German economic collapse in 1944-45

[Richard Anderson]

The "rain of death" decreased industrial production by 3%. Thats not significant. The decrease in fuel supply for the Luftwaffe affected on the 2.8% of German firepower that was from the air force, hence, it did not lower Allied casualties.

Aside from your made up figure of "2.8% of German firepower" nonsense, what do you think the motive power of the German heavy artillery, all of their mobile forces, part of their infantry forces, and a good chunk of their supply services was? Hint: it was neither coal nor wood nor horseflesh.

Indeed, Soviet monthly casualties in 1945 were higher than in 1942.

More false "facts". Average monthly "irrecoverable losses" in 1942 were 271,518. In 1945 they were 200,204.

So it's you that don't have a clue: suppose the Western Allies didn't do any strategic bombing. What would change?

No diversion of 600,000 personnel to the Flakwaffe. At a minumum.

[South]

Good afternoon Guaporense,

May I ask you to define / explain "strategic terms", with an example or two, as per your use.

WWII was only on the European landmass? Nothing substantial and strategic in re the oil fields of the Middle East ? Any atomic attacks not directly involving Germany and the USSR ?

Thanking you in advance for your reply......

~ Bob
Virginia, USA

[Guaporense]

I understand now: it's part of the Anglo-American psyche to think about WW2 as if they were very important and the actions and strategies of their supreme leaders were very effective in it's decision. They feel insulted when the past wisdom of their supreme leaders is questioned, for instance, in their decision to allocate massive resources in a massive aerial campaign to drop explosives on civilians living in territory controlled by the enemy. Even though such campaign completely failed to reduce the fighting power of the Wermacht and hence to reduce allied casualties in the ground, resulting in the deaths of 500,000 people, including 120,000 bomber crews. The wisdom of their glorious leaders is not to be questioned.

[Michael Kenny]

Who can forget his classic 'Germans can do more with less' claim

viewtopic.php?p=1405549#p1405549

Production of materiel was not a major problem to the german war effort. In fact, they needed more men and fuel to use the equipment that they produced historically than they had.

In fact, they produced less materiel because they needed less. To take France and destroy the combined armies of France, Britain, Belgium and Netherlands (totaling 3.4 million men and 150 divisions), the Germans lost only 300 tanks. While, to destroy 60-70 understrength German divisions (totaling around 1 million men), in the western front from 1944-1945, the allies lost 12.500 tanks. Do you see why the allies produced more materiel (equipment)? Because they needed more.

Why produce 55,000 tanks per year (allied production in 1944) if you can destroy 150 allied divisions losing 300?

And his wunderwaffen/uber-soldier mentality:

viewtopic.php?p=1396025#p1396025

The Germans had the best technology in the war in most areas. Thats the record given by operational performance of their weapons.

In the period of 1939 to 1941 Germany had by far the best military technology in the world (overall). The allies had some advantages in some areas, like the T-34 and that French tank with sloped armour. But overall performance was for the germans.

That started to change in 1942 to 1944.

But, in terms of AFV technology the Germans had the best tanks at the end of the war.

In terms of fighters the Me-262 was maybe the best fighter in the world until 1950 or something, while the submarine type XXI was a quantum leap in submarine technology. While the Me-109 was the most efficient fighter in WW2, in terms of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the P-51 was a better plane, but the P-51 cost 3 to 4 times the price of a Me Bf-109 G-6.

[Michael Kenny]

, resulting in the deaths of 500,000 people, including 120,000 bomber crews. The wisdom of their glorious leaders is not to be questioned.

Lie after lie after lie.
No matter how many times this poster is corrected he simply will not let go of his fabricated numbers.

[Richard Anderson]

I understand now: it's part of the Anglo-American psyche to think about WW2 as if they were very important and the actions and strategies of their supreme leaders were very effective in it's decision. They feel insulted when the past wisdom of their supreme leaders is questioned, for instance, in their decision to allocate massive resources in a massive aerial campaign to drop explosives on civilians living in territory controlled by the enemy. Even though such campaign completely failed to reduce the fighting power of the Wermacht and hence to reduce allied casualties in the ground, resulting in the deaths of 500,000 people, including 120,000 bomber crews. The wisdom of their glorious leaders is not to be questioned.

No, it is part of the psyche that abhors falsehoods substituting for facts. Where is your figure for "120,000 bomber crew deaths" from?

[David Thompson]

Guaporense -- What is the source (or sources) for your claim (made at viewtopic.php?p=2071728#p2071728 and
viewtopic.php?p=2071743#p2071743) that 120,00 bomber crews were lost as a result of the western allies' strategic bombing program?

[Guaporense]

Well, Wikipedia says 160,000: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg ... rld_War_II

I read it a long time ago. I think it was based on assuming 85% of bomber crews losses which were about 140,000 were deaths.

This other source says it was over 200,000 in both Europe and Japan:

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM

Anyway, it's pretty obvious strategic bombing was not light on casualties. Considering you sacrificed over 100,000 men plus 40% of the British and about 15% of the American military budget to lower German industrial production by 3-4% for 1 out of the 6 years in the war, it's pretty clear it wasn't effective.

And that's not considering the obvious moral issues involved in dropping bombs indiscriminately on civilians.

[South]

Good afternoon Guaporense,

Appreciate reply.

The Anglo-American alliance was very important and, from the distillate, the actions and strategies of the Chiefs of State were very effective.

Planning to defeat Germany and then divide it proved successful.

In re Allied bombing of civilians, see Der totale Krieg, Gen Erich von Lundendorff, 1935. Much is explained when reflecting on what he wrote.

~ Bob
Virginia, USA

[Guaporense]

Saying that strategic bombing was effective and successful because the coalition won the war is a moronic confusion of correlation with causation.

The war was already won in 1943. After Kursk it was clear, Italy surrended at the same time. That was WAY before the Western Allies did anything substantial in terms of direct action. Thinking the WAllies we're decisive is proof of ignorance in history.

[South]

Good afternoon Guaporense,

In Jan, 1943, the US and UK agreed to invade Sicily (Casablanca conference).

In Nov,1943, the US, UK and USSR agreed to attack Germany from the east and the west (Teheran conference).

Yalta was Feb, 1945. Can you go back and conceptually visualize that WWII in Europe was NOT won by 1943.

Although not an Anglo-American Chief of State, Stalin did have a voice in the plans.

Consider that the US and UK had strategic war objectives involving the USSR.

~ Bob
Virginia, USA

[Richard Anderson]

Well, Wikipedia says 160,000: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg ... rld_War_II

I read it a long time ago. I think it was based on assuming 85% of bomber crews losses which were about 140,000 were deaths.

This other source says it was over 200,000 in both Europe and Japan:

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM

Anyway, it's pretty obvious strategic bombing was not light on casualties. Considering you sacrificed over 100,000 men plus 40% of the British and about 15% of the American military budget to lower German industrial production by 3-4% for 1 out of the 6 years in the war, it's pretty clear it wasn't effective.

And that's not considering the obvious moral issues involved in dropping bombs indiscriminately on civilians.

So you simply searched for secondary sources that matched your preconceived notion?

RAF Bomber Command Losses of the Second World War, Roll of Honour 1939-47 - amendments and additions, Volume 9, Appendix 1 Casualty Statistics, p. 484, gives the authoritative figure of 47,268 Bomber Command deaths KIA or while PoW 1 September 1939-8 May 1945, which I cited earlier and you ignored.

The United States Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II, p. 96. gives heavy bomber air crew losses versus Germany as 6,378 for combat and accidents. Nominally that is 63,780 crewmen for a 10-man crew, except that crews were not always 10. It is also all causes and all fates, not just KIA or died while PoW as given for Bomber Command. Page 50 also gives battle casualty deaths for Army Air Forces in total versus Germany as 30,099. Eighth Air Force deaths are variously given as "over 26,000", but include those of VIII Bomber Command, VIII Fighter Command (reported separately as 2,308), and VIII Support Command and includes deaths in both combat and accidents. A reasonable estimate is 20,000. The Fifteenth Air Force (the other USAAF heavy bomber command versus Germany) reported the loss of lost 20,430 bomber crewmen KIA, WIA, MIA, and PoW and likely the same percentage to accidents. So roughly 9,000 bomber crew combat losses and perhaps 4,500 combat deaths.

Thus, my figure of 72,000 rather than your inflated 120,000...or, now "100,000", "140,000", or "200,000" resulting from your Wiki research.

[Guaporense]

Good afternoon Guaporense,

In Jan, 1943, the US and UK agreed to invade Sicily (Casablanca conference).

In Nov,1943, the US, UK and USSR agreed to attack Germany from the east and the west (Teheran conference).

Yalta was Feb, 1945. Can you go back and conceptually visualize that WWII in Europe was NOT won by 1943.

Although not an Anglo-American Chief of State, Stalin did have a voice in the plans.

Consider that the US and UK had strategic war objectives involving the USSR.

~ Bob
Virginia, USA

Strategically it was already won. Some historians like Zetterling even argues the war was won by the USSR by mid 1942. Nobody argues that the war was won in 1944-1945 when the WAlllies made a substantial impact. One can argue that the WAllies helped to distract the Wehrmatch and didn't allow it to focus fully on the Eastern front but one cannot conclude that the WAllies actual military actions had any decisive weight.

Overall, I wouldn't think references to conferences in how to best proceed in a war prove that its outcome was not certain by that point. While Italy surrendering in September 43 proves that everybody knew what was going to happen by that point. The Nazis didn't surrender because they knew they were criminals and so they would be executed, prolonging a lost war was an optimal strategy for them.

[Stiltzkin]

No, what you see is people debunking his "claims" with the actual facts over and over again going on for eight years now. For which his "mature discussion" response is to simply ignore the actual data and repeat the falsified information ad nauseum.

That is not argumentum ad hominem of any sort. Instead, it is an attempt to counter a serial purveyor of argumentum ad ignorantiam. That methodology is that of Goebbels Propaganda Ministry, Donald Trump, Stormfront, and tabloids, and should have no place here in what purports to be a "research forum". That it is tinged in no little way by extreme frustration by the respondents shouldn't be wondered at, especially given the misplaced adulation he receives from other posters for his deceptive rants.

The only thing I see is hurt egos, people trying to squeeze out every little percentage to make it look as if the WAllies were the be all and end of all things, you are just more academic about it than the others (this is the equivalent of those Wehrmacht fanboys, "if they had produced more Tigers, they would have won", or those Russian ultranationalists, who want to tell us that Talinn, Riga and Kiev are rightfully theirs).
The pinnacle of military effectiveness and the sole saviours of mankind. If this was really the case (and I think Guaporense stated this before), then the WAllies would have been more serious (and comptetent and here he draws a connection beteween WW1 and WW2) about an effective strategy to contain Hitlers expansion earlier (interventions in the 39 campaign or perhaps even before). I understand that some people are a bit more "patriotic" about it, but this, "the GI was superior to everyone" (S.E. Ambrose mentality), is ridiculous.
Everyone in this forum should be able to realize that the EF was the decisive front in the vast Nazi-Soviet conflict. It was the suffereing of the slavic population that stands unprecedented.
The "Free World" was also very hesitant about fighting the Communists. Not only did they sell out the eastern European countries to the Communists, the Americans also woke up pretty late to counteract the aggressive expansion in Asia (with the power vacuum of a destroyed Germany and Japan the USSR could expand unhindered), only when a poor 3rd World country like Korea was being left and overturned.
I do not always agree with Guaporense, he could be a bit more diplomatic about his statements. I do think he slightly diminishes the contributions of some nations but his statements should not be dismissed so hastily, they are based on research. The effectiveness of strategic bombing is still disputed, if anything it was an effective way of killing civilians, but that is what the Nazis were primarily doing in the their wake of destruction anyway. It was retribution.
If anything, his posts have more of a leftist character, not comparable to Goebbels or Trump (and I do not think that mentioning Trump in one sentence with Goebbels is a proper observation).

[Yoozername]

HE WHO OWNS THE OIL OWNS THE WORLD, FOR HE WILL RULE THE SEA BY MEANS OF
THE HEAVY OILS, THE AIR BY THE MEANS OF THE ULTRA-REFINED OILS, AND THE LAND BY
MEANS OF PETROL AND THE ILLUMINATING OILS. AND, IN ADDITION TO THESE, HE WILL
RULE HIS FELLOW MEN IN AN ECONOMIC SENSE, BY REASON OF THE FANTASTIC WEALTH
HE WILL DERIVE FROM OIL.
HENRI BERENGER, 1921

In the Germans case, Oil ran its Military. Coal ran its manufacturing and civilian industries. Including its electrical grid.

So, before the bombers took off or were even in theatre, what were the air commanders thinking (besides killing all the civilians like the OP states)...

THE INDUSTRIAL WEB THEORY OF THE AIR CORPS TACTICAL SCHOOL (ACTS) PROVIDED THE
DOCTRINAL UNDERPINNING FOR THIS HIGH-RISK VENTURE. ACTS WAS THE AAF’S BRANCH SCHOOL THAT
TAUGHT COMPETITIVELY-SELECTED, MID-LEVEL AIR OFFICERS THE THEORY AND PLANNING OF AIRPOWER.
ACTS AUTHORED QUASI-OFFICIAL AIR DOCTRINE, AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, INDOCTRINATED THE CREAM
OF THE AIR CORPS, AS 80% OF WWII AAF GENERAL OFFICERS WERE GRADUATES. THE PRIMARY
DOCTRINAL PRODUCT OF ACTS WAS THE INDUSTRIAL WEB THEORY. REFINED FROM BILLY MITCHELL’S
CONCEPTS, THIS THEORY CLAIMED THAT MODERN POWERS RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC
SYSTEMS TO WAGE WAR, THE DESTRUCTION OF WHICH WOULD FATALLY UNDERMINE THE ENEMY’S ABILITY
AND WILL TO FIGHT. COLLAPSING THESE SYSTEMS DEPENDED ON FINDING VULNERABLE CRITICAL POINTS.
ACTS CLAIMED THAT HIGH-ALTITUDE BOMBERS COULD PENETRATE ENEMY DEFENSES AND ACCURATELY
STRIKE THESE VITAL AIM POINTS.

OIL PRODUCTION HAD A CENTRAL PLACE IN THIS CONCEPT. ACTS TAUGHT THAT THE AIR
STRATEGISTS COULD REAP MAXIMUM BENEFITS BY ATTACKING “NATIONAL ORGANIC SYSTEMS ON WHICH
MANY FACTORIES AND NUMEROUS PEOPLE DEPENDED.” THE INDUSTRIAL WEB THEORY LISTED SIX OF
THESE ORGANIC SYSTEMS, THE TOP THREE OF WHICH WERE ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION AND

DISTRIBUTION, TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS, AND FUEL REFINING AND DISTRIBUTION. ACTS ALSO
TAUGHT, HOWEVER, THAT THE AIR STRATEGIST MUST ANALYZE EACH COUNTRY INDIVIDUALLY TO
DETERMINE THE MOST APPROPRIATE STRATEGY.
38 AS AIR PLANNERS ASSESSED GERMANY, THEY
QUICKLY DECIDED (ERRONEOUSLY, IT TURNED OUT) THAT GERMANY’S ELECTRICAL AND TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS WERE TOO WELL DISPERSED AND TOO REDUNDANT TO OFFER TRULY LUCRATIVE TARGETS. THE
GERMAN OIL SYSTEM, IN CONTRAST, OFFERED PLOESTI.

ADA477018.pdf

I also think it was erroneous, I believe it was belittled by the OP comparing it to the ball bearing attacks? Anyway, while coal is hard to target, it was basically coming from the Ruhr. It then could be attacked by eliminating transportation hubs, bridges, precision bombing of power plants closest to the arms manufacturers, etc.