pugsville wrote: ↑
27 Jul 2021 21:43
ljadw wrote: ↑
27 Jul 2021 18:26
I have to disagree :
The Allies were not better in logistics than the Germans : see September 1944: Patton and Market Garden .
The importance of logistics is exaggerated : better logistics does not give you victory : more fuel for Patton would not mean that he could advance to Berlin .And more supplies for Rommel would not result in the Germans being at the Canal .
Other example : it has been claimed that the Ostheer received insufficient supplies during the Winter of 1941-1942, but ,if this was true (IF ! ) ,the result was still that the Germans were holding the front and that the Soviet Winter offensive was a failure .
It has also been claimed ( IMO wrongly ) that the LW failed to supply Stalingrad and that this was the cause of the defeat of 6 th Army .
But ,if there were not enough supplies, how to explain that 6 th Army fought during 10 weeks ?
But, if there were enough supplies, how to explain that 6 th Army had to give up after 10 weeks ?
Well those professionals who have studied this disagree. have you got anything other than just your opinion?
The Allies planning logistics was front and center to what they were doing, with the Germans an afterthought at best. And shown throughout the Russian campaign just how bad they were.
Since generations, we are subject to an incessant propaganda offensive from mainly Anglo-Saxon historians who tell us that the Germans were not good in intelligence and logistics,which were reserved to Britain and the US and that this is ( with the decisions of Hitler ) the main reason of the German defeat .
The facts on the other hand,prove that this is not correct :
the B Dienst of the KM was as good as Bletchley Park .
the Red Ball Express was not better than the Grossraumtransport in Russia .
there are no examples in the Russian campaign of defeats/victory caused by bad logistics ( logistics being NOT the production of supplies, but the transport of supplies ) .
a lot has been written about the delay of Typhoon because of logistical problems, but the Anglo-Saxon historians remain silent about the delay of Dragoon caused by the same reasons .
if there had been a German Market Garden ( with the same result as the Allied one ) ,its failure would have been used to prove that the Germans were bad in logistics, but logistics were discarded for the failure of the real MG .
the defeat of Rommel The Great has been attributed to bad logistics ..from the Italians,while we know that the losses of the Axis convoys were marginal and, there is a deafening silence about the logistics of 8th Army .
No one denies the importance of logistics in WWII ,as in WWI ,but, its importance has been ,and is still ,exaggerated, in a lot of cases, to deny that the Soviets defeated the Germans .
The picture the public has is that the Germans lost,not that the Soviets won, and that it would have sufficed for the Germans to defeat the Soviets ( who were after all inferior people ) ,to learn the lessons of the logistical experts from DC and Whitehall .
This bias exists even today, 76 year after the events, and is stronger than before .
It was Galbraith who said in 1945 that the Allied victory (allied : limited to US and the UK ( but very secondary ) proved that their political and economic system was superior .
This is only the usual hubris of the winner.
If Germany had won, Goebbels would have said the same .