Michael Kenny wrote: ↑24 Jul 2021 09:49
Peter89 wrote: ↑24 Jul 2021 09:22
I mean, is there a theory out there in which the Allied numerical superiority doesn't play a role in Germany's defeat?
Given Germany attacked a huge number of countries then she was always outnumbered. This handy fact has become the default reason as to why they 'lost'. It is always true and thus is a really handy tool. The linkage that the
only reason Germany lost is because she was outnumbered is the error.
I think it is entirely plausible to think that the lack of production, resources and manpower was a decisive factor in Germany's defeat in WW2. Not the only reason, but undoubtedly a decisive one.
Here's what I think of this. In the formula of the fighting power (Quantity of Material × Quality of Material × Quantity of Non-Material x Quality of Non-Material), the Germans fell behind in every aspect by 1944.
Quantity of Material: they had less of everything
Quality of Material: most of the stuff they used was technologically at the same level or below that of the Allies
Quantity of Non-Material: they had less men
Quality of Non-Material: even those were less trained and less able-bodied
Michael Kenny wrote: ↑24 Jul 2021 09:49
Peter89 wrote: ↑24 Jul 2021 09:22
Or is there a theory in which the Allies deploy 1:1 ratio in aircrafts, tanks, etc. and then the Germans win - in mid-1944?
The only people I know who bring up the 'fair -fight' argument are fans of the German military. It is deeply rooted in the Tiger/Panther v Sherman 1:1 fair fight in an open field absurdity. Variations are 'the German Army in 1944 was not the German Army of 1939/40/41'. That 'TAC was needed to destroy the panzers' and 'most German tanks broke down/ran out of fuel/were destroyed by the crew' etc.
I think this is related to the quality of material and the quality of the non-material, but no one can seriously think that mechanized warfare did not require infrastructure. One of my ancestors worked as a mechanic on German tanks in 1944/1945 and it was an absolute carnage from an upkeep perspective. About 40-60% of the aircrafts or AFVs will be claimed by noncombat causes. AFAIK the Japanese lost more aircraft to NC causes than in combat. Using it as an excuse is kind of funny.
As for the non-material, we know how the training of the troops declined, as well as how their health and morale fell. The Wehrmacht in 1944 was indeed not the Wehrmacht in 1939-41.
Michael Kenny wrote: ↑24 Jul 2021 09:49
Peter89 wrote: ↑24 Jul 2021 09:22
What is this "fair fight" idea actually?
An excuse for failure.
Okay, but I still don't get it; is there anyone who seriously thinks that if the Allies would deploy 1 Sherman for 1 Panther, 1 Mustang for 1 Me 109 and 1 GI Joe for 1 Landser, then the Germans could win in mid-1944?
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."