Question About Western Contribution to the War

[Richard Anderson]

He used as argument that Hitler boasted to Petain about 186 German divisions first class in the spring of 1941.

Uh, but Hitler did make that boast. Mind you, he was lying, but that is another issue. And I suspect MarkN knows that and made no such argument...he was simply showing that you had used a classic methodology.

His claim that in the summer of 1940 the German divisions were fully equipped and manned .

His claim that in the summer of 1940 the British Home Forces had only equipment for 4 divisions .

Except he never made such a claim. In fact, just the opposite. Unlike you, who presumes to infalibility (and then makes up numbers) he stated at the outset, "In June 1940, Germany had lots and lots and lots of divisions in France and Belgium. I cannot be bothered to look up the correct number, but let's just say it was 100 for the sake of argument."

Note that German historians , including Frieser, are using the same tactic by claiming that the WM was in 1940 qualitatively /quantitatively weaker than the allies, but still won because of the genius of the Prussian von Manstein .

Aside from the fact that has zero to do with what you imagined MarkN said, now you are claiming that MarkN inflated German strength vis a vis the British and saying that is the "same" as Frieser inflating Allied strength vis a vis the Germans. So now opposites are the same?

[Richard Anderson]

You are trying to replace decisions with statements about the inability of divisions.

I know you are completely unaware of what the basis of such decisions were, but that is ludicrous even for what passes as knowledge and logic on your part.

May 19 battles ended, with the exception of the remnants of Soviet troops in the quarries.

Thank you for restating what I just said. Do you have a point?

Trappenjagd, completed 19 May, incurred 7,588 German and Rumanian casualties...

Logic is, but it is an attempt to falsify history. By July are not ready, went to Leningrad, there on August 12 received replenishment. And then have already restored fighting efficiency. Itself is not funny?

You are truly that ignorant of history that you remain unaware, even after I spelled it out for you, that the Crimean operations by 11. A.O.K. were in two phases? And you think that five infantry divisions reduced to 2/3 strength and then brought up by replacements to about 83%, would tip the balance in Blau? :roll:

In February 1943, the Germans themselves collapsed, cutting the front line, thereby freeing 21 divisions. The Russians actually attacked, trying to get the Germans to withdraw and strengthen the Stalingrad direction. Defeat near Moscow in the summer of 1942 is desirable for Germans.

Sigh...Büffel Bewegung began the night of 28 February 1943 and ran through 25 March. Yes, Western and Kalinin Fronts attacked 2-31 March, but how they were intending to "get the Germans to withdraw" when the Germans were already withdrawing must remain a mystery embedded in what passes for your logic. Ditto as to why the Soviets would attack in order to get the Germans to "strengthen the Stalingrad direction". I can only think your belief the Germans would find it "desireable" to be defeated near Moscow in the summer of 1942 is part of your insane fantasy that Hitler was actually a Soviet plant.

[jesk]

I know you are completely unaware of what the basis of such decisions were, but that is ludicrous even for what passes as knowledge and logic on your part.

That's funny. I in dozens of posts pointed to the basis of decisions, with reference to sources. You have the numbers of junk in the divisions. A common phenomenon in the consideration of history. 90% of people are not interested in the real picture of the story. History as a canvas of paper, I draw what I want, depending on my preferences. In your case, some digital logic dominates, as "the basis of such decisions."
For example, Russian patriots like to praise our feat. All their energy is directed at combating falsifiers, trying to reduce the contribution of the USSR to victory.

Thank you for restating what I just said. Do you have a point?

You spoke in the context of the just-completed struggle, the losses incurred there. The army is not capable and then the art in the concept of your version of history. Like the Bible, from different prophets. So do you, the version of the Second World War from Richard Anderson.

You are truly that ignorant of history that you remain unaware, even after I spelled it out for you, that the Crimean operations by 11. A.O.K. were in two phases? And you think that five infantry divisions reduced to 2/3 strength and then brought up by replacements to about 83%, would tip the balance in Blau? :roll:

I view the army as a whole. 19 divisions did not attack the Caucasus on July 11, as planned. On July 23, Hitler completely abolished the participation of the 11th Army in the offensive.

Sigh...Büffel Bewegung began the night of 28 February 1943 and ran through 25 March. Yes, Western and Kalinin Fronts attacked 2-31 March, but how they were intending to "get the Germans to withdraw" when the Germans were already withdrawing must remain a mystery embedded in what passes for your logic. Ditto as to why the Soviets would attack in order to get the Germans to "strengthen the Stalingrad direction". I can only think your belief the Germans would find it "desireable" to be defeated near Moscow in the summer of 1942 is part of your insane fantasy that Hitler was actually a Soviet plant.

The Russians attacked the ledge, had the operation been successful, the Germans were releasing 21 divisions in connection with the reduction of the front line. They went to Stalingrad and covered the flanks there instead of the allied armies.
I did not write that Hitler was at one with the Russians. He made hundreds of mistakes and I assumed that the well-known political consequences of the war, the formation of the UN, NATO, the European Union impressed Hitler. I have the right to, as a weighty argument, emphasize, entirely errors in the military sphere.

[MarkN]

He used as argument that Hitler boasted to Petain about 186 German divisions first class in the spring of 1941.

I used that extract to show you are as foolish as Hitler in labelling willy-nilly divisions as "first rate" or "1. Klasse". It is utterly meaningless - except perhaps to wargamers and strategic corporals.

His claim that in the summer of 1940 the German divisions were fully equipped and manned .

I never claimed that. You're either fantasizing or deliberately telling lies to cover your own ineptness.

His claim that in the summer of 1940 the British Home Forces had only equipment for 4 divisions .

Off the top of my head, at the end of June 1940, Britain had 1, perhaps 2, fully equipped divisions (3 Inf and perhaps 43 Inf). All the rest were muddling around with whatever they could scrounge.

The truth (for Sealion ) is that ,even without the help of the RA/RN, the RAF was strong enough to prevent a German invasion, that the RN was strong enough to do this,without the help of the of the RAF/RA,and that the RA was strong enough to do it without the help of the RN/RAF .

If you want me to respond to this, please rewrite it so it makes sense.

Of course, people in Britain dislike to hear this, because it would destroy the myth that since 1940 is dominating the UK : the small group of pilots that saved Britain .

Really. You live in Britain and speak to many people on the subject, do you? Or is this just another of the personal assumptions and conclusions you have jumped to after a quick confirmation-bias google search.

PS. I'm not in Britain, so I have no idea what they believe at the moment - other than the majority seem to be regretting the decision by a vocal and selfish minority to leg it from the EU at all cost.

[ljadw]

In June 1940, Germany had lots and lots and lots of divisions in France and Belgium. I cannot be bothered to look up the correct number, but let's just say it was 100 for the sake of argument. A 100 divisions of "first rate" quality - fully equipped, fully, manned, fully trained. At the same time, Britain had about 30 divisions who were, at best, "fourth rang" given that there was only enough equipment to properly equip about 3-4 divisions.

Germany had the forces. Germany had a massive numbers superiority.

WHO said : I never claimed that ?

Not me : it's your post : you have a bad memory .


YOU said that Germany had 100 divisions of first rate quality, fully equipped, fully manned, fully trained.

YOU said that Britain had 30 divisions, at best fourth rang and that there was only enough equipment to properly equip 3/4 divisions .

And you are wrong
and for the Germans : most of their divisions were not fully equipped, fully manned, fully trained .

and for Britain : All British divisions were at full strength,as far as manpower is concerned (State of British Ground Forces, september 1940 Sealion P4 post by Knouterer).

: the counterattacking divisions were mobile .

: army manpower strength in Britain : 1,740,000 + 63000 from Canada, Australia and NZL .

That there were shortages of equipment is irrelevant as there were also shortages of equipment for the Germans . Britain did not need to have the equipment the Germans had .

That Germany had 100 divisions and Britain only 30 does not mean that for Sealion, Germany had a massive numbers superiority .

The first rate for the Germans and the fourth rate for Britain is also nonsense, and I can't understand that a member of this forum is not able to grasp this .

