D-Day
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2016, 07:03 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2016 08:46 PM by Banjo.)
RE: D-Day
June 22 1941 combined with AH declaring war on America December 10 1941 is when the Germans lost. They also fought for ideological reasons, which drove potential allies to become enemies.

Germany also only created an air force based upon infantry support. No long range heavy bombers. The Germans also did not take radar seriously until long after the allies and their codes were broken.

Also the map above does not include Australia. Darwin was bombed 67 times and Sydney harbour attacked by submarines.

The Germans also focused too heavily on complex material, not large numbers of less advanced equipment. Such as the Tiger and Panther tanks built in small quantity compared to the Soviet T 34 built in the thousands.

Here is a good lecture on mass production VS limited production during WWII.






[typo fixed]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
04-06-2016, 12:10 AM
RE: D-Day
Lots of good points in your post, Banjy. Another point that should be made about the Germans was the poor planning of their force structure. Even as the OKW knew that Hitler was envisioning attacking Russia, through the last half of 1940 and the first quarter of 1941 they sank resources into building submarines -- a sensible decision for a one-front war, suicidal when planning to attack the world's largest -- and Europe's most populous -- country. When Hitler decided at the end of June 1940 to attack Russia, production resources should have been shifted to steel and aluminum, tanks and airplanes, rather than submarines, I think.

Additionally, army inductions should have received priority -- but the highest-scoring applicants were grabbed by the Luftwaffe. Further to that, a serious program for a dedicated long-range heavy bomber seems like an obvious requirement; instead, the Luftwaffe was saddled with the He-177, a four-engined bomber with a relatively small 2,000 kg bombload and a design requirement to be able to dive-bomb (!). This requirement resulted in in an unusable aircraft prone to inflight fires, and left the Russian withdrawal of heavy industry to the east unhampered by air attack.

That he declared war on America in a gratuitous fit had little to do with his defeat. Sure, we Americans won some damned good victories, as did the Brits, but fully 60% of all Wehrmacht deaths in WWII happened on the Eastern front. The Russians did the heavy lifting, aided by the efforts of the Western Allies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
04-06-2016, 01:56 AM
RE: D-Day
(03-06-2016 07:03 PM)Banjo Wrote:  June 22 1941 combined with AH declaring war on America December 10 1941 is when the Germans lost. They also fought for ideological reasons, which drove potential allies to become enemies.
Agreed, the amount of resources (manpower and raw materials) availiable to the allies, as well as the strategic positions of particuarly the US and UK (bases everywhere around the world) simply made this undertaking futile. Any kind of long term war of attrition was already lost at this point. And when the allies were able to delay the german conquest and bring it to a stop once (Moscow in winter 1941) all was lost.
The only way not to lose WWII for germany would have been befriending slavic nations (who were very friendly towards germany at first!) in order to gain the resources and infrastructure to overcome russia, and then create a kind of stalemate with the anglo-saxons as a basis for negotiations. Strictly from a military standpoint i still dont understand why noone in the german military and political leaderships saw this. Most probably they were just too much engaged in their silly ideology of exterminating other peoples. Facepalm

(03-06-2016 07:03 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Germany also only created an air force based upon infantry support. No long range heavy bombers. The Germans also did not take radar seriously until long after the allies and their codes were broken.
Heavy bombers werent useful for Germany, and i am still not sure how much of a benefit they were for the UK. However they were the only means for britain to strike back at german mainland between 40-44. They cost a lot of resources the Wehrmacht needed for the Blitzkrieg tactical Luftwaffe. The bombing of German industry showed that a disproportionate amount of bombers (= resources & men!) and time are needed to have significant success. German production was de-centralized, and moved underground where possible. Result: Production numbers went up until well after D-Day. I have no doubt Russia could have done even better if attacked by a german strategic Luftwaffe.


(03-06-2016 07:03 PM)Banjo Wrote:  The Germans also focused too heavily on complex material, not large numbers of less advanced equipment. Such as the Tiger and Panther tanks built in small quantity compared to the Soviet T 34 built in the thousands.
I think this was a sensible decision. Germany didnt have either the material resources nor the manpower the allies, (including russia) had. For each tank you need a crew of 5 men! So i think it was ok to go for quality rather than quantity. However there was a lack of standardisation, too many different models, and -frankly- a misunderstanding of what a proper tank should look like early in the war. The T34 showed that indeed russias design was most advanced in the world. It took germany quite some effort to upgrade its tank desings to that level (Pz IV F upwards, Tiger, Panther, etc.).

