The_Enigma wrote:Guaporense wrote:It is a myth that the Allies weren't prepared to war in 1939-1940, they mobilized to a greater degree than Germany in some cases (Belgium and France mobilized a greater proportion of their population into the armed forces than Germany!).
So once again you are talking BS, the western powers were not ready for war - ecnomically, politically, socially, or military. Just because they mobilised a shed load of people on the reserve payroll or opened the doors to new recruits does not equal ready for war ... unlike the German military that had spent most of the 30s working towards that goal.
The German military was not ready for war in 1939,
not in the sense that you use it. Most of the German divisions weren't fully trained in 1940 and they had to use training tanks in 1940.
The Allies had more tanks, more planes and more artillery pieces in 1940, as well as more soldiers. They didn't lost because they were caught off-guard. But because they didn't have the required numerical superiority to beat Germany (usually a 3 to 1 numerical superiority is required).
In 1940 the Allies had 144 divisions, Germany had 141 divisions. The Allies had 13,974 guns, Germany had 7,378 guns, the Allies had 3,383 tanks, Germany had 2,445 tanks. The Allies had 4,469 combat aircraft while Germany had 3,578 combat aircraft.
The victory of 1940 was not the result of superiority in firepower or numbers, but the result of a better fighting organization.
Of course, the Allies didn't mobilize fully their population by 1940, BUT neither did Germany. Of course, German weapons were better and newer than Allied weapons, since Germany's munitions were produced 6-7 years before while some French tanks had over 20 years.
But, you will never find a situation were both sides had exactly equal levels of preparation! The Battle of France in 1940 was perhaps the closest situation in the 20th century where two sides confronted each other with similar levels of technology, numbers, etc. In all other battles of WW2 the discrepancy of numbers and technology was always very high.
Take Normandy, 1944, the Germans were prepared by June as compared to the Allies? Of course not. They only send the scraps of the German Army that they could find outside of the eastern front agaisnt an enemy that was preparing itself for 4 years.
Quite a bit of this has already been explained to you yet you seem intent on just ignoring it and looking at figures of mobilisation and making general sweeping statements. I think it would better your cause to go do some reading on the hows and whys the war broke out, and prehaps looking to some titles that deal with the various armies you speak of.
Well, the fact is that your "arguments" are not convincing. Simply because you fail to understand that ready for war doesn't equal the position of the US in 1944.
Germany's air force, for example, had only 5,000 planes in May 1940. Sure, it was the largest airforce in the world, but smaller than the combined airforces of Britain and France. It was also much smaller than what Germany could have fielded given 4 years of total war mobilization without losses (like the US by 1944).
See the BRUTAL difference?
Yes, you still ignore evidence and posts made that actually contrict everything you say
[/quote]
I don't. I read them and think about it. However, my opinion on the subject cannot be molded like clay, the way you want.
It is pointless argue with you about anything related to the relative fighting power of the German army compared to the Allies. Since it offends your British sensibilities the statement that your country's armed forces weren't comparable in terms of effectiveness to the Germans.
Nationalism is a type of mental disease:
I noticed that people that advocate the notion that the Wehrmacht wasn't superior, that it was a myth, are always Anglo Saxons (for example, JonS, Rich, Enigma, LWD, are Anglo Saxons), while the people that defend the opposite, are from other countries, most of the time (some Russians also side with the Anglo Saxons). Germans rarely defend the fighting qualities of their own army during WW2, due to the fact that it is extremely politically incorrect to defend any Nazi institution. The people that usually defend the notion of combat superiority of the Wehrmacht are usually European, from neutral nations, or Latin American, Asian, etc.
The only American that I have read that defended the notion of wehrmacht higher fighting power is Dupuy. Of course, among academics the concept of Wehrmacht military superiority are analyzed with less bias than Internet dudes.
Usually, British and Americans are very proud of their victory in WW2 and consider it as something inevitable. They always stress the fact that the Western Allies had greater industrial production than Germany, while ignoring the rest of the factors (from the eastern front, to the lack of manpower, the eastern front, the lack of natural resources, the eastern front, the fighting power of the Wehrmacht, and, did I mention the eastern front?).
Usually they don't say that the Western Allies had better soldiers, but that they were equal and superior technology and numbers of equipment (though in terms of manpower they usually neglect the numerical superiority). It is obviously much less impressive to win the war through the capacity to throw more lives away than your enemy. So, the numerical superiority in manpower is neglected while the numerical superiority in equipment is exalted. The fact is that both go hand to hand, since equipment is effectively manpower employed in industry and soldiers are needed to use the equipment.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz
