Why Were The Allies So Successful

[Angus]

Yet, Gripen, the loss records say a lot

[Karnak]

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.

[63tb]

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

[E25280]

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.

[E25280]

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.

[Thrawn]

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.

[Kweassa]

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.

[Boxboy]

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).

[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.

[E25280]

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.

[Angus]

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

[Whisky58]

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.



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

[Urchin]

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.

[Bruno]

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.

[Angus]

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