had and opportunity to win at Stalingrad. He split his forces and failed to secure his flanks. He failed to recognize the extremity of the situation and ordered 6th to stay put. The much more viable what-if revolves around these decisions not on scrapping together troops from here or there.
-
-- BTW Bruno, the "second front in Europe" in June 1944 was actually a third -- the west was already in mainland Italy. Of course, you knew this, but for some reason Italy is easy for people to overlook and/or forget.
I didn't forget. 'Second front' is the term Boxboy used in his original post. Germany was fighting a war on many fronts, from Scandinavia to the Med and NA. From the air to the Sea etc...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I have no interest into what-ifs because usually the one posing the what-if always re-adjusts the parameters to come up with whatever solution he wants. For example you mention Torch and German troops in NA, now its the Italians.
Please re-read my post. I clearly use the word "axis", not "German."
Originally posted by Bruno
I brought up Monty and Torch, really meaning the entire NA campaign, as regards to Stalingrad more in that vein.
Answered above.
Simple clarification since it wasn't clearly understood the first time (admittedly due to how I worded it).
I had no intention of moving the goalposts on you.
Originally posted by Bruno
Germany still looses...
Even if the Soviet Union were occupied the Germans would be fighting insurgency and partisan forces that would have eventually lead to defeat. Had Germany entered the USSR as liberators and had achieved their original goals they may have won. They way things went historically the Red Army Service man was fighting a 'patriotic war' against an aggressor who came to enslave them. They never would have given up. In fact in the Baltic states the 'forest brothers' continued to fight against the Soviets until the mid 50s...
Very good point. I believe I said something similar earlier in the thread.
Originally posted by Bruno
Italian troops were a proven liability to the Germans. See the Balkans, Greece, NA, Sicily and mainland Italy itself. More Italian troops on the eastern front wouldn't have made any difference. Italians never had enough modern equipment to be a viable fighting force, especially facing the Soviets. Italians were brave and many fought hard. However, they were under equipped and under motivated for the type of fighting taking place on the eastern front.
True enough about the Italian's equipment (especially armor!), but I had always been under the impression that the main problem for Italian war efforts was operational leadership. I am not sure if that is the correct term. The Italian invasion of Greece and Egypt were planned by the Italian high command, who did a very poor job. Attacks were ill defined and uncoordinated, and supply/logistics were dismal. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that on the East front, under overall operational command of the Germans, they would have fared much better. I was also under the impression that the Italian forces in the East actually performed quite well vs. what was typical in the NA campaign. I haven't read anything on the topic in quite some time -- not that I am at all well read -- but maybe this will be the next subject for me.
Originally posted by Bruno
The much more viable what-if revolves around these decisions not on scrapping together troops from here or there.
This is very true, but was not quite what I was driving at. Obviously I was trying to illustrate the contribution of the West -- the mistakes of the Axis are many, but don't support the "West's relevance" position.
Simply put, I was curious if you were in with the "West Was Irrelevant" theorists, and you have made it plain you are not. If you go back and read my post on May 3 (goodness, 10 days ago?) and again on the 5th maybe you will see how my thinking began when responding to Kweassa. Maybe I have been trying to "defend" against something that isn't really there (call it paranoid if you like).
Thanks for indulging me. As I have said several times now, I enjoy these kinds of conversations when I can get them. Unfortunately, outside of AH, most of the rest of my world only talks about American Idol. :rolleyes:
-
Buno you have no interest in anything other than your own version of history.
I made an error on a statement which really didn't change what I was trying to convey, you have continually honed in on that mistake because you can't give an appropreate answer.
You make statements of fact that just aren't. Saying that Russia had the land war in hand in 1944 is incorrect, you claim that you have no interest in what if's but actually you are playing "monday morning quarterback" after the war is over and you have the advantage of information NOT available to participants at the time.
-
Now this has all become interesting.
Bruno said:
"Of course the Allies coordinated their efforts but don't make the assumption that 'if it weren't for the Americans and Operation Torch Hitler would have won at Stalingrad...'"
Look better into this. The axis defeat in N-Africa eventually turned out big and drew resources from the eastern front. Stalingrad was a bloody victory and it took quite some fighting to decide the outcome. If the Axis would have had the resources from N-Africa, I tend to think they'd have won at Stalingrad, - me speculating....
And you:
"I have no interest into what-ifs because usually the one posing the what-if always re-adjusts the parameters to come up with whatever solution he wants. For example you mention Torch and German troops in NA, now its the Italians."
If you have any interest at all, parameters can be put quite clear. But it's common to say German instead of Axis for instance.
Anyway, Torch happens at the same time as Stalingrad, and the invasion of Sicily at the time of the battle of Kursk. In both cases AXIS forces were heavily engaged in that front, at a very bad moment.
-
I made an error on a statement which really didn't change what I was trying to convey, you have continually honed in on that mistake because you can't give an appropreate answer.
You made a snide remark:
The problem with your arguements is that "history" keeps getting in the way.
Yet it is obvious that you are struggling with 'history' all in the same post. Had you not made that remark I wouldn't have replied to you at all. I gave up on this thread after the French bashing started.
You make statements of fact that just aren't. Saying that Russia had the land war in hand in 1944 is incorrect, ...
Soviet Offensive - Operation Bagration - look it up...
While you do that check up on what was going on in the Baltics at the same time...
you claim that you have no interest in what if's but actually you are playing "monday morning quarterback" after the war is over and you have the advantage of information NOT available to participants at the time.
You have yet to offer one fact. I left you plenty of opportunity to come back and reply with something relevant.
I am giving my opinion (which is shared by others, including authors and historians) on the questions at hand. If you don't share that opinion fine but don't argue with me over stuff you haven't got a clue about. If you have some point you want argue please post your facts and conclusions.
E25280,
Please re-read my post. I clearly use the word "axis", not "German."
It doesn't matter, the Italians would not had made a difference...
I was also under the impression that the Italian forces in the East actually performed quite well vs. what was typical in the NA campaign. I haven't read anything on the topic in quite some time -- not that I am at all well read -- but maybe this will be the next subject for me.
Italians were demoralized before Stalingrad. While they did perform well in the face of bad weather with poor equipment. When facing an overwhelming Soviet attack they broke. The reason they were placed on the flanks along with the Hungarian and Rumanian's was that Hitler underestimated the ability of the Soviets to absorb their early losses and to rebuild as fast. German intelligence had no idea what was to come. They didn't understand the scale of what was happening. Add in what was happening in the center with Operation Mars, which was a huge defeat for the Soviets, Hitler just could not believe that the Soviet attack on Stalingrad would end up the way it did.
Saying that Torch or NA in general in some made believe fantasy could have impacted the out come at Stalingrad is silly. We can deal with the reality of what happened and narrow the 'what-ifs' to more plausible scenarios.
