Interview with Richard Overy

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#16

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 07 Nov 2012, 23:07

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... ory-3.html
The nations confronting the Axis powers had few options. Great Britain had to remain on the strategic defensive, concentrating on winning the Battle of the Atlantic and retaining a lodgment in the Middle East. The British faced enormous risk, however, and G-2 analyses could not confidently predict victory of the United Kingdom, even with full American collaboration. British reverses in the Middle East, or a Russian collapse on that front, would enable the Germans to concentrate an overwhelming military force against England. For the British, the situation hinged on three issues: the German ability to win quickly in Russia without suffering excessive losses; the German ability to reconstitute military forces quickly after that victory; and the German ability to control the conquered regions and exploit their resources with the use of minimal forces. Having outlined such grim prospects, Smith concluded that "from a long range viewpoint, the situation is not hopeless for Great Britain, assuming the continuation of Russian resistance and/or full U.S. participation in the war."31

The crucial factor was the state of the Soviet Union. If fortune smiles on Russian arms, Germany might yet be prevented from achieving the early and decisive victory essential to the realization of

--71--
her military and economic objectives. But if Germany decisively defeated Russia, then Germany would extend its control over the vast expanses of central Eurasia. Within that area existed adequate natural resources, foodstuffs, and industrial potential for the Germans to create a strong, centrally planned economy, the beginnings of German domination of Mackinder's "heartland."
Economically and militarily secure within a citadel that possessed immensely strong geographical barriers, Germany could release millions of men to industry and to the exploitation of her conquests. The Axis would be virtually unaffected by even the tightest sea blockade and beyond the range of most of the existing strategic air forces. Such a situation would present the United States with the most difficult military problem imaginable, particularly if it were compounded by the catastrophe of the fall of the British Isles. In that case the nation would have lost the only remaining area in Europe from which it could conduct effective operations against Germany.

The health of Russia was therefore of paramount concern, and the Soviet situation defined the time available for the United States to act against Germany. If Russia lost the war by the end of 1941, the Germans would probably require one full year to reorganize their armed forces to conduct an invasion of the British Isles. Germany would likely also need a full year to bring sufficient order out of the chaos of the conquered territories to be able to benefit militarily and economically from them. The earliest, therefore, that the Axis could mount an invasion of England would be the spring of 1942, with the spring of 1943 a much more likely date. In the meanwhile, the United States needed to provide for the security of the western hemisphere in the event that Russia collapsed and the British suffered invasion or agreed to negotiate a peace.32 Such an estimate coincided with general staff assumptions about the earliest date that the United States would be able to conduct offensive operations outside the western hemisphere. For a variety of reasons, War Plans Division believed that the Army could not implement the provisions of RAINBOW 5 before about July of 1943.33 The United States would not, for example, be able to assemble manpower, organize, and train sufficient forces to an

--72--
adequate standard to fight the Axis before that date. On a basic level, the Army needed time to build training facilities and housing for expansion. Manpower mobilization had to proceed cautiously to avoid calling up the skilled hands necessary to build training facilities before they built those bases. The second major limitation was industrial because, even in the fall of 1941 and even after the expansion of defense industries to support the requirements of Lend Lease, not more than 15 percent of the industrial capacity of the United States was devoted to defense. America needed time to convert industries to defense production.34 Finally, shipping would present problems.
In the middle of 1941 virtually all of the American merchant fleet was in normal commercial service. Around 855,000 gross tons of shipping could be made available to transport an expeditionary force overseas and then sustain it in an overseas theater. The WPD estimated that amount of shipping could move not more than 50,000 men and their equipment and 90 day's supplies to a trans-oceanic theater. That situation would improve significantly throughout 1942. Before the United States could fight outside the hemisphere, more time would be required to assemble the necessary vessels and prepare them for military use; to build the additional shipping that war service would make necessary; and to establish adequate port facilities at points of embarkation and debarkation.35 Wedemeyer later learned that the shipping required to transport the Army and Air Corps overseas amounted to around seven million tons, or one thousand vessels. Maintaining that force in overseas theaters required about ten million tons of shipping, or 1,500 hips. The two years required to build those ships coincided with the time the general staff estimated the Army needed to raise and train the combat divisions.36 It also coincided with the period of maximum risk, the earliest date the general staff estimated that Germany would be able to invade Great Britain and deprive the United States of is European base.

As Wedemeyer began to plan to meet the crisis, he therefore understood that the earliest date that the United States could go to war in anything other than defense of the hemisphere was July 1943. The excellent prospects for Axis victory in Europe made it

--73--
urgent for American to prepare its defenses as soon as possible. The chance that England would make peace with Germany or, indeed, be defeated, raised the possibility that the United States would have to continue the war alone. Thus he had to plan for a very large, and very well equipped, American army. But before the Army could engage in any decisive combat operations on the continent of Europe, the United States needed to establish certain conditions.
Wedemeyer was acutely conscious that the United States waged any war outside the western hemisphere at a considerable disadvantage. Before the Army could engage the enemy, the Navy had to transport it to the theater of operations. Besides crossing thousands of miles of potentially dangerous ocean, the United States had to establish and maintain an adequate line of supply across the ocean. Thus his first condition was that the Axis navies had to be swept from the seas, particularly from the Atlantic Ocean and those waters contiguous to Europe itself.37 Without the ability to transport military formations in security and to maintain the lines of supply needed to keep them in action, all other propositions became meaningless.

A powerful navy and a substantial merchant fleet were prerequisites, despite the increased fighting potential of the air arm. Air forces did not deprive naval vessels of their vital roles on the seas, but did accelerate the pace of war at sea and necessitate changes in the employment of navies. Neither could air forces effect the economic blockade of the enemy that was the concomitant of keeping sea lanes of communication open for the United States and Allied nations. A powerful navy remained essential, and planning had to allocate industrial potential and manpower with sea power in mind.38

? Air power was equally crucial, a fact Wedemeyer came to understand early in his career. "I was always air minded," Wedemeyer remarked in 1987.39 He was sufficiently taken with aviation to go with Nathan Twining, later a general officer in the Air Force, to take the Air Corps tests early in his career. Although he failed the flight physical, he retained a grasp unusual in a ground officer of the period of the potential for warfare in the third dimension. Both

--74--
from his study of the art of war and from his education in Berlin, Wedemeyer knew that an air force multiplied the value of a smaller ground force by denying mobility to the more numerous enemy. Various memorandums from the Air Corps emphasized this theme, and the language of those documents found its way into the mobilization studies. "The important influence of the air arm in modern combat," Wedemeyer wrote, "has been irrefutably established." He continued to explain that
the degree of success attained by sea and ground forces will be determined by the effective and timely employment of air supporting units and the successful conduct of strategical missions. No major military operation in any theater will succeed without air superiority, or at least air superiority disputed.40
While air operations could not guarantee victory alone, without a powerful air arm defeat was likely. The second condition, as Wedemeyer saw it, was thus that "overwhelming air superiority must be accomplished."41

Air power was the principal weapon with which the United States could accomplish the third condition for successful military operations against the Axis. By strategic aerial bombardment, the Air Corps could attack the German industrial and economic structure and render that structure "ineffective through the continuous disruption and destruction of lines of communication, port and industrial facilities, and by the interception of raw materials."42 Wedemeyer was familiar with the doctrine for strategic bombing as espoused by Giulio Douhet and had been in the Army throughout the debates over air power occasioned by the court-martial of General Billy Mitchell. While he did not agree that air power could single-handedly win the war, a fact recently demonstrated by the failure of the German Douhet-style aerial offensive against England, he nonetheless agreed it was the ideal instrument with which to destroy the German economy.

The next condition was physical proximity to the enemy. That meant the United States needed advanced bases from which to

--75--
operate. Not only did the country require the existing Atlantic bases in order to assure the security of the western hemisphere, but it also needed a series of bases to encircle Germany. From these forward bases, air forces could operate against the German industry and economy. Likewise, such bases offered convenient points from which to launch combined arms operations against the German "citadel" in Europe. In creating the necessary overseas stations, however, the Army had to be very careful to build only those bases that it really needed because the country could not afford to disperse its force so greatly that they could not "make timely and effective contributions to the accomplishment of our main task, the defeat of Germany."43 In building such bases, Wedemeyer pointed out that the provisions of RAINBOW 5 would have to govern:
The commitment of our forces must conform to our accepted broad strategic concept of active (offensive) operations in one theater (European), and concurrently, passive (defensive) operations in the other (Pacific).44
Finally, Wedemeyer saw that the United States and the Allies had to weaken the enemy by overextending and dispersing his armies. Concentration of forces brought victory. If the Allies could so threaten the Axis that it had to send reinforcements in many directions, then the eventual decisive attack would inevitably succeed, because the enemy could meet it with only a portion of his total strength. Attacks on enemy supplies of fuel and matériel and, most particularly, his transportation net, contributed to this end. Deterioration of the enemy's national will on the home front might result from propaganda, subversion, deprivation of a reasonable standard of living, destruction of the fabric of the enemy's society, and the chaos and public disorder that accompany such domestic conditions. Strategic bombing, planners expected, would attack the German national will just as it attacked the German industry and economy. Civilian and economic chaos would, in turn, diminish the effectiveness of the German military forces.45

In sum, the United States had to adopt a military strategy that placed the bulk of American combat forces in contact with the enemy in the European theater. In order to accomplish this, the United States had to build and maintain armed forces capable of controlling

--76--
the sea lanes of communications in two oceans; to fight a major land, sea, and air war in one theater; and to be sufficiently strong to deter war in the other. No other nation faced the task of building up its army, navy, and air forces to such standards, to meet such global commitments. Likewise, no other power had to rely upon lines of supply tenuously stretched across oceans, the control of which was still disputed, to bases that had still, in many cases, to be won.
They give too much credit to Germany's military potential. The LW for example, it had 2000 planes destroyed in combat during the Barbarossa. By late 1941, the Luftwaffe was scraping the barrel, as we can see here:
For the second year in a row, the Luftwaffe had lost nearly its entire complement of aircraft. The German air force could not look forward, as it had in 1940 after the Battle of Britain, to a period of recuperation. The failure in front of Moscow meant that the war in the east would continue with its ever-vaster commitments and its interminable distances. In the west, after a year and half of frustration, the British were beginning to acquire the capability needed to savage German cities by night, while the first units of the American Army Air Forces would soon appear over the daytime skies of Western Europe. In the Mediterranean, the Germans had virtually lost control of the skies over the Africa Corps. Thus, everywhere Germany faced increasing commitments with forces that barely reached prewar levels.

The reasons for this dangerous situation are not hard to find. A failure to draw objective conclusions from the attrition rates of 1940, overweening pride and arrogance after the early victories, and a refusal to recognize the fact that modern war ever since the time of the American Civil War has been a struggle of industrial production as well as a conflict on the battlefield all converged to weaken the Luftwaffe fatally. Combined with these failings went a regime, the criminal inclinations of which have rarely been equalled in history. Whatever political opportunities existed in the campaign against Russia which, combined with military success, might have threatened Stalin's government never came to fruition. Germany now faced a worldwide coalition with an army near defeat in Russia and an air force that was already in serious trouble. The fact that the Reich recovered from this situation and managed to hold on for the next three and one-half years is a remarkable comment on the staying power of the German people and their military institutions, if not their good sense. Nevertheless, the defeat in front of Moscow represented the decisive military turning point of World War II. From this point on, Germany had no chance to win the war; and with her inadequate production, she faced enemies who would soon enjoy overwhelming numerical superiority in the air and on the ground.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF ... ffe-3.html

I will check info for this later, but the aerial defense of Britain improved considerably in '41. If Germany brings the LW back to "play" with Britain in '42, it would not be anything easy. If the USAAF deploys aircraft to help the RAF counter German attacks, than even better for the Allies.

User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#17

Post by 1st Cavalry » 08 Nov 2012, 12:37

Jenisch wrote: I will check info for this later, but the aerial defense of Britain improved considerably in '41. If Germany brings the LW back to "play" with Britain in '42, it would not be anything easy. If the USAAF deploys aircraft to help the RAF counter German attacks, than even better for the Allies.
At the time of the battle of Britain the German losses not due to enemy action were only 21 % of combat losses, in the first months of combat on the eastern front they had grown to 75 % of combat losses and would remain at that level in 1942as well.
If the increasing rates of attrition could be attributed solely to improper facilities on the eastern front or they include some creative accounting is besides the point, as the end result is the same . :)

1941 the production of combat aircraft in the UK and Germany was 11900 and 8700 respectively.
1942 the production of combat aircraft in the UK and Germany was 16700 and 12000 respectively.

The Us air force was not a major player in ETO/MTO in 1942, by Dec 1942 they had 2065 combat aircraft deployed against Germany , enough maybe to offset British commitments abroad but no more than that .


User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#18

Post by 1st Cavalry » 08 Nov 2012, 12:52

Jenisch wrote: They give too much credit to Germany's military potential.
But the quoted part is mainly about the logistical issues faced by the Us to bring the weight of her combat power to Europe.
It also gives substance to my point that mid 1943 is the earliest point at which the US could deploy ground forces in credible manner on the European continent . Germany needed a victory in the east by mid 1942 at the latest, to have any semblance of chance in the west.

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#19

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 08 Nov 2012, 16:22

While the Luftwaffe had relevant combat and non-combat losses in the Eastern Front in 1942 and 1943, I doubt this would be sufficient to change the final result of the air war as an Allied victory.

Ah, and we also need to considerate the LL to the Soviets retained for the Allies, that means:

P-39 Airacobra single-engine fighters - 4719
P-40 single-engine fighters - 2397
P-47 - 195
Hurricane single-engine fighters - 2952
Spitfire single-engine fighters - 1331
A-20 twin-engine light attack bombers - 2908
B-25 twin-engine medium bombers - 862

A small portion of this number of acft would be lost sent to the USSR until it's defeat in this scenario. Anyway, it would be relevant.

We also would have in AFV's:

Bren Carriers - 2336
M3 Halftracks - 900
M3A1 Scout Cars - 3092
M3A1 Stuart - 1233
Valentine - 3487
Churchill - 258
M3A3 Lee/Grant - 1200
Matilda - 832
M4A2 75mm Sherman - 1750
M4A2 76mm Sherman - 1850
Half Tracks - 820
Light Trucks - 151,000
Heavy Trucks - 200,000
Jeeps - 51,000
Tractors - 8070

Lend-Lease Ammunition And Explosives:

The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons. Additionally the Allies supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT. In addition to explosives and ammunition, 991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges were also provided to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition.

Additional War Material:

In addition to military equipment, other commodities were sent which were essential to the war effort. These included 2.3 million tons of steel, 229,000 tons of aluminium, 2.6 million tons of petrol, 3.8 million tons of foodstuffs including tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on, 56,445 field telephones and 600,000km of telephone wire. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.

http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm

Let's not considerate the boots :P . Anyway, as already stated, the other itens would definately help the Allies to adapt themselfs to the new scenario.

User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#20

Post by 1st Cavalry » 08 Nov 2012, 18:51

Jenisch wrote: The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons.
This is apples and oranges .
the 317 tons refer to 163,8 thousands of powder , 105,3 thousands tons of explosives , 46 thousands tons of dynamite
soviet figures mean only explosives see topic : http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... xpenditure

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#21

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 08 Nov 2012, 18:55

But you can't deny that would improve the Allied production of ammunitions. It wasn't any drop in the bucket.

User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#22

Post by 1st Cavalry » 08 Nov 2012, 19:05

Jenisch wrote:
Ah, and we also need to considerate the LL to the Soviets retained for the Allies, that means:

P-39 Airacobra single-engine fighters - 4719
P-40 single-engine fighters - 2397
P-47 - 195
Hurricane single-engine fighters - 2952
Spitfire single-engine fighters - 1331
A-20 twin-engine light attack bombers - 2908
B-25 twin-engine medium bombers - 862

A small portion of this number of acft would be lost sent to the USSR until it's defeat in this scenario. Anyway, it would be relevant.
perhaps it would be useful to know exactly when it would be available to the allies : :D
http://www.rkka.es/Estadisticas/VVS_stat/04/04_02.htm

User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#23

Post by 1st Cavalry » 08 Nov 2012, 19:15

1st Cavalry wrote:
Jenisch wrote:But you can't deny that would improve the Allied production of ammunitions. It wasn't any drop in the bucket.
but they are already part of Allied production of ammunitions.
it would not compensate the loss of soviet aircraft production / afv / ammo/ manpower after 1942 in this scenario.

overall the allies end up fighting with less of everything , even if they retain all L&L to themselves and still need to inflict 5
times more casualties on the axis than historically.
Last edited by 1st Cavalry on 08 Nov 2012, 19:17, edited 1 time in total.

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#24

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 08 Nov 2012, 21:57

1st Cavalry wrote:
1st Cavalry wrote: overall the allies end up fighting with less of everything , even if they retain all L&L to themselves and still need to inflict 5 times more casualties on the axis than historically.
Of course they would need to inflict more casualities. The Allies would proceed in this scenario like historically: first by securing the Atlantic, and second by bombing Germany (probably more than historically, probably with a extra force of B-29s and B-32s). There would be no hurry in put soldiers in the continent, and whey landed, it would be with proper numbers and total control of the air. The Soviets suffered some 8 million military casualities in WWII, with 50% occuring during Barbarossa. I don't know why people people think the West would not be able to engage and decisively defeat the German Army with control of the air and the seas.

User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#25

Post by 1st Cavalry » 08 Nov 2012, 22:56

Jenisch wrote:
1st Cavalry wrote:
1st Cavalry wrote: overall the allies end up fighting with less of everything , even if they retain all L&L to themselves and still need to inflict 5 times more casualties on the axis than historically.
Of course they would need to inflict more casualities. The Allies would proceed in this scenario like historically: first by securing the Atlantic, and second by bombing Germany (probably more than historically, probably with a extra force of B-29s and B-32s). There would be no hurry in put soldiers in the continent, and whey landed, it would be with proper numbers and total control of the air. The Soviets suffered some 8 million military casualities in WWII, with 50% occuring during Barbarossa. I don't know why people people think the West would not be able to engage and decisively defeat the German Army with control of the air and the seas.
No ,that is just the number of dead soldiers;
casualties ( dead, missing, disabled ) were about 28 million.
4.3 million in 1941
7.0 million in 1942
7.4 million in 1943
6.5 million in 1944
2.8 million in 1945

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#26

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 09 Nov 2012, 00:09

Military dead and missing (1941–45)[7][8]
KIA or died of wounds 6,329,600
Noncombat deaths (sickness, accidents,etc.) 555,500
Subtotal KIA, died of wounds and Noncombat deaths 6,885,100
MIA and POW 4,559,000
Total operational losses during war 11,444,100
Less:Surviving missing (939,700)
Less:POWs returned to USSR (1,836,000)
Total irrecoverable losses (from listed strength) 8,668,40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_ ... vosheev2-8

It's Wik, but there are good footnotes.

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#27

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 09 Nov 2012, 06:45

The Army did not create as many armored divisions as Wedemeyer's plan called for chiefly because General George Marshall's greatest fears about Lend Lease were realized: the needs of the British and the Russians consumed a large part of American tank production. In 1955, the Army staff calculated that Lend Lease to the USSR, France, Italy, China, Brazil, the Netherlands, Norway, and the British Empire had equipped around 101 U.S.-

--107--
type divisions.14 The United States, for example, shipped a total of 5,374 medium tanks and 1,682 light tanks to the USSR alone between June of 1941 and September 1945. While only about 20 percent of all war production eventually flowed into Lend Lease channels, that matériel was overwhelmingly heavy equipment such as tanks, artillery, and combat aircraft.15 American industry simply could not satisfy the demands of both Army and Lend Lease for new production and for production of replacement armored vehicles. Therefore it proved impossible for the War Department to equip as many American armored divisions as the Victory Plan called for.
Wedemeyer's emphasis on armored divisions arose from his reading of Fuller and from the dramatic use the Germans had made of armor in the opening battles of the war.16 Some Americans, however, wondered whether so many armored divisions would be tactically desirable, suggesting that they would be awkward to maneuver and very hard to support. General Marshall eventually favored a compact and powerful force maintained at full strength as the better course of action, writing in 1945 that

The more divisions an Army commander has under his control, the more supporting troops he must maintain and the greater are his traffic and supply problems. If his divisions are fewer in number but maintained at full strength, the power for attack continues while the logistical problems are greatly simplified.17
Other unforeseen developments prevented the Army from forming mechanized divisions, foremost among them the shipping problem. Despite enormous strides in merchant ship construction, there remained a serious competition for space. Mechanized divisions required more shipping space, and the staff realized that ports of embarkation could ship these divisions to Europe only very gradually. Dismounted infantry divisions, on the other hand, required far less shipping space, enabling the United States to build up combat forces in the theater much faster. As with tanks, the

--108--
vehicles the mechanized divisions would have used were also in great demand by other nations, and Lend Lease quickly consumed much of the available production. Finally, as part of his drive to decrease the division slice, and recognizing production and shipping problems, General McNair decided to remove many vehicles from the divisions and pool them in the field armies, which could presumably manage a smaller number of vehicles more efficiently to accomplish the same tasks. Years later, Wedemeyer remarked that the battlefield would have become a hopeless traffic jam if the Army had carried out his original scheme for mechanized divisions.18
Despite the fact that Lend Lease proved a factor limiting the number of armored divisions that the Army could create, it too had hidden benefits for American mobilization. While the constant demands of Britain and Russia for equipment continued to vex the War department, contracts for manufacture of matériel for Lend Lease served the purpose of establishing major military production lines well before America went to war. Industry was in general unwilling to convert to war production unless there was some sort of guarantee of sustained production. Lend Lease provided such a guarantee, and the War Department therefore found that an important segment of industry was already mobilized by 7 December 1941.

Changes in the activation programs for other type divisions were influenced by factors other than Lend Lease. Specific plans for the liberation of Europe eliminated the need for more than one mountain division, although use might have been found for them if the Allies had pursued Churchill's idea of an attack through the Balkans into central Europe. The progress of the fighting in Italy, the one theater that offered scope for employment of mountain divisions, demonstrated that standard infantry divisions fought as well as specialist troops in rough terrain.19 After the Normandy invasion, General Dwight D. Eisenhower's SHAEF staff could find little use for airborne divisions. Neither organized nor intended to conduct sustained battle, airborne divisions had little utility after the invasion. Eisenhower retained them in the general reserve, finally using

--109--
them in MARKET-GARDEN operation in the Netherlands in September 1944. Thereafter, ground forces advanced so briskly that they captured projected airborne objectives before the airborne operation could be launched, although airborne divisions were used in the crossing of the Rhine in 1945. No one could find a role for horse-mounted cavalry divisions that justified the shipping problems involved, particularly the supply of fodder and feed. Accordingly, the War Department simply scrapped one of the cavalry divisions and converted the other to an infantry division is all but name.
The progress of the war also eliminated the need for the massive antiaircraft artillery organization Wedemeyer planned for the theaters and field armies. He could not know that the strategic bombing campaign the Royal Air Force and the American numbered air forces conducted in Europe would have literally devoured the German Luftwaffe by mid-1944. The Army Air Forces very proficiently accomplished Wedemeyer's second condition for operations on the continent of Europe: they gained "overwhelming air superiority" by July of 1944. The consequence was that the enemy air threat did not exist to justify such a large antiaircraft artillery service in the European theater.20

Likewise, there was little need for the large tank destroyer force planned in 1941. In part, that was because the United States Army found other ways to deal with tanks than by fighting them with a specialized force. Tactical aviation emerged as an efficient way to kill tanks, particularly after air leaders realized that .50-caliber projectiles could penetrate the thin armor of tank's engine compartments.21 There was also a growing consensus in the Army that

--110--
the best antitank weapon was the tank itself. Early tank destroyers were relatively lightly armored and could not exchange fire with a tank. More heavily armored tank destroyers resembled tanks so closely that the distinction between the two blurred. Eventually, the Army field more powerfully armed tanks than the medium M4 Sherman. Rearmed with a 76-mm. high velocity weapon, the Sherman could at least compete with modern German tanks. The General Pershing tank, introduced at the end of the war, had a 90-mm. gun and, despite maintenance problems, was the equal of the best that the Germans could offer. As a result, tank destroyers became technically and doctrinally obsolescent by the end of World War II.22 Well before the end of the war, the Army began to reduce the number of tank destroyer battalions forming and in training.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... ory-5.html

User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#28

Post by 1st Cavalry » 09 Nov 2012, 08:42

Jenisch wrote:Military dead and missing (1941–45)[7][8]
KIA or died of wounds 6,329,600
Noncombat deaths (sickness, accidents,etc.) 555,500
Subtotal KIA, died of wounds and Noncombat deaths 6,885,100
MIA and POW 4,559,000
Total operational losses during war 11,444,100
Less:Surviving missing (939,700)
Less:POWs returned to USSR (1,836,000)
Total irrecoverable losses (from listed strength) 8,668,40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_ ... vosheev2-8

It's Wik, but there are good footnotes.
Dmitry wrote:
Qvist wrote: No, these are the combat losses of the Red Army (killed, wounded and missing) as provided by Krivosheev.
Actually Krivosheev figures are these ( http://www.rus-sky.org/history/library/ ... c536603354 ):

KIA - 6,885,100
MIA - 4,559,000
MIA(consripts before they joined army) - 500,000

Total - 11,444,100

And wounded:

In hospitals under treatment 1,046,000
Dischargees as wounded 3,798,200
Returned to the ranks after recovery (from wounds and diseases) 17,157,243

see topic: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2&start=60

User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#29

Post by 1st Cavalry » 09 Nov 2012, 10:32

Jenisch wrote:
1st Cavalry wrote:
1st Cavalry wrote: overall the allies end up fighting with less of everything , even if they retain all L&L to themselves and still need to inflict 5 times more casualties on the axis than historically.
Of course they would need to inflict more casualities. The Allies would proceed in this scenario like historically: first by securing the Atlantic, and second by bombing Germany (probably more than historically, probably with a extra force of B-29s and B-32s). There would be no hurry in put soldiers in the continent, and whey landed, it would be with proper numbers and total control of the air. The Soviets suffered some 8 million military casualities in WWII, with 50% occuring during Barbarossa. I don't know why people people think the West would not be able to engage and decisively defeat the German Army with control of the air and the seas.
because without the soviets , the allies have :
25-28 million less soldiers
400,000 less mortars and artillery
90,000 less combat aircraft
83,000 less armored fighting vehicles
500 million less rounds of artillery and mortars
17 trillion less rounds of small arms ammo.

wrt gaining control of the air, the united states deployed 47,649 combat aircraft against Germany (27,151 in 1944) , that is twice as much as the number deployed against japan but in fact fewer than German aircraft production which by geographic reasons is already deployed.

The United kingdom due to proximity to Germany was at advantage from this point of view but despite the bombing campaign on Germany, by 1943 they are only matching German production not longer overtaking it.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/british ... craft.html

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: Interview with Richard Overy

#30

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 09 Nov 2012, 16:54



http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF ... index.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/Sta ... 3.html#t87

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.
Look the number of operational B-29s by the wars end, these could have been alocated to Europe if necessary: http://www.315bw.org/328_wing.html

Conclusion: LW would not stop the USAAF, let alone it together with the RAF.

Post Reply

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”