The British Home Forces had in the summer of 1940 a defensive mission and did not need the "first rate quality" of the Germans . They only needed to defeat the invading Germans at the coasts and they would do this, very easy .

OTOH these 30 divisions had not the quality to land succesfully on the French coast, even if they were faced by 20 German divisions only .

[ljadw]

He used as argument that Hitler boasted to Petain about 186 German divisions first class in the spring of 1941.

I used that extract to show you are as foolish as Hitler in labelling willy-nilly divisions as "first rate" or "1. Klasse". It is utterly meaningless - except perhaps to wargamers and strategic corporals.

His claim that in the summer of 1940 the German divisions were fully equipped and manned .

I never claimed that. You're either fantasizing or deliberately telling lies to cover your own ineptness.

His claim that in the summer of 1940 the British Home Forces had only equipment for 4 divisions .

Off the top of my head, at the end of June 1940, Britain had 1, perhaps 2, fully equipped divisions (3 Inf and perhaps 43 Inf). All the rest were muddling around with whatever they could scrounge.

The truth (for Sealion ) is that ,even without the help of the RA/RN, the RAF was strong enough to prevent a German invasion, that the RN was strong enough to do this,without the help of the of the RAF/RA,and that the RA was strong enough to do it without the help of the RN/RAF .

If you want me to respond to this, please rewrite it so it makes sense.

Of course, people in Britain dislike to hear this, because it would destroy the myth that since 1940 is dominating the UK : the small group of pilots that saved Britain .

Really. You live in Britain and speak to many people on the subject, do you? Or is this just another of the personal assumptions and conclusions you have jumped to after a quick confirmation-bias google search.

PS. I'm not in Britain, so I have no idea what they believe at the moment - other than the majority seem to be regretting the decision by a vocal and selfish minority to leg it from the EU at all cost.

1) You quoted Hitler to show the superiority of the Germans

2 ) I have proved that YOU are wrong and that you claimed that the German divisions were fully equipped and manned

3 ) Irrelevant as Britain did not need "fully equipped " divisions to defeat the Germans . Besides : what is "fully equipped "

4 ) Sigh;sigh :

The RN could prevent a landing on its own without the help pf the RAF/RA

The RAF could prevent a landing on its own without the help of the RN/RA

The RA could defeat a landing on its own without the help of the RN/RAF

5 ) You never read what Winston was saying, wrongly of course, and what still is believed by British public opinion that still is celebrating Battle of Britain Day, as if it was a turning point of WWII , which is : never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few ?


6) Although this is politics, I like to observe that Brexit was voted not by a minority ,but by a majority . Where I am living is 53,4 % a majority . :roll: :roll:

[MarkN]

YOU said that Germany had 100 divisions of first rate quality, fully equipped, fully manned, fully trained.

No I didn't. Stop lying or improve your English.

YOU said that Britain had 30 divisions, at best fourth rang and that there was only enough equipment to properly equip 3/4 divisions .

Not quite. I wrote about 30 divs. What's your point?

And you are wrong

OK then. Evidence your claim!

and for the Germans : most of their divisions were not fully equipped, fully manned, fully trained .
and for Britain : All British divisions were at full strength,as far as manpower is concerned (State of British Ground Forces, september 1940 Sealion P4 post by Knouterer).
: the counterattacking divisions were mobile .
: army manpower strength in Britain : 1,740,000 + 63000 from Canada, Australia and NZL .
That there were shortages of equipment is irrelevant as there were also shortages of equipment for the Germans . Britain did not need to have the equipment the Germans had .

That there were shortages of equipment is irrelevant

And yet that seems to be how you determine first rate from second rang when you look at the Germans in 1942, 1943 and 1944.

That Germany had 100 divisions and Britain only 30 does not mean that for Sealion, Germany had a massive numbers superiority .

What was the ratio of forces in 1942, 1943 and 1944 when you claim...

If in 1942 the Allies had the forces of 1943 they would have landed, if in 1943 they had the forces of 1944 they would have landed and in both cases, the landing would be successful.

The first rate for the Germans and the fourth rate for Britain is also nonsense, and I can't understand that a member of this forum is not able to grasp this .

Of course it's nonsense. That is the point I'm making. It's YOUR nonsense. It's YOUR garbage to label German units the way you do when it suits you.

The British Home Forces had in the summer of 1940 a defensive mission and did not need the "first rate quality" of the Germans . They only needed to defeat the invading Germans at the coasts and they would do this, very easy .

Now apply the same logic to your...

If in 1942 the Allies had the forces of 1943 they would have landed, if in 1943 they had the forces of 1944 they would have landed and in both cases, the landing would be successful.

...how does it work out now?

OTOH these 30 divisions had not the quality to land succesfully on the French coast, even if they were faced by 20 German divisions only .

Utterly irrelevant. Have you understood anything that is being discussed?

[MarkN]

1) You quoted Hitler to show the superiority of the Germans

No I didn't. I think I know better than you what I did and what my motives were.

2 ) I have proved that YOU are wrong and that you claimed that the German divisions were fully equipped and manned

You have proved NOTHING of the sort. :roll:

3 ) Irrelevant as Britain did not need "fully equipped " divisions to defeat the Germans . Besides : what is "fully equipped "

Now apply same logic to...

If in 1942 the Allies had the forces of 1943 they would have landed, if in 1943 they had the forces of 1944 they would have landed and in both cases, the landing would be successful.

4 ) The RN could prevent a landing on its own without the help pf the RAF/RA
The RAF could prevent a landing on its own without the help of the RN/RA
The RA could defeat a landing on its own without the help of the RN/RAF

Aha!

Well, that's your opinion. Fair dos. Thankfully, Britain never had to find out, did it?

6) Although this is politics, I like to observe that Brexit was voted not by a minority ,but by a majority . Where I am living is 53,4 % a majority . :roll: :roll:

78,551,190 Population of UK (approx)
51,356,768 Population of UK eligible to vote in the referendum including those not registered
46,500,001 Population of UK registered to vote in the referendum
17,410,742 Number who voted for Brexit

A MINORITY of the registered voters... 37%
A MINORITY of the eligible voters... 34%
A MINORITY of the total population... 22%

Indeed, :roll: :roll: :roll:


Edited to add:
You asked...

Besides : what is "fully equipped "

Now, despite you having being asked on several occasions to explain what "first rate" and "second rang" means, and failing to respond, I have no problem explaining my words.
Fully equipped means a unit is holding all of the equipment - the correct type and quantity - as written down on the unit establishment.

Now, are you going to explain and quantify what "first rate" and "second rang" means or are you just going to divert and misdirect some more? Or should we all just continue to understand it is just your garbage?

[ljadw]

I see that you continue to deny that you have written what you have written .

And your definition of fully equipped is flawed, because there is no so definition . Besides, a unit that has the equipment that a penusher has written down is not stronger than a unit that has not this equipment .

Fully equipped is artificial : the needed equipment depends on the mission and on the opponent .

It is the same for first rate , second rang and the fourth rang you are giving to the British Home Forces .


And for point 6 (Brexit) the results of the 1975 referendum were also : a minority of registered voters and of total population .

Indeed .

In all elections and referenda, the winner has a minority of the total population, and mostly a minority of the registered voters .

Indeed .

Never has a British PM obtained the majority of the total population . indeed .

Because, the total population is never voting . Indeed .

[ljadw]

Note that German historians , including Frieser, are using the same tactic by claiming that the WM was in 1940 qualitatively /quantitatively weaker than the allies, but still won because of the genius of the Prussian von Manstein .

Aside from the fact that has zero to do with what you imagined MarkN said, now you are claiming that MarkN inflated German strength vis a vis the British and saying that is the "same" as Frieser inflating Allied strength vis a vis the Germans. So now opposites are the same?

Frieser said : The allies were stronger, but we had Manstein who made the plan , Guderian who executed the plan and Hitler who spoiled the plan .

MarkN said : only 3 fully equipped British divisions faced 100 fully equipped German divisions, implying : we won, because a British Fighter pilot was worth 10 such Germans, parotting Winston : never was so much owed by so many to so few . The usual Victorian hyperbole .

Truth is that if FC lost the Battle of Britain, the Navy would have prevented a landing and that if the Navy was eliminated, the Army would have defeated the landing .

[MarkN]

I see that you continue to deny that you have written what you have written .

Enough. Go away and improve your English....

And your definition of fully equipped is flawed, because there is no so definition .

My definition of fully equipped is whatever I want it to be.

Besides, a unit that has the equipment that a penusher has written down is not stronger than a unit that has not this equipment .

You are becoming a troll. A joke.

Here is a semi-random document I've just plucked off my HD for demonstration purposes.



Do you really want people to think you are a serious poster, a serious historian, a serious analyst when you come up with such garbage as: "a unit that has the equipment that a penusher has written down is not stronger than a unit that has not this equipment".

The establishment of infantry tanks for a tank battalion was 50. A brigade of 3 battalion was established for, I think, 155: 3 x 50 + 5 in BHQ.

8th Battalion RTR has 25 (it also had 27 of the outstanding A11 Infantry Tank Mk.I which is not written on the paper)
4th and 7th Battalion RTR combined had 9.
A total for 1st Army Tank Brigade of 61 infantry tanks (only 34 with a 2-pdr gun) NOT 155.

21st Army Tank Brigade has a total of 16 NOT 155

23rd, 24th and 25th Brigades have a total of 8 NOT 465.

Are you really trying to tell people that a Brigade with 3 or 4 tanks, or even 61 tanks, has the same strength as one with 155????

You are quite mad!

Which of the above units would you class as "first rate" and which "second rang"?

[Richard Anderson]

Frieser said : The allies were stronger, but we had Manstein who made the plan , Guderian who executed the plan and Hitler who spoiled the plan .

No, sorry, he does not indulge it such a childish oversimplification. That is your invention. He does make some errors in various strength assessments, such as the strength and capabilities of the French Armée de l'Air and French tanks, but that is fairly commonplace.

MarkN said : only 3 fully equipped British divisions faced 100 fully equipped German divisions, implying : we won, because a British Fighter pilot was worth 10 such Germans, parotting Winston : never was so much owed by so many to so few . The usual Victorian hyperbole .

No, he did not and you sound increasingly childish by insisting that he did. You even quoted what he actually said earlier today and yet are now saying he said something different. " I cannot be bothered to look up the correct number, but let's just say it was 100 for the sake of argument." Are you that ignorant of English that you cannot understand the distinction?

Truth is that if FC lost the Battle of Britain, the Navy would have prevented a landing and that if the Navy was eliminated, the Army would have defeated the landing .

Not in June 1940 they would not. As of 16 June 1940, RAF FC had an establishment of 1,456 aircraft, actual strength of 1,094, and an operational strength of 549, and average operational strength for the month was under 600. As of 17 August the establishment was 1,558, actual strength was 1,379 and operational strength was 631. However, average operational strength in August was 702. In September, after heavy attrition, it was 687. The RAF grew significantly in strength from June to August...as did the Army. The Royal Navy was somewhat more static, but increased the number of small craft for coastal defense considerably. Meanwhile, aside from the major naval bases, there was essentially zero coastal defenses in June 1940, while by mid summer 40 emergency batteries were in place and 143 were in operation by the end of the year. As of 1 June 1940, the 19 divisions in England had 110 obsolescent 18-pdr, 193 equally obsolescent 4.5" howitzers, and 295 modern 25-pdr. Altogether 598 pieces instead of the 1,152 required. That is "second rang" in both numbers and quality. The 19 also shared 122 2-pdr AT guns and should have had 912. They should have had 11.210 Bren guns and had 7,500. And so on.

[Richard Anderson]

That's funny. I in dozens of posts pointed to the basis of decisions, with reference to sources. You have the numbers of junk in the divisions.

Your deliberate ignorance of the importance of the "junk in the divisions" is even funnier. The "junk" is the trained, equipped, and supplied manpower of the divisions and other elements of the army. The "decisions" made and actions taken depend on them. I can "decide" to fly, but unless I have access to an aircraft and pilot, I'm not going very far except in my dreams. So keep dreaming.

[jesk]

That's funny. I in dozens of posts pointed to the basis of decisions, with reference to sources. You have the numbers of junk in the divisions.

Your deliberate ignorance of the importance of the "junk in the divisions" is even funnier. The "junk" is the trained, equipped, and supplied manpower of the divisions and other elements of the army. The "decisions" made and actions taken depend on them. I can "decide" to fly, but unless I have access to an aircraft and pilot, I'm not going very far except in my dreams. So keep dreaming.

A complete set of figures accurately shows Hitler's mistakes. You did not take into account the "might" of the remaining group of troops.

I know anything is logical for you if it feeds your fantasies. That "huge" army was not "barred" by Hitler from doing anything. It was tasked by Hitler to secure the Crimean peninsula and seizing Sevastapol, in order to secure the southern flank of BLAU. Thus, it was an integral part of BLAU.

Meanwhile, "huge"? As of 6 June 1942 it was 203,800 strong, which includes major elements of 3d Rumanian Army that made up about one-quarter of the total.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Caucasus

Operation Edelweiss (German: Edelweiß), named after the mountain flower, was a German plan to gain control over the Caucasus and capture the oil fields of Baku during the Soviet-German War. The operation was authorised by Hitler on 23 July 1942. The main forces included Army Group A commanded by Wilhelm List, 1st Panzer Army (Ewald von Kleist), 4th Panzer Army (Colonel-General Hermann Hoth), 17th Army (Colonel-General Richard Ruoff), part of the Luftflotte 4 (Generalfeldmarschall Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen) and the 3rd Romanian Army (General Petre Dumitrescu). Army Group A was supported to the east by Army Group B commanded by Fedor von Bock and by the remaining 4th Air Fleet aircraft (1,000 aircraft in all). The land forces, accompanied by 15,000 oil industry workers, included 167,000 troopers, 4,540 guns and 1,130 tanks.

[ljadw]

I see that you continue to deny that you have written what you have written .

Enough. Go away and improve your English....

And your definition of fully equipped is flawed, because there is no so definition .

My definition of fully equipped is whatever I want it to be.

Besides, a unit that has the equipment that a penusher has written down is not stronger than a unit that has not this equipment .

You are becoming a troll. A joke.

Here is a semi-random document I've just plucked off my HD for demonstration purposes.



Do you really want people to think you are a serious poster, a serious historian, a serious analyst when you come up with such garbage as: "a unit that has the equipment that a penusher has written down is not stronger than a unit that has not this equipment".

The establishment of infantry tanks for a tank battalion was 50. A brigade of 3 battalion was established for, I think, 155: 3 x 50 + 5 in BHQ.

8th Battalion RTR has 25 (it also had 27 of the outstanding A11 Infantry Tank Mk.I which is not written on the paper)
4th and 7th Battalion RTR combined had 9.
A total for 1st Army Tank Brigade of 61 infantry tanks (only 34 with a 2-pdr gun) NOT 155.

21st Army Tank Brigade has a total of 16 NOT 155

23rd, 24th and 25th Brigades have a total of 8 NOT 465.

Are you really trying to tell people that a Brigade with 3 or 4 tanks, or even 61 tanks, has the same strength as one with 155????

You are quite mad!

Which of the above units would you class as "first rate" and which "second rang"?

There is no such thing as first rate : a unit can be today first rate and tomorrow second rate .

First rate for a tank brigade does not depend on the number of available tanks, but on the mission, the geographical circumstances, weather, etc, and especially tthe opponent .

1PzD had in 1939 297 tanks, 11 PzD had in june 1941 143 tanks:are you really trying to tell people that 1 PzD was double that strong as 11 PzD .?

The number of tanks was only one (and not the most important) element that was constituting the strength of a tank unit .The number of tanks of a unit,as the number of artillery pieces, etc, was always varying, following the mission of the unit and its opponent .

There are no such things as first rang units: a German Sicherheits division could be also first rang as a PzD : it would depend on the mission .

About the tank brigades: why are you only counting tanks ? And not artillery, trucks, supplies ,fuel,manpower,...?

Your tank numbers prove nothing : a unit can have too much tanks :in 1941 several Soviet tank divisions had too much tanks ,other had only a few tanks, and the results of the former were not much better than the results of the latter .