See this website on The Battle for Stalingrad (http://users.pandora.be/stalingrad/)
A better example would be Operation Cobra which came just over a month after Bagration.
-
Bruno:
"Saying that Torch or NA in general in some made believe fantasy could have impacted the out come at Stalingrad is silly"
Nope. Saying that it didn't have any impact is silly. Plain Silly.
-
No the Russians were not at the Arcadia conference, but that does not mean Russia was out of Churchill's mind when he was trying to devise a grand strategy with Roosevelt.
At the time of that conference, the Russians had survived the first year of the German invasion, but their winter counteroffensive did not come off well and they knew what was coming in the summer.
I suspect there was a lot of uncertainty in Soviet minds at that time about the outcome of a war without a second front against Germany.
Now by the time the second front actually opened, the Soviet army was going to win in the East. The only question was how many more casualties it would take.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Bruno
IIRC Arcadia Conference wasn't attended by representatives of the Soviet Union.
It was where Churchill and Roosevelt developed their Europe first strategy and the UN etc... This was in Dec '41 - Jan '42. The Germans delared war on America on 11 Dec '41.
What Boxboy is claiming that Stalin DEMANDED a second front because with out one they would lose. Of course the Soviets wanted a second front but even they realized it was unrealistic to expect the United States to be fully moblized in Jan '42.
The Soivets put constant pressure on the western allies for a second front. Stalin even made the statement to the effect that the British were doing nothing more then dropping bombs on German cities. This may or may not have contributed to the futile attempt at Dieppe. The Soviets had the suspicion that the west was content to let the Nazi and the Soviets beat up on each other while the West 'sat on their hands'.
But what ever Stalin 'DEMANDED' or didn't 'DEMAND' a second front in Europe didn't open until 6 June 44. By that time the Soviets had the Nazis by the balls and Bagration was just over 2 weeks away. So it's obvious that this whole 'demand for a second front' is a red herring.
-
So according to some here the MTO was just a sideshow? :rolleyes: I seem to remember that German troops were pulled from the EF and transferred to the MTO. No doubt I will be corrected if I am incorrect by the all knowing expert here.
The landings in Normandy was the same time the Western Allies entered Rome. The Normandy landing was a 2cd Front in the West.
-
No the Russians were not at the Arcadia conference, but that does not mean Russia was out of Churchill's mind when he was trying to devise a grand strategy with Roosevelt.
I wrote:
Of course the Soviets wanted a second front
and
The Soivets put constant pressure on the western allies for a second front.
But that's not the point. Boxboy claimed 'history was getting in the way of facts' but he doesn't know he's talking about. He claimed that at the Yalta Conference, then at Cairo, then at Gibraltar Stalin 'DEMANDED' a second front as if it was a second front that would save the Soviets.
At Arcardia, just over 2 weeks after Germany declared was on America, the decision to go into N. Africa first was made. Whether or not Churchill expressed the Soviet desire for a second front isn't the same thing as Boxboy claimed.
Angus,
The axis defeat in N-Africa eventually turned out big and drew resources from the eastern front. Stalingrad was a bloody victory and it took quite some fighting to decide the outcome. If the Axis would have had the resources from N-Africa, I tend to think they'd have won at Stalingrad, - me speculating....
No it didn't, once Operation torch was under way the German forces in NA were fighting delaying actions and attempting to withdraw. Those German troops in NA would have been been in NA no matter what. They had to re-inforce the Italians and they had a viable strategic objective of pushing through NA into the middle east. There's no indication that Hitler would have re-deployed those troops at Stalingrad any way.
As I pointed out it wasn't the lack of troops that lead to defeat at Stalingrad in the first place. Also there was other stuff going on, like Operation Mars. Hitler had troops that were freed up from the Crimea and he didn't send them to Stalingrad, he sent then north.
MiloMorai
So according to some here the MTO was just a sideshow? I seem to remember that German troops were pulled from the EF and transferred to the MTO. No doubt I will be corrected if I am incorrect by the all knowing expert here.
Sure it was a side show. Rome was even a side show to the west by the time it was it was liberated. Like in NA the Germans fought delaying actions from Sicily up the the length of Italy itself. The amount of troops and equipment sent to NA or re-deployed to Italy would have made no difference deployed in the East.
In NA Rommel was running on starvation rations, if anything the situation in the East had a greater impact on the situation in NA then the other way around.
Take Angus' what-if and switch it around:
If the Axis would have had the resources from N-Africa, I tend to think they'd have won at Stalingrad, - me speculating....
If the Axis would have had the resources from Stalingrad, I tend to think they would have won at El Alamein.
At this point the situation in the East was the primary concern of Hitler. Shifting a few units here or there doesn't change that. What's next Hitler stopped Citadel due to Husky..?
-
nanananana...Bruno:
"No it didn't, once Operation torch was under way the German forces in NA were fighting delaying actions and attempting to withdraw. Those German troops in NA would have been been in NA no matter what. They had to re-inforce the Italians and they had a viable strategic objective of pushing through NA into the middle east. There's no indication that Hitler would have re-deployed those troops at Stalingrad any way.
As I pointed out it wasn't the lack of troops that lead to defeat at Stalingrad in the first place. Also there was other stuff going on, like Operation Mars. Hitler had troops that were freed up from the Crimea and he didn't send them to Stalingrad, he sent then north."
You have mentioned the NA campaign as a whole. That is all up to the point of Stalingrad/Torch, getting bigger as it went along.
So I put your words here, again:
"Saying that Torch or NA in general in some made believe fantasy could have impacted the out come at Stalingrad is silly"
Now there is a vast difference between just Torch and the whole NA campaign. The what-if's need to be defined much better if that is to be looked into. Crete? Malta? Sicily? The desert? The capacity of the Italian merchant navy? (Rommel's troops were not as bad of as many think)? The Italian battle fleet? (Significant) ....
Boild down to this.
Resources (Supply, Supply lines etc, - imagine heavy docking at the Crimean area)
Troops (Make a wild guess at 500.000 and tell me that it wouldn't have made any difference at Stalingrad)
Hardware (Not but a few hundreds of tanks, however the NA Campaign did cost the Axis more aircraft than the USSR front at the same time, so imagine the airpower over Stalingrad was...double for the Axis)
"Made belive" Fantasy???
-
he what-if's need to be defined much better if that is to be looked into.
Here's an example of shifting goal posts with the what-ifs. Each one of you will re-define the what-ifs until you get the answer you want.
I gave my answer:
You can't demonstrate that those Axis in NA would have went to Stalingrad. As this situation at Stalingrad developed Hitler made critical mistakes that lead to defeat. It wasn't the lack of troops. What makes you think that Hitler would suddenly wise up and make better decisions in the deployment of those Axis troops in NA?
Your assumption is just silly. There were troops available to be sent to re-enforce Stalingrad, Hitler didn't send them there.
North Afrika would not have been abandoned by the Germans had the British been defeated. Some number would have been left behind as an occupying force the rest would have moved into he middle east.
The choices aren't 'keep troops in NA and loose and Stalingrad' or 're-deploy to Stalingrad and win'. That's just fantasy nonsense.
Axis more aircraft than the USSR front at the same time
nonsense...
Post a comparable lost list for that time frame... Don't give me a source like 'I heard it some where..'
-
There are definitely two intertwined topics being bandied about, so I understand the complaint about moving goalposts. One involves speculation, the other "Wild" speculation.
Addressing "Wild" speculation, i.e. the scenario where the Axis won in the West/Med in 1940 and concentrating in the East in 1941-42, and would the Axis have been able to prevail generally vs. the USSR: I think Bruno has been pretty clear that his opinion is the entire concept is too far fetched to clearly reason out how individual operations in the East would or would not have played out. That is a fair point. We can say, for instance, that the number of POWs captured in Tunisa were equivalant to the number captured at Stalingrad, and if those troops had been available in the East, it would have made a difference. To Bruno's point, something that probably would not have changed is the poor strategic decision making, so you can't guarantee that had the troops been available, they would have been used effectively or where needed. Again, a very fair point.
So that leaves the more narrowly defined speculation, i.e. did a specific action or operation have enough of a reaction that it impacted other fronts. Torch / Alamein did cause a reaction. Rommel was forced to retreat across Lybia and into Tunisia (rather than find a place to make a stand in Lybia) due to the Torch landings in Vichy North Africa. A mini-2 front "sub war" was developing that he did not have the resources to deal with. In response, the Axis sent at least 3 German divisions (including 10th Panzer) and 2 Italian divisions to Tunisia to bolster the situation. They had no intention of abandoning North Africa. If they could keep the US/UK fighting there instead of mainland Europe, so much the better for the Axis.
So in the narrow view, the question is whether 5 divisions (that were at least available to be re-deployed) would have made a difference at Stalingrad. I believe the 3 German divisions (especially 10th Panzer) would definitley have been useful had they been deployed in support of the Italians/Romanians/Hungarians. All three countries were weak in anti-tank capabilities, so the stronger German divisions would have been better equipped to handle the Soviet counter-attack. But to say they would have averted the disaster altogether is far too big a stretch. The Italian 8th army alone was hit by three Soviet armies. Five more divisions may have slowed the tide, but I don't think they could have stopped it.
-
OOpsie Bruno....So you belive, that no matter how much Axis power was available at the battle of Stalingrad they'd still have lost?
Because:
"You can't demonstrate that those Axis in NA would have went to Stalingrad. As this situation at Stalingrad developed Hitler made critical mistakes that lead to defeat. It wasn't the lack of troops. What makes you think that Hitler would suddenly wise up and make better decisions in the deployment of those Axis troops in NA?"
NA would have been in Russia, with very little doubt. Southern front at least.
Torch drained sources FROM Stalingrad.
(The lifeline itself....Tante Ju for instance)
The Axis failed resupply at Stalingrad - they were only 20 miles away, just didn't make it to a link. Plonk half a million Soldiers,and a Gescwader for every mile, and some few hundreds of tanks guided by Rommel into that stretch....what do you get? Yes...this:
". What makes you think that Hitler would suddenly wise up and make better decisions in the deployment of those Axis troops in NA"
Of course he would have kept them in his back yard. He would never have used them where they were needed.
If it looks like a straw, and smells like one, and feels like one, burn it just to make sure :D
-
i think in the air the battle was won in the west by the better high altitude performance of allied escort fighters in the mid-war - Superior performance right there where it was required, over 20k.
In the east the battle was won on the ground by the abillitiy to build the T-34 in a serial production, and the american trucks which keeped the red army in motion!
On the sea the war was won by sonar and radar.
niklas
-
I never said history was getting in the way of facts. I said history was getting in the way of YOUR facts.
You think because you can quote some dates and names of operations that that makes you an expert on the way the war was conducted and what was what at the time. I wonder what your age is? I was alive for some of the conflict were you? (I realize it has no bearing on the subject)
You made "general" statements that I believe are untrue and also insulting to millions of Americans who had loved ones or were involved in WWII.
I have yet to see a Russian General make a statement that "Lend Lease" was unimportant to them and didn't help them proscute the war in the east.
As a child right after WWII (I was born in 1943) I can't remember anyone talking about how we didn't need to go to Europe and I had D-day Vets on every block back then.
I resent your statement that I know nothing of history because I made one error on a conference date when the thrust of the statement was that Joe
Stalin demanded that the Brits and Americans open a second front and IMHO did so because of the massive losses to the Russians in the east which to my mind does not indicate a cake walk victory in the east.
While I will admit that I should have checked my dates when dealing with such grogs as yourself I didn't and just relied on what is becoming a fadeing memory I guess. But I assure you that history is a major interest to me and I should not have made so glaring a mistake.
-
So you belive, that no matter how much Axis power was available at the battle of Stalingrad they'd still have lost?
The reason for the defeat at Stalingrad was the result of poor intelligence and decision making. Your assumption is that if the Axis troops in NA some how became available that Hitler would have re-deployed them there. This is made-up fantasy. Hitler had troops freed up from Crimea, he didn't send them to Stalingrad. Hitler also ordered his southern forces split into two sending them in opposite directions. There are a number of more plausible 'what ifs' that may have reversed what happened at Stalingrad. Making the ridiculous statement that those troops being tied up in NA meant the Germans would loose at Stalingrad is stupid. The Germans had 'troops' tied up in every country they occupied. Why are the troops in NA so important?
At the time of Operation Uranus/Saturn Operation Mars was also under way in the center, those troops could have been just as easily deployed there or sent North to Leningrad. As Stalingrad played out it wasn't a major concern as what was going on else where.
Hitler never had a handle of the situation on the southern front. His decision to re-supply by air was based on inaccurate information and false re-assurances given to him by Göring.
Your 'fantasy' is inconsistent with what actually went on.
The reasons for the defeat at Stalingrad are simple. Hitler failed to secure his flanks and split his forces. Coupled with poor intelligence, improbable re-assurances and overall poor decision making leading up to defeat.
If all you are going to do is repeat the same post over and over I am not going bother to reply.
E25280,
Addressing "Wild" speculation, i.e. the scenario where the Axis won in the West/Med in 1940 and concentrating in the East in 1941-42, and would the Axis have been able to prevail generally vs. the USSR
First I don't think the Axis could have 'won in the west' anymore then they could have 'won in the east'. The Germans never had any real opportunity to invade England. In fact BoB was more a bluff to get the Brits to come to terms then it was a prelude to invasion. Britain was never going to come to terms with Germany.
Even when America was officially neutral they were actively helping keep Britain in the War. So its more the 'wild speculation' that the Axis would have defeated the west and then able to concentrate on the east as far as I am concerned. It's pure fantasy.
My point is you have to deal with what was before considering any 'what-if', At Stalingrad 'what was' was a series of gross missteps on the part of Hitler that lead to defeat. If you wan to discuss the 'what-ifs' surrounding those missteps then fine. However, it is futile to play the 'what-if' game based on nothing but pure make believe.
What-if the Germans developed their robotic Übersodat with slavic death ray...
It's just silly nonsense.
So in the narrow view, the question is whether 5 divisions (that were at least available to be re-deployed) would have made a difference at Stalingrad. I believe the 3 German divisions (especially 10th Panzer) would definitley have been useful had they been deployed in support of the Italians/Romanians/Hungarians.
To many assumptions to take seriously. 10th panzer might have gone to the Central Front (Operation Mars). They could have easily been sent South with Gruppe A to help secure the oilfields, a much higher priority then Stalingrad itself.Or they could have ended up trapped in the pockets along with 6th Army. Based on Hitler's decision making to that point any of the above is a possibility.
The Italian 8th army alone was hit by three Soviet armies. Five more divisions may have slowed the tide, but I don't think they could have stopped it.
The Soviets hit the at Stalingrad where the Axis were the weakest. What makes you thing that would not have just adjusted their attack to account for the 'new formations'. They targeted the co-belligerents because they were weak. They targeted the flanks because this is where the weakest forces were. Hitler's decision making made this possible. As I said:
What makes you think that Hitler would suddenly wise up and make better decisions in the deployment of those Axis troops in NA?
-
I never said history was getting in the way of facts. I said history was getting in the way of YOUR facts.
I know what you said, I quoted directly more then once...
You think because you can quote some dates and names of operations that that makes you an expert on the way the war was conducted and what was what at the time.
I never claimed to be an expert. Please quore where I did.
You haven't posted one fact to counter what I have typed.
I wonder what your age is? I was alive for some of the conflict were you?
I am 36, spent 6 years in the navy on fast attack submarines. Now I work at an electric generating station, easy job, easier money. I don't how this matters though...
You made "general" statements that I believe are untrue and also insulting to millions of Americans who had loved ones or were involved in WWII.
Prove they are untrue. I haven't insulted anyone. I stated my opinion, if you are insulted by that then that's on you. I am not responsible for how you feel about things.
I have yet to see a Russian General make a statement that "Lend Lease" was unimportant to them and didn't help them proscute the war in the east.
Quote where I said that... What I said was:
The Soviets had already turned the tied long before lend lease provided any meaningful quantities of war materials and before the effect of the bombing campaign was felt on German War production.
Delivery of lend-lease materials didn't arrive in meaningful quantities until after the Soviets had turned the tied. If you dispute this please offer up a factual argument and prove me wrong.
As a child right after WWII (I was born in 1943) I can't remember anyone talking about how we didn't need to go to Europe and I had D-day Vets on every block back then.
I don't care if you are 2 or 72 you haven't posted any 'fact' that demonstrates you grasp what is being discussed. Mostly your post consist of reactionary emotional rants.
I resent your statement that I know nothing of history because I made one error on a conference date when the thrust of the statement was that Joe
Stalin demanded that the Brits and Americans open a second front and IMHO did so because of the massive losses to the Russians in the east which to my mind does not indicate a cake walk victory in the east.
Please quote 'Stalin's DEMAND'...
I never said 'cake-walk in the east'. Please quote me. An examination of Soviets losses in WW2 show it was far from a 'cake walk'. If all your argument consists of is 'straw man' then there's no reason to continue. If your opinions differ from mine then I have no problem discussing them.
I have stated Stalin kept pressure on the western allies to open a front in Europe. The fact is this didn't take place unitl 6 June '44. 22 June '44 the Soviets launched the largest offensive to date, Operation Bagration. Clearly the Soviets had turn the tied against Germany long before this.
While I will admit that I should have checked my dates when dealing with such grogs as yourself I didn't and just relied on what is becoming a fadeing memory I guess. But I assure you that history is a major interest to me and I should not have made so glaring a mistake.
That's good to know. However, you didn't just make one mistake. First it was Yalta, then Cairo, then Gibraltar where Stalin made his DEMAND. Of course Stalin wanted a second front and repeated that often but if you ever come up with a date, quote and location (conference) where Stalin (or his surrogates) stood up and made that DEMAND please let me know.
-
Even my "narrow focus" hypothetical is obviously not narrow enough for you, even when I narrowed it so far that the ultimate analysis agrees with you that it would not have made a difference in the grand scheme of things. You have no use for hypotheticals. Thats fine.
"What-ifs" of course are pure fantasy and silly nonsense, and I conceded that point. With the tone of a couple of the others, I can see how you may believe I was attempting to pile on, even though I am not.
So, I will just drop out of this since I am trying to have a conversation in the middle of an argument.
Thanks for your insights all the same.:)
-
Originally posted by E25280
Even my "narrow focus" hypothetical is obviously not narrow enough for you, even when I narrowed it so far that the ultimate analysis agrees with you that it would not have made a difference in the grand scheme of things. You have no use for hypotheticals. Thats fine.
"What-ifs" of course are pure fantasy and silly nonsense, and I conceded that point. With the tone of a couple of the others, I can see how you may believe I was attempting to pile on, even though I am not.
So, I will just drop out of this since I am trying to have a conversation in the middle of an argument.
Thanks for your insights all the same.:)
I don't think you were piling on. You may end up with one 'narrow hypothetical' that suits your point but then seven other folks will then show up with their own.
My problem with your hypothetical is that in order for me to entertain it I have to push aside what I already know. It's not really just a single 'what-if', it ends up with several 'what-ifs' to arrive at your 'narrow hypothetical'.
What if Germany Defeated the Western Allies..?
What if Hitler deployed those forces freed up from NA to Stalingrad..?
What if this unit was here and that unit was there..?
I already gave an answer in regard to Germany's prospect of defeating the Soviets alone.
So, I will just drop out of this since I am trying to have a conversation in the middle of an argument.
That's how these type of threads end up. You can't have a free discussion on this forum with out some one being emotionally invested in a given opinion. Ultimately, they end up with straw man and and name calling. I am guilty myself of course but having first registered on this forum in Jul 2000 (Wotan) and with close to 13000 total posts or so I have grown accustomed to it.
As I said all those who fought against the Nazis contributed to the final victory. Every one has a right to feel proud about that. However, in threads like these that ultimately discuss 'who contributed more' some one always walks away 'insulted'.
My opinions (based on the facts not emotion) are that the Germans were defeated on the ground in the East (all wars are won on the ground). The LW was defeated in the air over the Reich (hammer and anvil; fighters = hammer, bombers = Anvil). However, I don't think the cost of the strategic bombing campaign was necessarily worth it. Nor do I think it proved to be decisive. I have stated I believe there was a better alternative. Opinions, at least participially, shared in the USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey.
-
You made "general" statements that I believe are untrue and also insulting to millions of Americans who had loved ones or were involved in WWII.
How is Bruno insulting anything when he is merely pointing out the objective conditions of the war which he believes was true? If that is to be considered an insult then since I was the one who first brought up the importance of the Soviet Red Army over any other standing army that participated in WW2, that would effectively make my statements and opinions also an insult towards Americans.
The problem with your attitude is everything becomes personal. I won't pretend to understand how Americans feel over this matter but clearly there are multiple aspects and views concerning how the major combatants shifted around in their roles during the war and it is all subject to debate. I for one, believe that the decisive victory over the Germans were won by the Russians and their importance in the war is above the importance of the Americans - if this opinion should be taken as an insult, then it is an insult only to the people who take for granted that the US, like so many matters in the world, was (and should be) the most important participant of the great war - which, in the views of many more people, is clearly not.
Ofcourse, I'd rather not rub salt over someone else's pride by stating things directly like Bruno did, when he said;
The only answer some Ami's will accept is that 'Ami's won the war'.
But the general frustration one has to deal with in any kind of discussion where Americans are involved is pretty much true to Bruno's statement. Everytime someone questions the propagated grandeuer of the US in WW2 we are met by very typical reactions. First they say we are insulting America. We are belittling the veterans and their families and their sacrifices throughout the war. Then they proceed to say either we are anti-American, or "un"American (if the person who challenged such views was himself from the States). 10 years back, the discussions would most typically end with the chant of "Commies!" across the boards. No, Boxboy, I am not accusing you of such radical reaction, but however I will go far as to say your attitude in this matter is dangerously close to one.
I have yet to see a Russian General make a statement that "Lend Lease" was unimportant to them and didn't help them proscute the war in the east.
Nor would anyone in this thread claim they have seen such a person. Nobody is denying that that the Lend-Lease was important for the survival of the Soviet Union. Nor are we even discussing it in the first place. The point which is under debate is that the Soviet Union would have eventually won over the Reich with or without direct military action from the Western Allies, and their separate efforts in the North African fronts and bombing raids over Europe was not one of the major reasons that made the victory of the Red Army possible. The point Bruno is making, (which I personally agree to) is;
1) Yes, the Red Army received much needed supplies from the west, and it did prove to be vital to their military survival, but..
2) No, the Red Army effectively fought alone against the cream of the German military, and decisively turned the tide of the war alone.
3) Nobody is questioning the motives or the dedication of the Western Allies they put into their own efforts, but such effort or no, it was the Russians that bore the heaviest burden and made the victory of the Allies most likely, not the Americans.
Is that such a difficult lump to swallow, or at least even admit as a worthy viewpoint about the war instead of being treated as an insult?
As a child right after WWII (I was born in 1943) I can't remember anyone talking about how we didn't need to go to Europe and I had D-day Vets on every block back then.
Which is totally irrelevant to this discussion. The perceived importance of one's own country's participation in the war should always be under critical attention since first-hand experience is often the most faulty and biased when trying to lay out an objective model of what happened during a certain historical period. In my own land we have Korean War veterans who treat peaceful public demonstrations and mass rallies as communist insurgencies influenced by North Korean spy networks. We respect their participation in the war, and feel gratitude towards it, but that doesn't make their political/social views on such matters necessarily any more/less true than someone who was born decades later.
I resent your statement that I know nothing of history because I made one error on a conference date when the thrust of the statement was that Joe
Stalin demanded that the Brits and Americans open a second front and IMHO did so because of the massive losses to the Russians in the east which to my mind does not indicate a cake walk victory in the east.
Yes, it wasn't a cakewalk. It happened to be the most brutal theater of war during the course of WW2, perhaps being the bloodiest in the history of mankind. Then clearly, it is only natural to consider this theater of the war as being the most important. Instead, fifty years of Cold War(47 years to be exact) propganda has effectively erased some very important chunks of information from the textbooks and molded the public perception to ignore the immense importance of the USSR, for anyone who was born either west of the Berlin wall, or east of the 38 Parallel. Ofcourse, the very same has been done by the Soviets to their own subjects, but we're not talking about them here.
Stalin demanded a 2nd front. He urgently needed it. The enemy were literally "at the gates". There was no guarantee his country would survive the war. In fact, it was on the verge of disaster throughout the two years starting from June of '41. Basically he demanded and demanded and demanded and demanded it, with the answer being "not yet" everytime, until mid 1943, when the Russians just turned the tide without any "2nd front" being opened in mainland Europe. From that point on his diplomatic position is changed dramatically, when he realized the war would be won with or without the 2nd front.
-
Hehe, Bruno:
"What if Germany Defeated the Western Allies..?
What if Hitler deployed those forces freed up from NA to Stalingrad..?
What if this unit was here and that unit was there..?"
That's the fun part...for us who weren't there.
That's also the interesting part, and an endless study....How close sometimes the Axis were to victory.
There were many true turning points in WW2. They could have been elsewhere, turned out otherwise, and there could have been more.
There are indeed many "almost"'s from WW2, I think we all agree on that.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
It's not really just a single 'what-if', it ends up with several 'what-ifs' to arrive at your 'narrow hypothetical'.
What if Germany Defeated the Western Allies..?
What if Hitler deployed those forces freed up from NA to Stalingrad..?
What if this unit was here and that unit was there..?
Again, just to clarify, in the "narrow hypothetical" I posed, I did not rely on Germany defeating the West.
I looked only at the 5 divisions that were deployed to Tunisia as a direct result of Torch, not Axis units in Africa as a whole. That is, the narrow hypothesis is that the US/UK does not land troops in Vichy North Africa, thus the 5 divisions historically sent there are free to be sent elsewhere. It seems logical they would be sent to another "crisis area", since their deployment to North Africa was in response to a "crisis" there. The counterattack northwest of Stalingrad surely qualifies as a "crisis".
To your point, there is no reason to believe this is where they would have actually ended up, or that they would have gone anywhere as opposed to remaining a mobile reserve in anticipation of the next Western Allied move. But that is the nature of hypotheticals. The 5 divisions were relatively easy to peg down as a deployment in direct response to a Western Allied action. If that isn't quite narrow enough, then I don't think any hypothetical would be.
The War was so vast and had so many moving parts that it is impossible to say with any certainty "if not for X, then Y would have happened." It is interesting when one tries to do so to see how other people view the same events. This has been a lively discussion, and I have enjoyed it.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Again, just to clarify, in the "narrow hypothetical" I posed, I did not rely on Germany defeating the West.
I looked only at the 5 divisions that were deployed to Tunisia as a direct result of Torch, not Axis units in Africa as a whole. That is, the narrow hypothesis is that the US/UK does not land troops in Vichy North Africa, thus the 5 divisions historically sent there are free to be sent elsewhere. It seems logical they would be sent to another "crisis area", since their deployment to North Africa was in response to a "crisis" there. The counterattack northwest of Stalingrad surely qualifies as a "crisis".
If you go to the fall of 1943, you find up to 23 German divisions defending Italy (November of 1943). Those divisions would have certainly aided forces on the eastern front. Likewise, there were 13 divisions in Norway (generally second-rate units). Plus another 53 divisions in the rest of western Europe. Of the roughly 325 divisions within the German army, about 233 were deployed against the Soviets from Finland to the Black Sea. I do not know how many troops were required to control occupied countries, but the number is probably significant. I read somewhere that the total manpower not fighting on the eastern front was something around 100 divisions, or almost 1/3 of Germany's total strength. Clearly, Germany was stretched beyond what they could manage.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Again, just to clarify, in the "narrow hypothetical" I posed, I did not rely on Germany defeating the West.
You are correct you wrote:
Addressing "Wild" speculation, i.e. the scenario where the Axis won in the West/Med in 1940 and concentrating in the East in 1941-42, and would the Axis have been able to prevail generally vs. the USSR
Bare with me as I am replying to multiple folks so the quotes get mixed up...
It seems logical they would be sent to another "crisis area", since their deployment to North Africa was in response to a "crisis" there. The counterattack northwest of Stalingrad surely qualifies as a "crisis".
Well IMHO the more the plausible 'what-if' is that after securing the Suez Canal the Axis would have moved into the mid-east. I doubt the British would have been completely routed in NA, they most likely would have pulled back toward Palestine. Allied forces were also in Iraq. Saudi Arabia had close ties to the US and the possibility of Allied forces being deployed in Saudi would have meant that Axis forces stay put.
Then there's the whole logistics things are getting those Axis troops and equipment moved to Stalingrad...
Let's forget where those '5 divisions' come from. Suppose Hitler had '5 divisions' to spare and could put them where he wanted and the point of a finger. We can look to where he sent those troops released from the Crimea. He sent them North. Then there's the situation in the center with Operation Mars. Also, Hitler had no idea about the size of the Soviet build to Uranus and Saturn. Even as the Soviets ran through the Rumanian's, Hungarians and Italians Hitler had no grasp of the situation. Once 6th Army was surrounded Hitler still thought he could supply them by air while he launched a counter to relieve the pocket.
Let's forget all that as well and pretend Hitler was either smart or lucky and deployed those 5 divisions perfectly around Stalingrad. Soviet Intelligence was far superior to the Germans. Don't you think the Soviets would have accounted for those 5 divisions?
Now let's forget that and pretend the Soviets were blind and that Hitler had 5 divisions deployed perfectly. What happens? Even then victory is far from certain for the Germans.
-
Just one more thing. It's o/t but seeing how these thread always end up badly I want to point out a thing or two about myself:
First here's is a picture of my Grandparents in England 21 May '45, their wedding day:
(http://img126.potato.com/loc1/th_53165_gnp.jpg) (http://img126.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc1&image=53165_gnp.jpg)
My Mom was born in England and has duel citizenship. My grand mother was born in Coventry and was there when the Cathedral was fire bombed by the Nazis. My grandfather's family fled Italy in the early 30s. My grandfather was an electrician during WW2 and worked on B-17s. My grandmother was in Women's Auxiliary Air Force as was here sister. My grand mothers sister married an RAAF service man, they moved to Australia in the 50s. My Grandparents settled out side of Philadelphia.
Those who imply that I am some Ami hater or that I insult all Americans because I don't share your opinions are basically morons. Like many others in this country my father, his father, my uncles (five of them) my brother and I have all served in the US military. If you can't disagree with someone's opinion with out getting emotional involved then get some help. Don't project those emotions on to me.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Now let's forget that and pretend the Soviets were blind and that Hitler had 5 divisions deployed perfectly. What happens? Even then victory is far from certain for the Germans.
Originally posted by E25280
But to say they would have averted the disaster altogether is far too big a stretch. The Italian 8th army alone was hit by three Soviet armies. Five more divisions may have slowed the tide, but I don't think they could have stopped it.
We can agree we agreed there, then. :aok
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Your problem is you don't history at all.
an easy error. i forgot whom . . . poseted a litinay of French failures. 1 of them involved the hugenots. Their inclusion in the list showed even that person, who very much appeared to be in the know, either didn't know what happned after the treaty, or chose to ignore it to more forcefully support his point.
ignorance is eaisly remedied by research and explanation. contempt prior to investigation is another matter that does not budge eaisly.
hap
-
Well this is my last post in this thread since it is now devolving into something much different than what we started with.
I do not wish to say that the 20 million Russian dead in WWII died for nothing (even tho some were shot by their own officers).
My concern early on was that Bruno seemed to be saying that the contribution of the US was either meaningless or unneeded, which I took exception to and for that matter still do.
At the risk of being called "historically challenged" again, it seems to me that the Russian Winter played a big part in the situation (much as it did when Napleon tried his invasion).
However I have no wish to offend anyone and to any to whom I have I apologise.
-
Now this had some meat on the bones. From Widewing:
"If you go to the fall of 1943, you find up to 23 German divisions defending Italy (November of 1943). Those divisions would have certainly aided forces on the eastern front. Likewise, there were 13 divisions in Norway (generally second-rate units). Plus another 53 divisions in the rest of western Europe. Of the roughly 325 divisions within the German army, about 233 were deployed against the Soviets from Finland to the Black Sea. I do not know how many troops were required to control occupied countries, but the number is probably significant. I read somewhere that the total manpower not fighting on the eastern front was something around 100 divisions, or almost 1/3 of Germany's total strength. Clearly, Germany was stretched beyond what they could manage."
I'll add a point for you History Geeks. A double agent, positioned in Iceland tied down some force in Norway by passing the information that the allies were planning a second front in Norway!
Anyway, this gives a good image about the strength of armies applied on the eastern front. But airpower and naval power was on a larger scale....elsewhere. And many of the Russian victories were marginal. So you see what I mean.
Bruno, I assume your first language is English? Why do you use the term "ami" so much? Well, interesting family history anyway ;)
I'll give you some of mine.
Here is one of the guys I knew, and told me many a tale (not to mention all the beer we had :D)
(http://www.mbl.is/myndir/gagnasafn/2002/01/03/GK254K3G.jpg)
And I drop a call on that one every now and then as well. I belive he is in Finland this month, or a part of it. We also spent a little time together:
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg0258.jpg)
A guy told me......;)
-
Bruno, I assume your first language is English? Why do you use the term "ami" so much?
Because its faster to type the 'American'...
Same with 'Brit'
The same guys who get their panties bunched over 'Ami' are the ones who use terms like 'Japs' or throw around the term 'Nazi'.
I used to refer to them as 'Allied Farm Bois' or 'Allied Opportunitists' but they didn't get the joke so I dropped it...
-
Why don't you take the shortcut and say "the US".
Use "ami" and many will assume you're a Fritz :D
-
because 'Ami' is still faster...
My location shows 'Florida'.
There used to be a time where 'Luftwaffle' and 'Ami Farm boi' (or opportunist) were just friendly exchanges. Now with all the girly mean in game every one ends up 'insulted' and ranting about it on the forum. I used say 'Scheißefeuer' on channel one all the time, especially, when I got a Spitfire burning. Now that will get you muted at worst or at the very least some one will run to the forum and cry:
'Why is this guy refering to the Supermarine Spitfire as 'Scheißefeuer'..!
In this game all I fly is LW planes. When I say 'all' I mean only LW planes. I have been in this game since beta and there are planes in the set I have never even sat in offline and most likely wont ever... I haven't been in any of the Spits, I haven't been in P-38s etc...
Same in Il2 where there are 200 and some odd aircraft in game I have only sat in and or flown the LW set and not even all of those. We used joke about with each, and still do over in FB. Folks here just can't take it. IMHO there's nothing wrong with a little 'hate' between friends...
I am not a PC'r. If someone chooses to be insulted or make assumptions then so be it. I could careless about their 'feelings'. I aint Dr. Phil...
It appears that some folks just feign insult to garner attention for themsleves. I tried the 'kinder, gentler Wotan' a while back. It lasted about 2 days...
-
[/B][/QUOTE]It appears that some folks just feign insult to garner attention for themsleves. [/B][/QUOTE]
hap
-
Bruno. Only the LW rides are just a part of AH :D
In my case, I try them all. Favourites are Spits and 109's though.
The C.202 can also be a blast ;) And it has a DB and is Axis :D
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Those who imply that I am some hater or that I insult all because I don't share your opinions are basically morons.
being civil negates the need to defend one's self. calling others "morons," in some circles is considered being uncivil.
hap
-
What's with the one line / quote responses? I know what I wrote...
Quote where I said anything about being 'civil'. I could careless about 'civility'. What I am saying is some folks should butch up a little. None of them are made of glass and if they chose to 'get insulted' by a differing opinion then that's on them. I am not responsible for how they choose to feel.
Read that line you partially quoted again:
Those who imply that I am some Ami hater or that I insult all Americans because I don't share your opinions are basically morons.
This is a general statement and it is left to the reader to decide for himself who those 'morons' are.
Also, if you are going to quote someone it's in bad form to edit what it is you are quoting.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
chose to 'get insulted'
no one i have ever known nor i have ever selected freely and after consideration to become insulted.
When someone bevhaves with pride or arrogance or treats treats another with insolence, indignity, or contempt, they were usually goaded.
the noun "moron" (a mildly mentally retarded person or a very stupid person) also usually does not aptly describe those i have insulted.
hap
also, my parents and grandparents and probably yours put a good deal of store by "civility." my people referred to it as "manners."
-
Safe to say the substantive part of this thread is over...
-blogs
Originally posted by Bruno
... I could careless about 'civility'. What I am saying is some folks should butch up a little. None of them are made of glass and if they chose to 'get insulted' by a differing opinion then that's on them. I am not responsible for how they choose to feel. ...
-
the allies were successful because they were civil? :huh
hap
-
no one i have ever known nor i have ever selected freely and after consideration to become insulted.
If I write:
'The bomber campaign wasn't decisive in determining the out come of WW2.'
And you reply with:
'I find your opinion insulting'
Then you have chosen to be insulted.
When someone bevhaves with pride or arrogance or treats treats another with insolence, indignity, or contempt, they were usually goaded.
Nonsense, did your read Boxboy's original reply to me:
Bruno I have a question for ya.
Why did Stalin DEMAND a second front at Yalta???
If what you espouse is all true he didn't need us at all and could have won the war without us and have "owned" all of Germany alone with no other "allie" to mess with.
The problem with your arguements is that "history" keeps getting in the way.
That reply came out of thin air. I hadn't said one thing to Boxboy before that.
He made snide remarks all on his own after choosing to be insulted by my opinion.
the noun "moron" (a mildly mentally retarded person or a very stupid person) also usually does not aptly describe those i have insulted.
I know what 'moron' means. I chose that word specifically.
Please quote my 'insults'...
also, my parents and grandparents and probably yours put a good deal of store by "civility." my people referred to it as "manners."
I don't care anything about your grandparents or their manners. If you go back and actually read the thread in context you will see that the 'insults' began with Boxboy. Any uncivil behavior that followed is a direct result of his 'poor manners'.
I give you credit for at least in attempting to put out a coherent post even though it fell well short of the mark...
-
Safe to say the substantive part of this thread is over...
That ended a page and a half ago...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Nonsense, did your read Boxboy's original reply to me: That reply came out of thin air. I hadn't said one thing to Boxboy before that.
i erred.
hap
-
One second front has skipped this thread here mostly, when it comes to comparing contributions and sizes of the Allies in WW2.
That would of course be the Pacific.
-
I quickly scanned this thread and it seems that there has been no references to the best kept secret of the Allies and a true war winning advantage for them. No, it was not the P51 or stupidity of Hitler :)
I'm talking about the Ultra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra). In my opinion this gave the allies such an advantage that no number of u-boats, 109s or industrial capacity could have matched it.
-
There was a flip side on that, - especially regarding the war with the U boats.
The Germans were also listening to the Brits.....
None the less, Enigma, Ultra, and whatever the name was of the US codebreaking of the Japanese were quite important.
Good point Have :)
-
There were plenty of spies in the German High Command as well. Canaris (Abwehr chief)w as actively aiding the British (Anzio for example). The Soviets had various networks inside Germany (Rote Kapelle, the Lucy Ring, Rote Drei etc..)
Third Reich security was breeched very early in the war and had huge consequences, like at Kursk for instance...
-
And they strung Canaris up very close to the allied lines 1944 or was it 45?
The first fine example of very good intelligence job in WW2 might be considered the Scuttling of Graf Spee BTW.
-
america won the war because of pilots like ben affleck saving britian and then america at the battle of britian and pearl harbour and then bombing japan and america won the war by capturing germanys code machine and stealing their uboat and torpedoing things and dont forget stealing all the gold and the tiger tank by that oddball person and shooting up the train station woofwoof :lol :rofl :lol :mad: :furious :furious
-
:huh
-
u suk hap why dnot you lern sum history :mad: :furious :mad: :mad: :furious :rofl :rofl :furious
-
Originally posted by Angus
There was a flip side on that, - especially regarding the war with the U boats.
The Germans were also listening to the Brits.....
None the less, Enigma, Ultra, and whatever the name was of the US codebreaking of the Japanese were quite important.
Good point Have :)
The "whatever the name was" in your post was "Magic."
-
Magic ah yes.
The guy who broke the code was known for frequently wearing some certain sort of sandals if my memory does not betray me..... :)
-
Prompted by this thread I picked up a copy of this book.
There are many intersting tidbits.
First, Overy doesn't believe in determinism about the war. The allies could have lost. Apparently Stalin seriously considered suing for peace in October 1941 and Hitler thought he would.
There's a good chance Britain and the U.S. would have lost the war of the Atlantic, or won it too late. The Germans had broken the British maritime cypher and could track the convoys pretty well. The Germans also changed their naval code and blacked out Bletchley Park for nearly a year. Two things made the difference - 10 cm radar and excellent guesswork based on signals intelligence. Had those come 6-9 months later the merchant marine might have been too small to feed Britain and permit a build up of the US military in the European theater.
Other tidbits. At the beginning of WWII, France and the UK were out producing Germany in tanks and aircraft. That's due in part to Germany's exhasuting it's gold reserves which limited its ability to import crucial raw materials.
When the Germans launched the invasion of Russia, they deployed 3,350 tanks and 650,000 horses. They never fully mechanized their infantry or supply units.
By the fall of 1941, Germany had under it's control twice the steel production capacity that Russia had left. They had more than Britain even before Poland fell. The puzzle is why Germany got so little out of these spoils. In 1942 Russia was outproducing Germany in tanks and planes despite having less capacity than what was available to Germany. I'll have to read more to see why that happened.
-Blogs
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
At the beginning of WWII, France and the UK were out producing Germany in tanks and aircraft.
can this be true? Sept of '39, Britain manufacturing more aircraft than Germany??? :huh :huh
hap
-
Britain + France
Originally posted by Hap
can this be true? Sept of '39, Britain manufacturing more aircraft than Germany??? :huh :huh
hap
-
AFAIK at the time France fell, they were producing alone more planes than the Germany. If there had been a bit more time...
gripen
-
More tidbits.
I did read that France had more aircraft than the LW. Will have to check though.
Britain also may have had more than Germany and at the time of BoB the Brits were producing more.
However that didn't always show in the air, since the Germans usually were on the slashing side of a front of small depth with rather larger distances. (Short flight time over a large posible area)
Anyway, in 1939 as well as 1940 the LW was definately the most powerful and modern airforce in the world.
-
Originally posted by LEDPIG
Yea it seems to me a large amount of kills and deaths in air combat occured by:
someone sneaking up and shooting someone from behind
attacking only when you had the advantage
diving on an opponenent with superior speed and running
attacking with superior numbers
In the MA we calls these moves "dweeb" moves but in real life this was how it was done. You can't respawn and try it again in real life this was no joke. I personally don't think these are "dweeb" moves i think this is smart fighting and caters to your best interests, i.e. you living other guy dying. Iv'e never heard a real fighter pilot be dishonored by his cowardly tactics iv'e only ever heard them say kill quick and run, try to avoid a long drawn out conflict. I suppose this was particularly important when pitting a 109 against a 47 for instance where a P-47 has no business figthing a 109 on it's terms. It's like a one armed man trying to beat Mike Tyson. As happens in the MA repeatedly the guy with the most altitude and speed rules the engagement and it appears the allies made this a rule, thus allowing them to whip some axis prettythang.
Exactly, in real life you stack the deck to win if you can if your life is on the line.
You leave and fight another day of the odds are not in your favor.
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
Prompted by this thread I picked up a copy of this book.
There are many intersting tidbits.
First, Overy doesn't believe in determinism about the war. The allies could have lost. Apparently Stalin seriously considered suing for peace in October 1941 and Hitler thought he would.
There's a good chance Britain and the U.S. would have lost the war of the Atlantic, or won it too late. The Germans had broken the British maritime cypher and could track the convoys pretty well. The Germans also changed their naval code and blacked out Bletchley Park for nearly a year. Two things made the difference - 10 cm radar and excellent guesswork based on signals intelligence. Had those come 6-9 months later the merchant marine might have been too small to feed Britain and permit a build up of the US military in the European theater.
Other tidbits. At the beginning of WWII, France and the UK were out producing Germany in tanks and aircraft. That's due in part to Germany's exhasuting it's gold reserves which limited its ability to import crucial raw materials.
When the Germans launched the invasion of Russia, they deployed 3,350 tanks and 650,000 horses. They never fully mechanized their infantry or supply units.
By the fall of 1941, Germany had under it's control twice the steel production capacity that Russia had left. They had more than Britain even before Poland fell. The puzzle is why Germany got so little out of these spoils. In 1942 Russia was outproducing Germany in tanks and planes despite having less capacity than what was available to Germany. I'll have to read more to see why that happened.
-Blogs
German tanks were overly complex. Even the panzer three and Four were pretty complicated and hard to make. I bet russia could churn out atleast 2 t-34s for every Panzer 4 the Germans made, and I bet its closer to 5 or 10 to one for the Panther and Tiger.
-
Originally posted by Hap
can this be true? Sept of '39, Britain manufacturing more aircraft than Germany??? :huh :huh
hap
Of course, Churchill was smart he put a Canadian (Lord Beaverbrook) in charge in of aircraft production. ;)
I don't have bomber production numbers handy but here are some fighter production numbers from "The Battle of Britain", by John Lake.
1939 Britain Germany
June 446 14
July 496 220
Aug 476 173
Sept 467 218
Oct 469 144
Total 2354 919
The British didn't **** around, they went to a total war economy right away, the Germans didn't. Plus the British government had Crown "shadow" companies set up before the war. They would produce whatever the economy wanted at the time, but they could switch over to arms production at the drop of a hat. And the British aircraft repair organisation was second to none.
The Luftwaffe could have destroyed every aircraft on the ground one day, and the next every fighter squadron would have been complete resupplied with new fighters. Plenty of planes, not enough pilots though.
-
There's a great chapter on UK war mobilization in "The economics of World War II : six great powers in international comparison," edited by Mark Harrison, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Of all the economies in the war, the UK devoted the highest share of output to war production. There are a number of reasons for this, but still it was a remarkable feat.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Thrawn
...
The British didn't **** around, they went to a total war economy right away, the Germans didn't. Plus the British government had Crown "shadow" companies set up before the war. ....
-
"Of course, Churchill was smart he put a Canadian (Lord Beaverbrook) in charge in of aircraft production. "
Yes and "Beaver's" Son was a fighter pilot.
So was Dowding's son.
Those two fathers also understood each other well ;)
-
"German tanks were overly complex. Even the panzer three and Four were pretty complicated and hard to make. I bet russia could churn out atleast 2 t-34s for every Panzer 4 the Germans made, and I bet its closer to 5 or 10 to one for the Panther and Tiger."
Would that be because of a choice of thick and heavy cast armour over lighter welded armour of face hardened steel plates?
-C+
-
Compared to British tanks I've heard that the German ones weren't so complicated at all.
Lots of spares fitted many of the Panzer series while between the anglo-american tanks practically nothing did.
Don't know about the T34, but I picture it as simple and effective....