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:Even as the OKW knew that Hitler was envisioning attacking Russia, through the last half of 1940 and the first quarter of 1941 they sank resources into building submarines -- a sensible decision for a one-front war, suicidal when planning to attack the world's largest -- and Europe's most populous -- country. When Hitler decided at the end of June 1940 to attack Russia, production resources should have been shifted to steel and aluminum, tanks and airplanes, rather than submarines, I think.
While the u-boats certainly didnt play a role in fighting russia, they were essential to keep the anglo-saxons at bay. They also didnt require vast resources. They were very cost-efficient and effective in combat. Thats why they almost brought britain to its knees, twice, and even churchill admitted that the only thing that gave him real concerns were the U-boats. For 1000 U-boats germany needed 40.000 crews, which amounts to not more than 3 Infantry divisions, and 1mio tons of steel, which amounts to 2 moden Battleships/carriers. That is not much for delaying supply from the US to Europe so much for so long that a invasion on european mainland was started not earlier than mid ´44 by which time the red army was about to claim back central Poland and the balcans. Until early to mid 43 is was absolutely in the realm of possibility that the UK could have been completely cut off from the US and dealt with separately and in the very near future (and resources then be brought back to the eastern front).

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2016, 07:21 PM
RE: D-Day
With heavy bombers the Germans could have attacked the Russian factories once they had been moved across the Urals. This is but one instance. Malta, Parts of Africa etc are but a few instances.

It was a major mistake having the HeIII and Ju 88 as their most powerful bombers. People such as Adolf Galland, Rudel, Rall etc said so.

Also no aircraft carriers was a massive mistake.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2016, 10:44 PM
RE: D-Day
(04-06-2016 07:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  With heavy bombers the Germans could have attacked the Russian factories once they had been moved across the Urals. This is but one instance. Malta, Parts of Africa etc are but a few instances.

It was a major mistake having the HeIII and Ju 88 as their most powerful bombers. People such as Adolf Galland, Rudel, Rall etc said so.

Also no aircraft carriers was a massive mistake.

That had mostly to do with failure to fully execute the Kriegsmarine's "Plan Z", to fully arm Germany with the navy it needed to engage the British and Americans (combined with their failure to secure the French fleet when the nation surrendered), which was not expected to be complete until starting the war in 1945.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
05-06-2016, 03:23 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2016 03:28 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: D-Day
(04-06-2016 01:56 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  While the u-boats certainly didnt play a role in fighting russia, they were essential to keep the anglo-saxons at bay. They also didnt require vast resources. They were very cost-efficient and effective in combat. Thats why they almost brought britain to its knees, twice, and even churchill admitted that the only thing that gave him real concerns were the U-boats. For 1000 U-boats germany needed 40.000 crews, which amounts to not more than 3 Infantry divisions, and 1mio tons of steel, which amounts to 2 moden Battleships/carriers.

No, I'm not underselling the efficiency of the U-boats. I'm saying that if you're preparing to fight the world's largest ground army, a nation built on land trade, you should build enough U-boats to keep the original opponent checked, but not build so many that it cuts in on other production. Putting steel production in terms of large naval vessels, in the context of the Eastern Front, isn't very illuminating. That same one million tons of steel represents anywhere from 2500 to 4000 tanks, depending on model -- tanks that would actually have been useful in the conflict under discussion. As for the personnel, comb-outs later in the war showed how much slack manpower Germany had, even discounting HY/VG units. While such a deployment would certainly be more manpower-intensive than the 40,000 sent to the UWaffe, it seems to me that a fighting power ought to deploy the mass of its strength at the crucial point, and for the three years 1941-1944, that was obviously the Eastern front.

American production did not hit its stride until 1944. American manpower didn't hit its peak until then. I think -- and it's obviously only an Internet opinion, take it for what you will -- that Germany could have made do with fewer U-boats, a more effective maritime arm of the Luftwaffe, and thereby husbanded resources for the Eastern front without losing much if at all in the Atlantic.

(04-06-2016 01:56 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  That is not much for delaying supply from the US to Europe so much for so long that a invasion on european mainland was started not earlier than mid ´44 by which time the red army was about to claim back central Poland and the balcans. Until early to mid 43 is was absolutely in the realm of possibility that the UK could have been completely cut off from the US and dealt with separately and in the very near future (and resources then be brought back to the eastern front).

The biggest delay on the cross-channel invasion was landing craft, which were needed in large numbers in the Pacific as well. Given that, cutting the UK off from America wasn't necessary. Another matter is that the Western Allies engaged in the North African campaign which, while writing Italy out of the war eventually, garnered only two major victories at the cost of a tremendous slowdown in the NW Europe buildup.

The Red Army had already torn the guts out of the Wehrmacht by the middle of 1943, between Stalingrad and Kursk. Due to their own "peripheral" strategy (Africa, then Italy), the Western Allies had themselves declined decisive intervention -- wisely, in my own opinion, for whatever that might be worth.

The German generals were rightly cautious about a two-front war precisely because such a strategy gave the initiative to a stronger enemy in possession of more options.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
05-06-2016, 05:15 AM
RE: D-Day
(04-06-2016 07:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  With heavy bombers the Germans could have attacked the Russian factories once they had been moved across the Urals.

Attacked, yes. Neutralized, I doubt it. The Soviet Air Forces were formidable. The losses in the opening stages of Barbarossa would have blunted German strategic air attacks later on. And, of course, they would have been over-engineered and hard to produce.

On the gripping hand, Fat Herman might have been able to keep his pledge to supply Stalingrad by air.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
06-06-2016, 05:49 PM
RE: D-Day
(05-06-2016 05:15 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(04-06-2016 07:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  With heavy bombers the Germans could have attacked the Russian factories once they had been moved across the Urals.

Attacked, yes. Neutralized, I doubt it. The Soviet Air Forces were formidable. The losses in the opening stages of Barbarossa would have blunted German strategic air attacks later on. And, of course, they would have been over-engineered and hard to produce.

On the gripping hand, Fat Herman might have been able to keep his pledge to supply Stalingrad by air.

Moties! OK, back to the regularly scheduled thread...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
06-06-2016, 05:54 PM
RE: D-Day
(06-06-2016 05:49 PM)Fireball Wrote:  
(05-06-2016 05:15 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Attacked, yes. Neutralized, I doubt it. The Soviet Air Forces were formidable. The losses in the opening stages of Barbarossa would have blunted German strategic air attacks later on. And, of course, they would have been over-engineered and hard to produce.

On the gripping hand, Fat Herman might have been able to keep his pledge to supply Stalingrad by air.

Moties! OK, back to the regularly scheduled thread...

I assure you we don't go diving into a star on every trip...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
06-06-2016, 06:02 PM
RE: D-Day
(05-06-2016 05:15 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(04-06-2016 07:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  With heavy bombers the Germans could have attacked the Russian factories once they had been moved across the Urals.

Attacked, yes. Neutralized, I doubt it. The Soviet Air Forces were formidable. The losses in the opening stages of Barbarossa would have blunted German strategic air attacks later on. And, of course, they would have been over-engineered and hard to produce.

On the gripping hand, Fat Herman might have been able to keep his pledge to supply Stalingrad by air.

Fireball, just thinking as D Day as being one of many episodes, all linked, in WWII.

As for whether heavy bombers would have achieved victory? I too doubt it. However one must consider the Red Air Force lost approximately 5000 aircraft over the first 2 days of the great patriotic war.Their most advanced fighter was the Mig 3. A notoriously difficult aircraft to fly. Plus a few early Yaks and I 15's and I 16's.

The Luftwaffe decimated their air force. With heavy bombers the losses would have been far higher.

However Hitler, being a lunatic was fighting on too many fronts. He declared war on America to further his alliance with Japan. But both nations never coordinated their efforts. With Germany attacking in the east and Japan on the west....?

Of course Japan was wary of Russia having been defeated by them during the 30's.

Of course it is all speculation. Perhaps Hitler's biggest mistake was not rolling onto England following Dunkirk? What if Japan won Midway etc?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: