Why Were The Allies So Successful

[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 ), in short, everything that was needed.

Their only enemy is the UK.

No wonder they went a bit sloppy......

[Kweassa]

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...  

[Speed55]

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.

[Angus]

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

[joeblogs]

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 ), in short, everything that was needed.

Their only enemy is the UK.

No wonder they went a bit sloppy......

[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.

[joeblogs]

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.

[Kweassa]

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.

[Urchin]

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.

[Mister Fork]

One word: Airpower[/size] aka Flyboys...

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.

[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

Originally posted by Mister Fork
One word: Airpower[/size] aka Flyboys...

The Allies engaged in an air war that pulverized Germany's war industry. ..  

[E25280]

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.

[E25280]

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.

[HoHun]

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)

[gripen]

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