Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#451

Post by Rob Stuart » 27 Aug 2016, 21:35

250 divisions with 64,000 men each would require 16,000,000 men.
It is highly dubious to suppose that the divisional slice would necessarily remain at 64,000 men if the number of divisions was much greater than was the case historically. A doubling of the number of divisions might, for instance, entail an increase of only 50% in the non-divisional elements supporting them. For example:

1. It might not be felt necessary to double the number of non-divisional engineering units, since, in a given theatre of operations, there are only so many rivers to bridge and only so many roads to maintain.

2. The number of army and corps HQs can be minimized be increasing the number of divisions in a corps and the number of corps in an army.

3. Due to the economies of scale which would become possible, maintenance units might be able to double their output with an increase in manpower of much less than 100%. Ditto for training units.

4. The Canadian Army found that it was uneconomical to maintain a corps in Italy and the rest of 1st Canadian Army in NW Europe. The divisional slice got better after 1 Cdn Corps rejoined the rest of 1 Cdn Army. The same thing would occur in our WI scenario if the Western Allies chose to fight on fewer fronts than historically. In particular, the US Army's ground force would really be able to cut down on its tail if it left the Pacific theatre to the USMC.

Since your calculations and conclusion are based on the very dubious assumption that the divisional slice could not be improved upon, they are very likely to be way out of whack.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#452

Post by Richard Anderson » 27 Aug 2016, 21:57

Rob Stuart wrote:It is highly dubious to suppose that the divisional slice would necessarily remain at 64,000 men if the number of divisions was much greater than was the case historically.
Um, it's highly dubious to believe his "divisional slice" figure has any meaning. As I already posted.

"Yet again using the methodology of simply recycling claims previously rubbished by waiting a month or so before repeating them in the hope no one might notice. As I posted the last time this ignorant claim was made by the same poster a month ago.

"Further to spouting ignorant nonsense, Mr. G uses the 66 division total in the Axis History Factbook compiled by my late friend Ron Klages and a fictitious "1,860,000 men" figure pulled from who know where, 1,873,000 as of 5 May 1944 is the closest strength report for Ob. West to 6 June. The problem with Ron's figure is it is difficult to know what he included. In fact, as of 1 June 1944, there were 12 Panzer and Panzergrenadier, 2 Fallschirmjaeger, and 46 Infanterie divisions in Ob. West - 60 divisions. Of those, one Panzer and six Infanterie were actually Reserve divisions and technically part of the Ersatzheer - it is unlikely their strength was included in the 5 May count or the 1 June count of 880,000, which was actually recorded on 7 September in OKH/Gen.St.d.H./Org.Abtl. Nr. I/18941/44 g.Kdos. v.7.9.44, NARA RG242, T78, R414.

So then, actually 53 divisions...except another one, 19. LW-Sturm-Div., although still in the Ob.West AO, was actually assigned to and in route to Ob.Suedwest. So 52 divisions. Which would yield a "divisional slice" of about 16,923...except that isn't what a divisional slice is - it's the average strength of the Heer combat divisions, brigades, and non-divisional combat battalions, plus the Waffen-SS and Luftwaffe ground troops (the two Fs.Jg. divisionen plus some troops formed for 1. Fallschirm Armee). The total of course includes divisional and unit service support troops - the Tross - but not the army service forces, which likely totaled at least 250,000 or more (especially if the service support functions of the OT, RAD, and NSKK are counted). Which would yield a divisional slice of 21,731...gee we seem to be going back to square one! Meanwhile, if we take the 50-odd divisions actually part of Ob. West on 5 May and divide that into the theater total, we get an actual "divisional slice" (using a method similar to counting all US Army personnel in the ETOUSA and dividing by the number of divisions) measure - 37,460.

Again, your claim is a perfect example of spouting ignorant nonsense."

The same can be extended to the ignorant "64,000 men" "divisional slice" argument. For example, as of 31 May 1945, the strength of the US Army Ground Forces and Army Service Forces was 5,980,900 with 89 divisions. So a divisional slice of 67,201. Except, Army Service Forces also supported the Army Air Forces. If we actually look at the strength of Army Ground Forces tactical units, i.e., Ground Forces units plus the ASF units supporting them, we get 2,502,000 and a divisional slice" of "only" 28,112.

For the Germans in May 1944, there were 291 divisions and the Heer strength was roughly 6,510,000, so a "divisional slice" of "only" 22,371, right? :roll: Except, of course, 12 of those divisions were Feld-Divisionen (Luftwaffe) and 4 were FJD, so Luftwaffe personnel. Another 22 were Waffen SS. So it is really "only" a "division slice" of 25,731, right? Oh, except we're forgetting HiWi, another 358,830 as of 22 July serving with the Feldheer alone. So it is really "only" a "divisional slice" of 27,149. Except, of course we're forgetting the foreign "volunteers" serving with the Heer, so another 350,000 and "only" a "divisional slice" of 28,730. Except, of course, much of the functions of the US Army Service Forces were subsumed in the Wehrmacht into organizations such as the OT, NSKK, RAD, and other Wehrmachtgefolge. So add somewhere around another million or so, and you have only a "divisional slice" of 32,485.

So you could of course conclude the "answer" is the German divisional slice was larger than the American.

Or, better still, you could conclude the whole business of "divisional slice" is a red herring used by the ignorant to obfuscate real issues."
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell


User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#453

Post by T. A. Gardner » 27 Aug 2016, 22:50

Guaporense wrote:That's the total manpower in each division at the end of 1944 was 64,044 including service personnel and personnel in replacement and training units, combat troops was 24,700. The German value was about 36,000 of which 14,703 were combat troops.

Source: Fighting Power, Van Creveld.
As Rich has pointed out, and now I will, you are playing fast and loose with your numbers. Table 6.13 in Fighting Power p. 59, lists the US division slice as 43,400, not 64,044. Taking that number off p. 58 where the author writes "Remarkably little information about divisional slices is available in the US Army's official history..." He takes the total strength of the AGF and divides it by divisions. That is clearly wrong since the overall strength of the AGF includes branches like Coast Defense and Ordinance, ones that wouldn't grow with more divisions.
His table on the next page is more accurate dropping your figure by nearly 20,000 men per division.


Not without economic costs. OTL they had 88 divisions, an additional 212 divisions would be 13,568,000 men, for comparison, there were about 40 million people employed in civilian non-agricultural jobs in 1943, so that's 35% of the US's labor force which means that US's GDP would decreased by 35% if they mobilized 300 divisions.

In fact, war related industries employed 12.5 million workers in 1943-44, so if you conscript 13.6 million men more than in OTL you could end up with ZERO military production and a decrease of the civilian economy as well.

Overall, there is no way around this problem other than sacrificing the resources for US's navy and the airforce and the same for the UK's, in order to build up a 250 division army capable of invading the continent.
Since your original numbers are off the rest of this, is off too. The proposed build up would come closer to about 8 million troops, possibly less. Disestablishing some continental units and units elsewhere no longer needed for a defense against Germany (such as reducing coast defenses) could drive that number lower again. If we count in the USMC that reduces the count by 6+ divisions more. Shifting some manpower from the Navy would help too given Germany has no real fleet or sea power, just U-boats and that's a guerre de course that they'll eventually lose.
All of those would have still been better equipped than the Wehrmacht who, even in this scenario, would be heavily dependent on captured equipment and production from occupied countries.

Historically the WAllies were not better equipped than the Wehrmacht.
I'd say this thread, right here on this board proves you absolutely and irrefutably wrong.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... orse+drawn

As but a single example.
In fact, according to the estimates of Operational Lethality Index by Dupuy in Numbers Predictions and War, taking out of account the effects of airpower, the per soldier OLI of the Germans in a set of 41 engagements in Italy was 119.6% of the British and Americans. That means a German soldier fighting Americans or British in Italy from late 1943 to early 1944 usually had about 120% of the firepower of a British or American soldier on average.

Data is: 440,353 German soldiers fought 655,672 WAllies soldiers in 41 engaments, Allied OLI was 2,076,199, German OLI was 1,668,086, discounting the effects of airpower. Pages 74-75 NPW.
The TLI / OLI is rubbish. The final equations he uses are simple ratios. They really aren't even equations since setting them to zero gives you a wrong answer except by pure luck (pg 60 - 61) The "normal battle line" shown is rubbish to if you apply regression to Dupuy's own numbers.

Also, why you assume French, Dutch and Czech equipment is bad? That's just prejudice against European countries. Just because they were defeated by Germany doesn't mean their equipment was of inferior quality.
I don't, even if much of was. The problem with captures is the non-standardization aspect along with getting spare parts, ammunition, etc., for those weapons. Czech equipment was usually good and even very good. But, it also isn't the same stuff the Wehrmacht is using and Germany is producing.
German expenditures on army equipment were insignificant next to either total military expenditures or German industrial production, if the captured equipment were inferior they could easily produced more "German make" equipment if so desired.
Then why didn't they? Why was the Dutch Philips corporation one of Germany's largest valve (vacuum tube) suppliers and absolutely critical to the German electronics production if Germany could "make more" themselves? That's just one example of where you are wrong.
For example, even in 3rd quarter of 1943, German expenditures on tanks and guns were 253 million marks a month, compared to 10 billion marks of military expenditures. So only 2.5% of German military expenditures were on combat equipment for the army.
Worthless information as it is taken out of context. The whole of the German economy could not supply the Wehrmacht all the equipment it needed. In many cases, it couldn't manage it in peacetime, let alone on a war footing.
Well, those "two regiment static infantry divisions equipped with obsolescent and captured equipment, lacking any mobility beyond walking, who's ranks are filled with overage and medically questionable troops" actually outfought the Americans on a per man basis by a wide margin during the war.
No they didn't. But, do feel free to show actual examples from history where they did. Even many "regular" infantry divisions in the Wehrmacht were pathetically bad in combat.
For example, the 94 German infantry division engaged the 88 and 85 American infantry divisions in Italy in May 1944, on average CEV levels there were much higher for the 94 than for 88 and 85. And the per capita firepower available was also similar to the American troops.
Except, Dupuy's methodology is rubbish. The final two equations he gives on pg 61 of NP&W are: (R-R)/5 = (P/P)-1 or P/P = (R-R)/5+1. These are not equalities, nor are the two the same equation.
I've tried to reproduce the results of Figure 4-3 Application of quantified judgement model to engagements (pg 52- 53) but have been unable to as he doesn't give you all the data necessary. That essentially means they are irreproducible results and worthless. The same goes for the table in the back of the book. If you can't verify what he did, it isn't worth anything.

John Sloan Brown in Draftee Division, likewise castigates Dupuy and his own historical work on the 88th pretty much refutes much of Dupuy's claims on the Italian theater and German combat effectiveness.
I see, like the US did with the Soviet Union just after the war, right? :roll:

I don't think the US would have used nuclear bombs on Europe in 1946 in this case. Even if we assume they would have developed nuclear bombs as OTL while Germany wouldn't (I don't think Hitler was interested in nukes because it was "jewish science" even though everybody knew about fission by 1939).
An ad hominem followed by an unsubstantiated claim.
The reason is that US wasn't a militaristic psychopathic government who would just use nuclear weapons to annihilate any government they disliked.
The reason the US would use them was in 1946 they were seen as nothing more than a bigger, better bomb. There was no mystique associated with them, nor the sort of pantywaist hand wringing the public has in 2016 about anything nuclear having been fed decades of scare propaganda and misinformation over all things nuclear. Even well into the 50's and early 60's nuclear power was seen as a panacea for all sorts of energy use. You can't apply the mindset of the US public in 2016 to the mindset of the nation in 1945.
The US is a peaceful democratic nation made of entrepreneurial people that has a low tolerance for military casualties and never fought a war with another great power where they engaged most of the great power's forces (WW1, France, Russia and UK fought the bulk of Germany's army, in WW2, USSR fought the bulk of Germany's army). As a result US's foreign policy usually tries to minimize casualties to a minimum in conflicts (Vietnam was lost because they suffered too many casualties for something that was supposed to be a small scale war) and Americans tend to tolerate less genocide on other people's than countries like Russia, Germany or Japan.

As a result of the US's peaceful nature they wouldn't want to use weapons of mass destruction of foreign civilians, instead they would engage the Nazi Europe the same way they did with the USSR and wait for the regime's natural collapse (I don't think that they would have lasted much longer after Hitler's death which would have occurred naturally not long after 1945).
What does any of that have to do with fighting a war to Germany's surrender? The US nuked two Japanese cities, had a third bomb on Tinian for the next strike, and was making more. The US and Britain turned most German cities to rubble with conventional bombing.

What's the difference between this:

Image

And this...?

Image

The Allies would have flattened Germany with nukes.

If they got enough in production I'd bet there'd be some very surprised, momentarily, U-boat crews too...

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#454

Post by Michael Kenny » 27 Aug 2016, 23:12

Note how blatant trolling has now begun in a dormant but otherwise (till now) informative thread

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p2034602

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#455

Post by BDV » 27 Aug 2016, 23:35

T. A. Gardner wrote:The Allies would have flattened Germany with nukes.
Source/support for this lovely statement?

Don't get me wrong, it's common knowledge what American and British governments were capable of when they were capable.

They were willing. Das ist klar. Would they be able?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#456

Post by Guaporense » 27 Aug 2016, 23:41

Rob Stuart wrote:
250 divisions with 64,000 men each would require 16,000,000 men.
It is highly dubious to suppose that the divisional slice would necessarily remain at 64,000 men if the number of divisions was much greater than was the case historically. A doubling of the number of divisions might, for instance, entail an increase of only 50% in the non-divisional elements supporting them. For example:

1. It might not be felt necessary to double the number of non-divisional engineering units, since, in a given theatre of operations, there are only so many rivers to bridge and only so many roads to maintain.

2. The number of army and corps HQs can be minimized be increasing the number of divisions in a corps and the number of corps in an army.

3. Due to the economies of scale which would become possible, maintenance units might be able to double their output with an increase in manpower of much less than 100%. Ditto for training units.

4. The Canadian Army found that it was uneconomical to maintain a corps in Italy and the rest of 1st Canadian Army in NW Europe. The divisional slice got better after 1 Cdn Corps rejoined the rest of 1 Cdn Army. The same thing would occur in our WI scenario if the Western Allies chose to fight on fewer fronts than historically. In particular, the US Army's ground force would really be able to cut down on its tail if it left the Pacific theatre to the USMC.

Since your calculations and conclusion are based on the very dubious assumption that the divisional slice could not be improved upon, they are very likely to be way out of whack.
But the fraction of combat troops in the German divisional slice was the same as the US's:

German divisional slice was ca. 35,000 in mid 1944 with 14,500 combat troops (ca. 40%).
US was 64,000 with 24,500 combat troops (ca. 38%).

So the Germans were unable to improve on that ratio even though they had upwards to 280 divisions so all your claims of additional economies of scale do not appear to hold. I would guess that with the 96 divisions they put in Europe, the WAllies already had most of the economies of scale that they could get.

So, to get to 4 million combat troops the Wehrmacht had to employ in 44 about 10 million personnel in the army (with 2.2 million in the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine). That's because they had massive numbers of civilians who worked as service personnel that were military personnel in other countries' armed forces.

The fact is simple: to defeat the Wehrmacht the WAllies need numerical superiority. To attain numerical superiority they would need to massively increase the size of their armies from the historical levels. To do so would require a contraction of the other branches of the armed forces and of the manufacturing workforce. To deny that fact is to be irrational.

This is pretty obvious and we are running around in circles here. Why people don't like to think straight?

Well, economists have an explanation:

http://personalliberty.com/political-de ... pointless/
Dan Sanchez wrote:Have you ever noticed how frustrating it is to argue with people about politics on the internet: like trying to use your head to knock down a brick wall? Well, keep in mind that the feeling is probably mutual.

But also consider the practical utility of that brick wall: the rational interest many people have in being close-minded and wedded to false beliefs. As economist Bryan Caplan has written:

…irrationality, like ignorance, is sensitive to price, and false beliefs about politics and religion are cheap. If you underestimate the costs of excessive drinking, you can ruin your life. In contrast, if you underestimate the benefits of immigration, or the evidence in favor of the theory of evolution, what happens to you? In all probability, the same thing that would have happened to you if you knew the whole truth.

False beliefs about economics and political philosophy may be devastating in aggregate, but for the individual the cost of choosing to embrace fallacy is negligible. So, as Caplan argues, it is perfectly rational for many to stubbornly cling to false but “emotionally appealing” beliefs. There are no individual, internalized costs that could possibly outweigh whatever emotional benefit the false belief might have.
So, why people just deny the vast difficulties involved with invading a hostile continent with vast economic and human resources? Simple, because it's cost-less for an individual to do so and nationalists dislike to believe their own country's armed forces are not omnipotent.

One should also note that the population under German control in this scenario is higher than the population of Anglo America, UK and Australia combined: about 330 million people would be inside the German sphere of power in this case (historically, it was about 280 million people under German control by January 1942).
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#457

Post by Guaporense » 27 Aug 2016, 23:53

BDV wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:The Allies would have flattened Germany with nukes.
Source/support for this lovely statement?

Don't get me wrong, it's common knowledge what American and British governments were capable of when they were capable.

They were willing. Das ist klar. Would they be able?
Thing is that assuming Hitler gets the whole of Europe by early 1942, the WAllies and Fascist Europe would be in a state of relative "Cold War" from early 1942 and the atomic bomb would be developed only by mid 1945. Therefore, the war would have already colled down enough to make it look like the relationship between the SU and WAllies in the late 40's.

The US had the bomb for 4 full years before Stalin had the bomb and they never used it.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#458

Post by Michael Kenny » 28 Aug 2016, 00:01

BDV wrote:
Would they be able?
What would prevent them?
Guaporense wrote:.

The US had the bomb for 4 full years before Stalin had the bomb and they never used it.
Incorrect. They used it twice.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#459

Post by T. A. Gardner » 28 Aug 2016, 00:11

BDV wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:The Allies would have flattened Germany with nukes.
Source/support for this lovely statement?

Don't get me wrong, it's common knowledge what American and British governments were capable of when they were capable.

They were willing. Das ist klar. Would they be able?
The only reason Germany didn't get targeted was the weapons weren't ready early enough combined with the USAAF's decision to employ the B-29 in Asia instead.
Initially, the USAAF was going to deploy some B-29 to Europe, but having to rebuild bases to take the plane and the fact that the B-17 and 24 were capable of doing the job in Europe cancelled that decision. The B-29's longer range was considered vital for use in Asia so that's where it went.
If you note, the six cities the US targeted in Japan for nuclear strikes initially were left largely unattacked / unbombed. This was so a more accurate assessment of the effects of nuclear weapons could be made.
The US thinking on nuking Germany by late 1944 was... Why? They're finished. Japan wasn't. So Japan got nuked.

As I stated, in 1944 -45 nuclear bombs were just considered a bigger better bomb, not something special that you only use as an absolute last resort.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#460

Post by Michael Kenny » 28 Aug 2016, 00:21

T. A. Gardner wrote:.
The US thinking on nuking Germany by late 1944 was... Why? They're finished. Japan wasn't. So Japan got nuked.
.
Why waste a bomb on losers? Japan had shown far more will to resist than the Germans and it seems every (recently retired from the Party-my resignation is in the post!) Nazi was scuttling west as fast as their jackboots would allow them away from the Soviets rather than carry out their boast to 'fight to the last bullet'. Like Meyer they all chickened out and begged the west to protect them from the nasty Soviets.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 28 Aug 2016, 00:25, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#461

Post by T. A. Gardner » 28 Aug 2016, 00:24

Guaporense wrote: Thing is that assuming Hitler gets the whole of Europe by early 1942, the WAllies and Fascist Europe would be in a state of relative "Cold War" from early 1942 and the atomic bomb would be developed only by mid 1945. Therefore, the war would have already colled down enough to make it look like the relationship between the SU and WAllies in the late 40's.
Why would a "cold war" ensue? The US and Britain were at war with Germany. What reason would they have to negotiate a peace if the USSR were somehow removed from the war? Strategic bombing could continue. Japan would still be defeated. Once Japan fell, the US has a tremendous resource of new manpower in China to draw on if they just wanted troops. US lead and trained Chinese units performed quite well.

So, how can you postulate with any certainty that the Western Allies would simply quit the war? After all, Germany can't go on the offensive against the US or Britain such that they can produce a victory and surrender of either nation.

The US had the bomb for 4 full years before Stalin had the bomb and they never used it.
They used it operationally twice... And, the US also started detonating bombs for research on their effects almost as soon as the war ended. There were plenty of above ground tests conducted from 1946 well into the 50's.

Image

The US Army put troops close to bomb detonations in the 50's. During Smokey II in 1954, they marched a battalion across ground zero half an hour after detonation in nothing but their field uniforms.

The mindset here among those who say the US won't use them on Germany seems to be one drawn from how people feel about nuclear weapons today rather than looking at the mindset of the time.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#462

Post by Rob Stuart » 28 Aug 2016, 01:23

Richard Anderson wrote:
Rob Stuart wrote:It is highly dubious to suppose that the divisional slice would necessarily remain at 64,000 men if the number of divisions was much greater than was the case historically.
Um, it's highly dubious to believe his "divisional slice" figure has any meaning. As I already posted.
I take your point. But mine was that, whatever the historic figure was, and 37,460 and even 43,400 seem more realistic to me, it could well have been improved upon if the US had to raise a lot more divisions than it actually did. In other words, if they found that they needed to improve the teeth to tail ratio to raise the required number of divisions, there were steps they could take to do so. What actually happened historically is, in this regard, merely a starting point for discussion and not an immutable number.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#463

Post by Richard Anderson » 28 Aug 2016, 08:36

Guaporense wrote:But the fraction of combat troops in the German divisional slice was the same as the US's:

German divisional slice was ca. 35,000 in mid 1944 with 14,500 combat troops (ca. 40%).
US was 64,000 with 24,500 combat troops (ca. 38%).
More nonsense. You have zero idea what you are talking about and are spinning off random "citations" of dubious validity to "support your claims.

Mobilized enlisted strength of the US Army 31 March 1945 in "combat forces" (Army Ground Forces) was 1,849, 580. Combat support (Army Ground Forces) was 225,464. Combat support (Army Service Forces) was 25,372. Total ground "combat forces" were thus 2,100, 416. With 89 divisions that is a "divisional slice" of 23,600.
So the Germans were unable to improve on that ratio even though they had upwards to 280 divisions so all your claims of additional economies of scale do not appear to hold. I would guess that with the 96 divisions they put in Europe, the WAllies already had most of the economies of scale that they could get.

So, to get to 4 million combat troops the Wehrmacht had to employ in 44 about 10 million personnel in the army (with 2.2 million in the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine). That's because they had massive numbers of civilians who worked as service personnel that were military personnel in other countries' armed forces.
More nonsense. The Germans never "employed" 10 million personnel in the army and were unlikely to have ever had "4 million combat troops" either. In 1944 the Feldheer consisted of 4 million personnel, but they weren't all "combat troops" any more than the entire US Army Ground Forces and Service Forces were all "combat troops."

You really need to try to gain a better basic understanding of the subject you spout so much nonsense, so confidently about.
The fact is simple: to defeat the Wehrmacht the WAllies need numerical superiority. To attain numerical superiority they would need to massively increase the size of their armies from the historical levels. To do so would require a contraction of the other branches of the armed forces and of the manufacturing workforce. To deny that fact is to be irrational.
In case you haven't noticed, your data on civilian employment in the US is pretty much garbage too.
This is pretty obvious and we are running around in circles here. Why people don't like to think straight?
Because they have the example of you, who's thinking is about as crooked as a dogs hind leg?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#464

Post by Guaporense » 28 Aug 2016, 08:47

Rob Stuart wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:
Rob Stuart wrote:It is highly dubious to suppose that the divisional slice would necessarily remain at 64,000 men if the number of divisions was much greater than was the case historically.
Um, it's highly dubious to believe his "divisional slice" figure has any meaning. As I already posted.
I take your point. But mine was that, whatever the historic figure was, and 37,460 and even 43,400 seem more realistic to me, it could well have been improved upon if the US had to raise a lot more divisions than it actually did. In other words, if they found that they needed to improve the teeth to tail ratio to raise the required number of divisions, there were steps they could take to do so. What actually happened historically is, in this regard, merely a starting point for discussion and not an immutable number.
But the German teeth to tail ratio was the same. So you think they did not take steps to improve it given their difficult strategic situation?

Facts are: historically the US had 2.1 million combat troops, Germany had 4.1 million, which means the US obviously never had an army large enough to invade Europe. Now, to get these 2.1 million combat troops, they had 5.7 million personnel in the army (- air force), which implies that it get to the ca. 6 million combat troops you need to invade Europe you need about 16 million men in the army ground forces. Then you would need more men than that to replace and take care of the millions of wounded soldiers.

Now. You are talking about as if by magic the WAllies would improve their service efficiency and personnel administration to a degree that would allow for a much higher teeth to tail ratio than historically. You are ASSUMING that, that's like assuming the Germans would develop stealth bombers to bomb the Allies had the Allies developed radar guided missiles or something.

Its just another indirect way to assume that the WAllied governments are omnipotent: no matter what, they will "solve it": need more divisions? Oh, they will just improve personnel administration and we could get 100 divisions mode without conscripting anybody else, for free. That's a good example of wishful thinking.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

#465

Post by Richard Anderson » 28 Aug 2016, 09:30

Guaporense wrote:But the German teeth to tail ratio was the same. So you think they did not take steps to improve it given their difficult strategic situation?
What an utterly meaningless statement.
Facts are: historically the US had 2.1 million combat troops, Germany had 4.1 million, which means the US obviously never had an army large enough to invade Europe. Now, to get these 2.1 million combat troops, they had 5.7 million personnel in the army (- air force), which implies that it get to the ca. 6 million combat troops you need to invade Europe you need about 16 million men in the army ground forces. Then you would need more men than that to replace and take care of the millions of wounded soldiers.
Facts are, you don't understand your "facts." Germany did not have "4.1 million" "combat troops". They had 4 million in the Feldheer, which consisted of combat, combat support, and service support troops, just like the US Army. The equivalent in the US Army of the Feldheer, the Army Ground Forces plus the Army Service Forces ground component in terms of enlisted personnel was 3,599,000, another 1,422,000 were what the Germans would have called the Ersatzheer.
Now. You are talking about as if by magic the WAllies would improve their service efficiency and personnel administration to a degree that would allow for a much higher teeth to tail ratio than historically. You are ASSUMING that, that's like assuming the Germans would develop stealth bombers to bomb the Allies had the Allies developed radar guided missiles or something.
Er, no, not at all. You are talking a much more serious war than the one the US actually fought. In the real world, the US never mobilized nearly as much as the Germans had by 1943. The slack in the US manpower resources was enormous. Out of a manpower pool of 65.2 million in 1944 they had 10.9 million in the military and 15.375 million in defense-related civilian employment (yeah, sorry, your numbers there are bogus as well). That's about 5-million in untapped military manpower resources.
Its just another indirect way to assume that the WAllied governments are omnipotent: no matter what, they will "solve it": need more divisions? Oh, they will just improve personnel administration and we could get 100 divisions mode without conscripting anybody else, for free. That's a good example of wishful thinking.
No, its just another direct way to point out you rely on bogus figures and dicey "citations" to come to your hare-brained conclusions.

Cheers!
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Locked

Return to “What if”