Would be fair to say I'm not a fan of Dupuy's. Don't want to be too critical of him, as he certainly put a lot of effort into his research and imagine it would be relevant/ accurate of some purpose (which I'm not entirely clear of). But, for me, he's proto internet fanboi. League tables are for sport, not hsitory.Avalancheon wrote: ↑23 Dec 2018 12:29''The record shows that the Germans consistently outfought the far more numerous Allied armies that eventually defeated them... On a man for man basis the German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and they did not, when they won and when they lost.'' -A Genius For War, by Trevor Dupuy.
Apples and oranges for me.Avalancheon wrote: ↑23 Dec 2018 12:29Its a useful comparison to make between the opposing armys. In 1940, Germany conquered Holland, Belgium, and France in just 6 weeks. In 1944, a crushingly superior Allied force retook France (and most of Belgium) in 15 weeks. Of course, you'll probably argue that the extra time required by the British and Americans was simply a function of it being an amphibious invasion.
I'm pretty much fine with calling the bombe's computers. This conversation seems to be mainly be about Normandy, by which time a working Colossus was operational. Complacent could be used to describe the German's signal security, I'd use the word incompetent though.Avalancheon wrote: ↑23 Dec 2018 12:29The Enigma cypher wasn't cracked by computers, though: It was cracked by bombes. You're thinking of the Lorenz cypher, which was a more formidable encryption machine. The Germans were totally complacent with the security of their radio traffic. They knew that a colossal effort would be needed to break into their cypher networks, and hence, they assumed that this alone would be enough to deter their adversarys from even trying.
I'd describe the situation as being more of the German's not knowing, that they didn't know how much more technically advanced the first world was in comparison to their backward tech.
Somewhat ironically, I understand their were some German trained scientists involved in the early research of the transistor at Britsh, US and Canadian universities.
From what I understand Nazi era Germany struggled with valve(/vacuum tube) technology, I can see them having troubling even being able to theoretically contemplate something like a Colossus. They were using DOS to the Allies WIndows 10.
No, it was both quality and quantity. The most common German fighter in the Summer of 1944, the 109G-6, was slower than the 109F-4 of mid 1941. The German's couldn't develop high performance piston engines, which is why they came up with their pathetic abortive attempts to produce a jet engine. Their aircraft designer's were using slide rulers and pencils to the Allies AutoCAD.Avalancheon wrote: ↑23 Dec 2018 12:29It wasn't a problem of quality so much as it was of quantity. The Germans could never have hoped to muster enough fighters to even begin restoring the gross disparity in air power over Normandy. Especially not with the severe fuel shortages they were experiencing at this time, which also cut into the number of sorties they could mount, and the length of time they could train pilots.
Avalancheon wrote: ↑23 Dec 2018 12:29Somewhat. Part of the problem was that the Germans had lots of forces tied up guarding the coastlines, and waiting in strategic reserve for the landing at the Pas de Calais. They got totally duped by operation Fortitude. If they had thrown more divisions into the fight, they would have been able to hold out even longer than they historically did.
Though to be fair, air interdiction of the bridges over the Seine and other rivers was limiting their ability to resupply their forces already in Normandy.
Sucks to be the German's with an opponent who can fill the sky with superior aircraft. If only they had 50,000 Tigers all with a Wittman.
I certainly believe evrything I said about the Gwerman Army of WW2. Well, except perhaps (you have a point here) that the armed forces of Germany were very fit for the purpose of invading their neighbours in 1940.Avalancheon wrote: ↑23 Dec 2018 12:29You can't possibly believe any of the things you have just said. Ignoring the question of how the British army suffered repeated, catastrophic setbacks against an army that was 'unfit for purpose' in 1940 and 1941 (Norway, Belgium, France, Greece, Crete, Libya, etc), your claim is verifiably untrue.
The German army had better leadership at all levels of its hierarchy, from NCOs, to junior officers, to senior officers, all the way up to flag officers. Officer and NCO training was far superior to both the Americans and British. In order to become a 2nd Lieutenent, the American candidate underwent 3 months of training, while the British candidate underwent 4-6 months of training. In contrast, German NCOs alone were trained for 6 months (!). This is the mark of a truly professional force that did not cut corners.
This gap in quality wasn't just a low level phenomenon, either. It was present among flag officers as well. How many famous British generals can you name off the top of your head? Maybe Wavell, Auchinleck, Slim, Montgomery, etc. How many famous German generals can you name off the top of your head? Guderian, Hoth, von Kleist, Rommel, von Manstein, Student, Model, Manteuffel, etc. No other army was able to churn out such a large, consistently high quality portfolio of generals. The Germans were able to do what few other nations could, and effectively found a way to 'institutionalise excellence', as Trevor Dupuy put it.
Beating France was a great achievement.
But, if I understood Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" correctly, Hitler's "economic miracle" was based on loans he no intention/ capability of paying back, which while I'm not entirely sure of the legal term for that kind of criminality I'll call it theft. Also, Tooze describes a programme of forced nationalisation (also theft) or appropriation (more robbery/ theft with menances than theft) of industry. Think the French/ BEF would have been a far more serious opponent if their government had given up on Democracy/ rule of law. TYooze's book is also very critical of the German's, corruption and ineffiecent use of the resources they conquered (theft again) and their management of Germany proper.
Apologies for using this term (I'm fiercely apolitical and Social Justice Warriors can burn in hell with Trumpites, Brexiteers, et. al.) but you listing off some "dead white guys" is neither here nor their.
But yes there has been more fanboi idiocy written about the Nazi's than other participants in WW2.
The Churchill was a pretty heavy tank and the Sherman Jumbo had some armour. Probably would have been better if more Churchills and Jumbo were used, at least intially, in Normandy. But, the Shermans, Cromwells amd Stuarts did the job.Avalancheon wrote: ↑23 Dec 2018 12:29To be fair, the balance between offense and defense had shifted in the 4 years since Germanys blitzkrieg in 1940. All of the major armys involved had a better idea of how to stop an enemy armored forces from breaking through into their strategic depths. But theres no denying that the kindof tank used to spearhead a breakthrough would also have an influence on how successful the attackers were. Neither the British or Americans used heavy tanks for this purpose. Thats why they cut their teeth so badly against German defenses. They were using medium tanks in a role they weren't really suited for.
But about the British in North Africa. One of the major problems there wasn't so much the choice of tanks used, so much as the manner in which the attacks were launched. The British tended to use their armored brigades and divisions in something that often resembled a headlong cavalry charge. They were never supported by infantry, and rarely supported by artillery. The Germans were smart enough to avoid tank on tank clashs, because thats just hammer on hammer. Instead, they withdrew their panzers behind a screen of anti-tank guns, where the pursuing Brits were shot to pieces.
You've got some points there about the 8th. Army, but you've skipped over the fact that guns of the 8th Army made of mess of the Panzers when they got attacked. While you'd probably need a second hand, the number of times a German frontal attack was successful against the Western Allies is a very short list and easy to count
P.S. enormously off- topic, but while I haven't studied technical drawing at all, and have no idea about how good (or bad) slide rulers are, I would agree with anyone who'd describe AutoCAD (at least the free student verison) as being f****ng awful. I was trying to say Allied engineers were better with my comparison.