British only D-Day

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: British only D-Day

#226

Post by Richard Anderson » 22 Sep 2017, 21:49

Kingfish wrote:
MarkN wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:Sorry, but please...stop feeding the troll.
I'm not seeing any trollish behavior on his part.

Difference of opinion? Yes
Sticks to his guns? Sure
Way off base on some of his claims? Absolutely
Given his/her more recent musings, has your position changed at all? :wink:
Yes, on the way off base part.
He is now way off ball park.
Not sure, but I think he may be on Planet X. :D
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

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#227

Post by jesk » 22 Sep 2017, 22:39

Yes, it is important to catch the thread of logic. Hitler wanted to lose the war, that to lose power, Germany and be shot in Berlin like a dog. And this is the correct logic. :P

Image

Image


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

Re: British only D-Day

#228

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Sep 2017, 22:50

Rubbish. Everyone knows Hitler found the Spear Of Destiny and was granted everlasting youth. He had a sex-change operation and is now a dancer with The Igor Moiseyev Ensemble

Image

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#229

Post by jesk » 22 Sep 2017, 23:00

Michael Kenny, you litter the topic. For your part, spitful trolling. Like Anderson. You need to be tolerant of something different from your opinion.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: British only D-Day

#230

Post by David Thompson » 23 Sep 2017, 00:27

jesk -- This thread has a topic - "British only D-Day." Stay on it. Our rules provide:
Although there are occasionally exceptions, the forum management tries to keep a thread on a single topic. This makes it easier for readers to follow, and for researchers to subsequently locate, the discussions. If a poster would like to see further discussion of off-topic matters, please raise the subject in a pre-existing thread on that topic or, if there are no pre-existing threads, on a separate thread.

Non-complying posts are subject to deletion after warning.
app.php/rules

Consider this your warning.

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

Re: British only D-Day

#231

Post by T. A. Gardner » 23 Sep 2017, 06:30

Michael Kenny wrote:Rubbish. Everyone knows Hitler found the Spear Of Destiny and was granted everlasting youth. He had a sex-change operation and is now a dancer with The Igor Moiseyev Ensemble

Image
Where'd his... her?... mustache go...? :roll:

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: British only D-Day

#232

Post by Sid Guttridge » 25 Sep 2017, 12:57

Hi Jesk,

You write:

Germans on the eastern front from June 1941 to May 1944, before the opening of the second front, lost 1.5 million soldiers killed and missing. That's not a lot. Only young ages that have reached 18 years, per year in Germany were 500 thousand. Soldiers born in 1924-1926 fully compensated for the irretrievable losses of the Wehrmacht in the east. The real defeat began in June 1944. The Allies took more prisoners. They had better operations on the environment.

Killed and missing represent only about a third of German losses during this period. About twice as many would have been wounded and others known to have been prisoners. Furthermore, these losses would have included a disproportional number of the fully trained, pre-war, 2-year conscripts with battle experience in other campaigns. They were not replaceable on a one-for-one qualitative basis by the younger men rushed through shortened training by the Ersatzheer during the war, or by the older men who had missed conscription in the 1920s and early 1930s.

The British, USA and USSR (in that order) each ended the war with over 3 million German POWs. The primary reason the USSR did not have the great majority was that the German armies fighting the Red Army in April/May 1945 were instructed to surrender to the Western Allies, if they possibly could. And when it comes to battle casualties lost by Germany, some 80% were inflicted by the Red Army.

Therefore the distribution of German POWs after the war tells one very little about the relative contributions of the major Allied armies against the Germans. Indeed, it is downright misleading.

Cheers,

Sid.

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

Re: British only D-Day

#233

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Sep 2017, 18:50

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Jesk,

You write:

Germans on the eastern front from June 1941 to May 1944, before the opening of the second front, lost 1.5 million soldiers killed and missing. That's not a lot. Only young ages that have reached 18 years, per year in Germany were 500 thousand. Soldiers born in 1924-1926 fully compensated for the irretrievable losses of the Wehrmacht in the east. The real defeat began in June 1944. The Allies took more prisoners. They had better operations on the environment.

Killed and missing represent only about a third of German losses during this period. About twice as many would have been wounded and others known to have been prisoners. Furthermore, these losses would have included a disproportional number of the fully trained, pre-war, 2-year conscripts with battle experience in other campaigns. They were not replaceable on a one-for-one qualitative basis by the younger men rushed through shortened training by the Ersatzheer during the war, or by the older men who had missed conscription in the 1920s and early 1930s.

The British, USA and USSR (in that order) each ended the war with over 3 million German POWs. The primary reason the USSR did not have the great majority was that the German armies fighting the Red Army in April/May 1945 were instructed to surrender to the Western Allies, if they possibly could. And when it comes to battle casualties lost by Germany, some 80% were inflicted by the Red Army.

Therefore the distribution of German POWs after the war tells one very little about the relative contributions of the major Allied armies against the Germans. Indeed, it is downright misleading.

Cheers,

Sid.
It also misstates badly the German replacement situation and capability (why am I not surprised? :roll: ) At the beginning of Barbarossa, there were 80,000 replacements in the FEB with the divisions of the Ostheer and another 320,000 trained replacements with the Ersatzheer. Otherwise, the only untapped reserve was Jahrgang 22, which was considered uncommonly "large", with 565,060 men of it found fit for service. However, of those, 117,565 were already in the Wehrmacht having volunteered prior to 4 June and another 72,435 classified as UK-gestellte (serving in industry) were deferred from service. That left 375,062 classified as Reserve I and ready for conscription, but 170,125 of them were already doing RAD service, so also were not immediately available. It wasn't until February 1942 that JG 22 was actually called up...270,000 of them. JG 23 was called up shortly afterwards, but little information is known of them other than they provided fewer men that JG 22. Similarly, the smaller JG 24 was called up early in November 1942 and yielded just 180,000 men for the Heer. JG 25 was also called up early and by 1 January 1944 was expected to provide 300,000 men, while JG 26 was expected to provide 320,000 more after 1 March 1944. Planning for JG 27 and 28 expected them to produce 201,000 recruits in the first half of 1945.

Thus, the wartime intake of new age groups was about 1.5-million from June 1941 to June 1945, although call ups ended in early May... :roll:
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

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#234

Post by jesk » 25 Sep 2017, 21:50

Sid Guttridge wrote:

The British, USA and USSR (in that order) each ended the war with over 3 million German POWs. The primary reason the USSR did not have the great majority was that the German armies fighting the Red Army in April/May 1945 were instructed to surrender to the Western Allies, if they possibly could. And when it comes to battle casualties lost by Germany, some 80% were inflicted by the Red Army.

Therefore the distribution of German POWs after the war tells one very little about the relative contributions of the major Allied armies against the Germans. Indeed, it is downright misleading.
British, Americans and the French have taken about 8 million Germans prisoner. From them 1,8 million soldiers of east front. Other 6 million, from them can be 3 million were at war in the West. Other Luftwaffe, air defense, wounded in hospitals. Allies occupied 60% of the territory of Germany with the most inhabited areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_D%C3 ... of_Germany
In the end, Dönitz's tactics were moderately successful, enabling about 1.8 million German soldiers to escape Soviet capture.[20]
Kershaw 2008, p. 962.


In May, 1945 the Soviet troops quickly moved ahead across the territory of Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria. In other source read that 1,2 million soldiers of east front have avoided the Soviet captivity. Another 600 thousand rear services, reservists.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#235

Post by jesk » 25 Sep 2017, 21:55

Richard Anderson wrote:
Thus, the wartime intake of new age groups was about 1.5-million from June 1941 to June 1945, although call ups ended in early May... :roll:
All this trifles of war. For example, Alfred Jodl in 1942 proposed to advance on Leningrad. Hitler said no. To the Caucasus, for oil!

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

Re: British only D-Day

#236

Post by Richard Anderson » 26 Sep 2017, 01:04

jesk wrote:All this trifles of war. For example, Alfred Jodl in 1942 proposed to advance on Leningrad. Hitler said no. To the Caucasus, for oil!
The "trifles of war" in this case is German manpower, which is the "trifle of war" that war revolves around. However, I doubt you understand that given all you have posted before.

BTW, you were also quite wrong about that the JG 24-26 "fully compensated for the irretrievable losses of the Wehrmacht in the east. They provided a total of 800,000 men to the Heer, insufficient to cover the killed and missing, let alone those wounded and sick in hospital.
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

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: British only D-Day

#237

Post by jesk » 26 Sep 2017, 07:11

Richard Anderson wrote: BTW, you were also quite wrong about that the JG 24-26 "fully compensated for the irretrievable losses of the Wehrmacht in the east. They provided a total of 800,000 men to the Heer, insufficient to cover the killed and missing, let alone those wounded and sick in hospital.
A lot of conscripts of this group are sent to aviation. You seem to have data only on the Wehrmacht.

Image

http://militera.lib.ru/db/0/pdf/halder_eng7.pdf

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: British only D-Day

#238

Post by Gorque » 26 Sep 2017, 11:50

jesk wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote: BTW, you were also quite wrong about that the JG 24-26 "fully compensated for the irretrievable losses of the Wehrmacht in the east. They provided a total of 800,000 men to the Heer, insufficient to cover the killed and missing, let alone those wounded and sick in hospital.
A lot of conscripts of this group are sent to aviation. You seem to have data only on the Wehrmacht.

Image

http://militera.lib.ru/db/0/pdf/halder_eng7.pdf
Hi jesk:

The term in the snippet that you provided is volunteers, i.e. freiwillge, which, by logical extension, means a subset of the JG 24-26 draft. Volunteers is not the same as 'sent'. Your post does not disprove Richard Anderson's statement as it only deals with the small subset of those who volunteered for military service.

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

Re: British only D-Day

#239

Post by Richard Anderson » 26 Sep 2017, 19:38

jesk wrote:A lot of conscripts of this group are sent to aviation. You seem to have data only on the Wehrmacht.
Dear me, but ignorance truly is bliss.

1. "Aviation", i.e., the Luftwaffe, was part of the Wehrmacht. Wehrmacht = "Armed Forces".

2. Gorque pointed out the obvious, the reference was to volunteers rather than conscription.

3. What Hitler is referring to is the conscription system put in place in Nazi Germany. The conscript first did "National Socialist Service" with the RAD...typically six months, where they were properly indoctrinated in Nazi values before going into the Wehrmacht. As a conscript, as opposed to a volunteer, they were assigned branch of service according to requirements.
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

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

Re: British only D-Day

#240

Post by Richard Anderson » 26 Sep 2017, 19:53

Gorque wrote:Your post does not disprove Richard Anderson's statement as it only deals with the small subset of those who volunteered for military service.
BTW, the July 1942 replacements for the Ostheer were 177,800 men, a third straight month of record high replacements as the trained personnel of JG 22 began arriving. However, also in July, the Fehl (personnel shortfall of the Ostheer) was 700,000, versus an Ist of 2,734,000 (note that Ist included wounded and sick in hospital expected to return to their units in less than 8 weeks, as well as those on leave). In other words an overall shortfall of 20%...and even greater at the front line. Meanwhile, losses (combat and noncombat) for July totaled 154,600 and the overall balance of replacements to losses for the period of April-July was 609,000:522,730, making it one of the few short periods when replacements did exceed losses, but it was not enough to make up for the massive losses already incurred June 1941-April 1942, a pattern which was repeated over and over again.

Oh, except of course if the Germans had only been smart enough to equip all the soldiers in Norway, France, and North Africa with Adidas and 98K's and ordered them to run 70 KM a day to the East... :roll: :lol: :roll:
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”