Gorque wrote: Guaporense wrote:
Gorque wrote:The problem faced by Germany, vis-s-vis the Allies, was a lack of manpower not only to fight their campaigns but also to produce their weapons and provide for the general economy. A manpower multiplier was needed through standardization of industrial processes and outputs and enhanced firepower for the units in the field, e.g. earlier introduction of the infantry assault rifle, etc.
Nah, that's not going to cut it. They needed to perfect human cloning: to produce massive armies of cloned soldiers.
In terms of per soldier effectiveness they were already far better than the Allies, being about 150% as effective as British or American soldiers and 300% as effective as Soviet soldiers in inflicting casualties.
So expecting an even higher superior margin of per soldier effectiveness versus the Allies was unreasonable, the only way to change the tables would be to make the German manpower barrel bigger.
As with the other postings subsequent to your post, what sources can you refer to or what raw data can you provide that supports your argument regarding effectiveness/soldier and for what point in time are you writing about?
Point in time? The entire first half of the 20th century. From the beginning of the century to the end of the Second World War the German armed forces were the most effective military force in the world.
Sources? Pretty much everybody who knows history is aware of the higher fighting power of the German army. Good references are Van Creveld, Zetterling, Trevor N. Dupuy and Christopher A. Lawrence. Even admirers of the Red Army like Glantz characterized the German army as the most formidable fighting force of the 20th century.
But even historians dealing with non-military aspects of warfare like Harrison, Broadberry and Niall Ferguson are well aware of the German military superiority, these historians usually put the reason for Germany's defeat in both world wars as due to superiority in Allied resources.
In my opinion, superiority in economic resources explains the victory of France+UK+US over Germany in WW1. It doesn't explain the Soviet victory over Germany in WW2, since the USSR, controlling Siberia and some parts of Eastern Europe had far less economic resources than Nazi Germany who controlled most of Europe. The Soviet victory was obtained through the sacrifice of a large fraction of their population to compensate for their economic inferiority over the Nazi Empire plus some marginal help from other Allied countries like the US, the UK, Brazil and Polish resistance fighters.
As an aside, my post was not just about combat forces, but also about production, military and civilian.
If German soldiers were vastly more effective than Allied soldiers that implies that they were well equipped and supplied. Therefore, "production" was not a problem. If German munitions production were higher than historically it wouldn't have altered anything. The binding constraint was manpower and not munitions or capital goods. This is proven that in 1944, despite massive increases in output of fighters, the Luftwaffe did not manage to increase it's capability for executing sorties. The reason is that they lacked pilots and fuel to operate additional fighters. Lack of oil was the fundamental constraint for Germany not building up a larger air force.
The historical fact is that 80 million ethnic Germans declared war on pretty much the entire rest of the world, a world whose population was 2.2 billion. Eventually they would be defeated. What's interesting is why it took so long for the Allies to win and not that they were defeated.
If the Allies were competent they would have defeated Germany in 1939: the German army attacks Poland and then France and UK attack Western border of Germany, defeat the tiny and badly trained force in there, occupy Germany, remove Hitler from power. Instead, the Allies managed to do incredibly badly in WW2: they did nothing to save Poland, instead awaited for the German army to train and equip itself for the May 1940 offensive, managed to lose France, Belgium and the Netherlands, plus 7.5 million men they had in continental Europe, while evacuating .3 million men to the UK (of which a substantial fraction was delivered back to France and surrendered to the Germans). Then they manage to lose about 21 million tons of ships to U-Boats and other peripheral German forces before taking control of the Atlantic ocean, while the US spends 1.9 times their pre-war GDP on the military (which is about 5 times the German pre-war GDP) while the Soviet Union has to sacrifice about 15% of it's population to drive the German army back to Berlin.
Overall, in WW2 the Allies had to conscript 70 million soldiers to defeat a country whose population in 1937 was 68 million over a 6 year long war, while spending the equivalent of 10 years of the German pre-war GDP to do so.
Guaporense wrote:We ended up with a war involving 80 million ethnic Germans fighting the 450 million strong populations of USSR, US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand plus their manpower from India and Brazil. The fact that the Germans were far more effective than the Allies explain why the war lasted so long since they should have been defeated in 1939 if the Allies were minimally competent.
One could make that same claim in reverse. If the Germans were the super-warriors you make them out to be why didn't they defeat Russia in the two years they were the only land opponent on the continent?
I see you cannot grasp the concept of numerical superiority or any other factors: strategic decision making, weather, logistical difficulties involving vast continental operations, etc, besides tactical effectiveness. Well, your post is nothing more than an ethnocentric based provocation.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz