Germany winning on the Eastern Front

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#481

Post by Appleknocker27 » 01 Jun 2016, 22:33

Erwinn wrote:Okay, you leave British on their island. Force Middle East into a stalemate and do not make any OTL mistakes. For example, wait at El Agheila or at Tobruk, rather than trying to capture Suez.

Still, you will lose the war because of a show off in politics - DoW on USA while Britain is still standing. Giving them a huge island base in the process. :P
The US was already at war with Germany by proxy... Destroyer's for bases, Lend Lease, escorting convoys partway to the UK with US warships, etc. All of this was in direct support of a country that Germany was at war with, so a DoW allows the Uboats to interdict the sea lanes. By the time the US military became a real factor, the main front in the war against Germany had been pretty much decided (Eastern Front). During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships for the loss of 22 Uboats, that pretty much makes 1942 a win for them...

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#482

Post by ljadw » 02 Jun 2016, 11:42

Appleknocker27 wrote: During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships for the loss of 22 Uboats, that pretty much makes 1942 a win for them...
This is meaningless,because the parameters you are using are meaningless :

Allied shipping loss figures are meaningless:what about Allied shipping construction, what about Allied shipping needs ? During 1942 British oil imports increased from 13.1 million GRT to 16.2 million GRT .

German U Boat losses also are meaningless :what about German U Boat construction, what about German U Boat needs ?


steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#483

Post by steverodgers801 » 02 Jun 2016, 20:05

it cant be a win because the allies didn't quit the war

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#484

Post by BDV » 02 Jun 2016, 21:29

IIRC the sinkings of 1941 1942 barely accounted for the Norwegian shipping fleet, bequeathed in toto to the AngloFrench Imperial cause by Unternehmen Weserubung.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#485

Post by Appleknocker27 » 03 Jun 2016, 18:20

ljadw wrote:
Appleknocker27 wrote: During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships for the loss of 22 Uboats, that pretty much makes 1942 a win for them...
This is meaningless,because the parameters you are using are meaningless :

Allied shipping loss figures are meaningless:what about Allied shipping construction, what about Allied shipping needs ? During 1942 British oil imports increased from 13.1 million GRT to 16.2 million GRT .

German U Boat losses also are meaningless :what about German U Boat construction, what about German U Boat needs ?
What about zero shipping losses as opposed to 600+ in American waters?

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#486

Post by Appleknocker27 » 03 Jun 2016, 18:23

steverodgers801 wrote:it cant be a win because the allies didn't quit the war
600+ losses and millions of tons for 22 Uboats is a good trade off and a "win" for a protracted industrial war. US shipments of free war materials to the UK was going to happen regardless, so the Germans decided to slow the flow...

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#487

Post by ljadw » 03 Jun 2016, 19:10

Appleknocker27 wrote:
ljadw wrote:
Appleknocker27 wrote: During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships for the loss of 22 Uboats, that pretty much makes 1942 a win for them...
This is meaningless,because the parameters you are using are meaningless :

Allied shipping loss figures are meaningless:what about Allied shipping construction, what about Allied shipping needs ? During 1942 British oil imports increased from 13.1 million GRT to 16.2 million GRT .

German U Boat losses also are meaningless :what about German U Boat construction, what about German U Boat needs ?
What about zero shipping losses as opposed to 600+ in American waters?
What about zero merchant shipping production as opposed to the production in the OTL?

What about zero U Boat production as opposed to the production in the OTL ?

How many of these 600 ships that were lost were carrying war materials with as destination Britain ?

There was no chance to hurt the US significantly by the U Boats;the only that could be hurt was Britain,that's why Drumbeat was a mistake .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#488

Post by ljadw » 03 Jun 2016, 19:31

Other point is that there were NO 600 + ships lost in American waters in 1942: Drumbeat happend in the first 6 months of 1942,after june it was over:in these 6 months 628 ships were lost by U boats in the mediterranean, the Atlantic,on the way to the SU and in the American waters,but these were only a part .

Exemple ; 66 ships were lost in january,of which 32 in convois thus outside the US waters .

In the first 6 months of 1942 110 ships were lost on the East Coast of which 54 tankers,of which 40 US tankers and 125 ships were lost in the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribean .

If 11O ships were lost in 6 months, it was impossible that 628 would be lost in 12 months .

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#489

Post by Appleknocker27 » 03 Jun 2016, 20:30

I said all of 1942, your attempt to reframe my statement and then prove it wrong is clumsy (and wrong) as usual...
And....your un-sourced facts are incorrect as well:
"During the first 6 months of the German U-boat offensive out of the US east coast some 397 ships totalling over 2 million tons were sunk, costing roughly 5000 lives. In the process only 7 U-boats (U-85, U-352, U-157, U-158, U-701, U-153 and U-576) were lost." http://uboat.net/ops/drumbeat.htm

As usual, you attempt to insert your own brand of logic to extrapolate statistics instead of using fact based citable statistics that are readily available.

During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships on for the loss of 22 Uboats, as stated above: FACT

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#490

Post by ljadw » 03 Jun 2016, 22:19

NO : you said : 600 ships in American waters :397 ships OUT of the US east coast are NOT 600 ships in American waters .


There were NO 600 ships lost in American waters .
Last edited by ljadw on 03 Jun 2016, 22:21, edited 1 time in total.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#491

Post by ljadw » 03 Jun 2016, 22:21

NO : you said : 600 ships in American waters :397 ships OUT of the US east coast are NOT 600 ships in American waters .


There were NO 600 ships lost in American waters .


Besides, your second claim is also wrong : there were NO 600 ships lost in 1942, but 1300 +

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#492

Post by Appleknocker27 » 05 Jun 2016, 21:26

As usual your posts are just another adventure in distortion and manipulation to avoid conceding a point. You bring no analysis and never post a source, just a very odd brand of logic that makes sense to no one but you.
I rarely put anyone on the ignore list but I just made an exception. Time is valuable and I'm not wasting anymore...

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#493

Post by ljadw » 06 Jun 2016, 16:29

This is only an attempt to hide the fact that you are still living in the Cold War (the good Germans/the bad Soviets) and that you refuse to leave this logic.

steevh
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 08 Aug 2016, 14:33
Location: UK

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#494

Post by steevh » 08 Aug 2016, 14:45

Back to the original question, not sure what people have said before, but for the Germans to have won the war, I would say they needed some or all of the following:

1. More incompetence on the Soviet side. The reason they did as well as they did in the opening stages of Barbarossa was sheer Soviet incompetence, at all levels. The Russians had almost 10 times as many tanks as the Germans, for starters.

2. Supporting invasion by the Japanese to tie down the eastern troops that were shifted to defend Moscow.

3. Switch to a total war economy well before 1943. Clearly, 1941 or earlier would have been best.

4. Start the invasion earlier. The Yugoslavia/Greece campaign meant that the bad weather kicked in just as they were within striking distance of Moscow. Another two weeks or a month and they could have been 20 miles east, not west of Moscow when the weather went to hell.

With some or all of the above its quite easy to envisage Leningrad and Moscow falling, which might not have ended the war, but would certainly have greatly improved the Germans' chances.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 19 Nov 2004, 18:22
Location: Spain

Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front

#495

Post by Boby » 08 Aug 2016, 18:11

steevh wrote::

1. More incompetence on the Soviet side. The reason they did as well as they did in the opening stages of Barbarossa was sheer Soviet incompetence, at all levels. The Russians had almost 10 times as many tanks as the Germans, for starters.
The soviets have 35.000 tanks in June 1941?

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”