If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Locked
uloveme
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 11:28

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#46

Post by uloveme » 12 Aug 2016, 20:42

In all honesty, I think only ignorant or uneducated/unfamiliar people attack Hitler and the Nazi party in general with the constant mentioning and attacking of operation Reinhardt and the subsequent persecution of anybody who disagreed with the party. It is fair enough to say that the NAZI Party in general did bad things, and in general there were horrendous acts committed by Germans, against other Germans during the Pre-war era, and much more during the War. But most people don't give a damn about the much MUCH worse atrocities committed by Stalin personally against virtually everyone. I don't want to go into this too much but I wanted to say this before I gave my answer to the question just so you will know I'm well versed in why I chose my answer. But Hitler merely allowed the persecutions to happen, and requested that he never be told anything about them, so to say he actually did a whole lot with operation Reinhardt is debatable, however Stalin on the other hand. Stalin personally ordered and saw to it that tens of millions of innocent people were flat out imprisoned and murdered through orders directly given by Stalin. There are ballpark figures of how many people were killed under Stalins reign, but we will truly never know how many, only tens of millions of lives, and we might not even get close to the exact million that was killed. But we do know to a decent degree how many people were executed for various illogical reasoning under NAZI Germany. In my book, that makes Stalin worse than anything Hitler ever did, or even got close to achieving.

Therefore I would take the opportunity to go back in time and fight against Stalin, as that would be the right thing to do. And if I had to fight under the name of Hitler then so be it, but if I was allowed to actually give advice to him, and furthermore know that the advice would be taken seriously and executed to the best of their ability.? Then I would tell Hitler to get a better command structure for his armored divisions and a clearer command structure overall. Because that always makes me angry to see politics come between effective military decisions, and in NAZI Germany, that was pretty much the name of the game. The organization and control of the armored divisions were so ludicrously screwed up to the point it was laughable to look back at. Nobody had issues like the Germans as far as command structure and though this isn't fair to say, a lot of it comes down to the fact the SS exist.

I can't tell you how many times I've read book after book, or document after document and it is a constant "whose going with who" argument over armored divisions. A lot of it comes down to the split between the SS and the regular units. When the SS had no real reason to exist on the battlefield like they did. This isn't a critique of the decisions that they made during the war, as we have to remember that although one famous American Historian said "The Germans lost both world wars, why take advice from them?" it should be remembered that they still fought both world wars better on the company to company, battalion to battalion and even regiment/brigade and division level. The Germans consistently took less casualties, and inflicted more casualties in nearly every battle no matter the conditions that they were forced into. Though this mainly comes from having better Officers and especially NCO's it can be imagined how much better it would've been without the needless bickering between what unit is going where and staying with who. It should've been which united is NEEDED where, but instead you had commanders who spent a lot of their time begging for units that had to be split between the SS and the regulars.

I lastly have to say that this happened with every army, in every country. But nothing like what the Germans went through with their command organization and overall structure. I honestly with all my dedication to armored divisions specifically, I could not tell you how the entire command structure worked, I've never fully figured it out because it seems whatever is on paper, and what actually happened is two completely different things. Then of course you have Hitler who actually shoved entire freaking Divisions away from where they should be, where they are completely and utterly useless.

For just an example, look at the reaction of the Germans on D-Day. It was almost laughable in every sense of the word. Of course this is 20/20 hindsight but even accounting for that, the placement of the armored units, and in fact the sluggish reaction not just on the first day, but for the entire time the Allies were stuck in the groves the German reaction is just shameful and to this day I do not know why it was so bad. The normal answer is they thought this was a feint, in fact a big feint and they really did think that, at least Hitler did. There were plenty of highly respected commanders and Officers that knew better and could've probably seriously dented the Allied push, in fact it was probably the overwhelming Airpower that the Allies could call on that would've saved them but that's another question for another time. I hope this was a good answer and makes you think about what I've said, as many people have suggested focusing on vehicles or a weapon of some sort, all great suggestions (especially Galland's desire to only produce FW190's and ME-262's) but I went for what I see as a military analysts as the most important thing to any large organization like a Division or Army.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#47

Post by Graeme Sydney » 13 Aug 2016, 01:53

uloveme wrote: But most people don't give a damn about the much MUCH worse atrocities committed by Stalin


That would be true for "ignorant or uneducated/unfamiliar people " but not true of the informed. The clear difference is Stalin was primarily internal and a Civil war in character where as Nazi Germany was the conventional 'attack and occupy your neighbour' war (the Allied nations and soldiers fought for Freedom and didn't even know of Operation Reinhardt.) .
uloveme wrote: one famous American Historian said "The Germans lost both world wars, why take advice from them?"
They made the same mistake twice for the same outcome, what would you expect.
uloveme wrote: it should be remembered that they still fought both world wars better on the company to company, battalion to battalion and even regiment/brigade and division level. The Germans consistently took less casualties, and inflicted more casualties in nearly every battle no matter the conditions that they were forced into.
The same narrow focus misleading conclusion that you rile against in the Hitler vs Stalin comparison. The German soldier/NCO/Officer or nation is not naturally a warrior more than any other soldier/NCO/Officer or nation. There are many factors involved in the general good military performance of the German nation and individuals but I don't think it justifies your conclusion. Germany's biggest advantage pre '41 was The Initiative and strategic surprise. Post '41 their advantage was in defense fighting over known terrain and fighting for their survival.

My summary is that the German Nation was heroic but let down by woeful leadership. (Ditto Japan but multiple by a factor of 10)._
uloveme wrote:in fact it was probably the overwhelming Airpower
Which was the direct result of a well thought out policy choice arrived at by an astute military appreciation, back by political leadership and achieved with efficient economic resource management. Something the Allies did exceptional well and something the Germans were woeful at.

In the WW! and WW2 Germany choose war in a military situation that was obviously going to be a 'near run' BET - they were gambling. They gambled on been better prepared for war and early victory. And better prepared they were, it brought them early and misleading success, but not victory. Once their enemies had recovered and marshalled their resources then the outcome was inevitable.

Don't take a knife to a gun fight. I don't care how good you are with a knife, how shape the knife is or how technologically advanced your knife is, YOU WILL LOSE.


uloveme
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 11:28

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#48

Post by uloveme » 13 Aug 2016, 20:37

Graeme Sydney wrote:
uloveme wrote: But most people don't give a damn about the much MUCH worse atrocities committed by Stalin


That would be true for "ignorant or uneducated/unfamiliar people " but not true of the informed. The clear difference is Stalin was primarily internal and a Civil war in character where as Nazi Germany was the conventional 'attack and occupy your neighbour' war (the Allied nations and soldiers fought for Freedom and didn't even know of Operation Reinhardt.) .
uloveme wrote: one famous American Historian said "The Germans lost both world wars, why take advice from them?"
They made the same mistake twice for the same outcome, what would you expect.
uloveme wrote: it should be remembered that they still fought both world wars better on the company to company, battalion to battalion and even regiment/brigade and division level. The Germans consistently took less casualties, and inflicted more casualties in nearly every battle no matter the conditions that they were forced into.
The same narrow focus misleading conclusion that you rile against in the Hitler vs Stalin comparison. The German soldier/NCO/Officer or nation is not naturally a warrior more than any other soldier/NCO/Officer or nation. There are many factors involved in the general good military performance of the German nation and individuals but I don't think it justifies your conclusion. Germany's biggest advantage pre '41 was The Initiative and strategic surprise. Post '41 their advantage was in defense fighting over known terrain and fighting for their survival.

My summary is that the German Nation was heroic but let down by woeful leadership. (Ditto Japan but multiple by a factor of 10)._
uloveme wrote:in fact it was probably the overwhelming Airpower
Which was the direct result of a well thought out policy choice arrived at by an astute military appreciation, back by political leadership and achieved with efficient economic resource management. Something the Allies did exceptional well and something the Germans were woeful at.

In the WW! and WW2 Germany choose war in a military situation that was obviously going to be a 'near run' BET - they were gambling. They gambled on been better prepared for war and early victory. And better prepared they were, it brought them early and misleading success, but not victory. Once their enemies had recovered and marshalled their resources then the outcome was inevitable.

Don't take a knife to a gun fight. I don't care how good you are with a knife, how shape the knife is or how technologically advanced your knife is, YOU WILL LOSE.

THANK YOU for that intelligently written well informed reply, holy cow someone actually understood what I was saying and not only greatly critiqued it but actually wrote additional information. THANK YOU!!!! I rarely if ever get feedback when I'm writing or teaching because there's few people (especially young like myself) that give a damn about deeply understanding any part of history. Once again, thanks.

I completely agree with everything you said, I kinda went off on another topic with the Hitler/Stalin thing, and I realized that after writing it but left it in anyway. NAZI's are so reviled and hated that I felt I had to justify why I would help Hitler in the first place, even if it was awkwardly stated. However you are incorrect in thinking that I am narrowly focused with the mindset that the Germans were better because....the Germans were better. I didn't go into great depth but I should've given an example at least to more or less show that I know why the Germans ended up with the statistics they did. Since this is getting off topic I'll make this short. The Germans had superb NCO's due to the fact they never cut corners with training. Even near the end of the war they never let unprepared NCO's loose with troops until they had a full year of training. As oppose to the U.S. whose Junior Officers got merely 90 days of training, though that isn't a completely fair example it sets a great example to the troops. When you were given orders from a German NCO you knew that it was the real deal, not someone hastily appointed to the job due to the circumstances. As one Author puts it "The Germans preferred to have fewer leaders than any who were poorly trained".

In the end I doubt there was anything that could've been done at any point that would've changed the tide even the smallest margin. The one thing that always eats away at me is how the Germans were so close to running out of fuel all the time. Their production of oil was almost nothing compared to the U.S. whose greatest full year production was around 220 million tons (1944) compared to the Germans of the same time period who only produced 8.9 tons of oil that year. And that was also the greatest tonnage of oil produced by Germany during the war, all other years the tonnage was significantly lower by over a million tons usually. I say this because the production of vehicles that used this precious liquid went up beginning around 1943 with vehicle production nearly doubling for tanks and other armored vehicles, whilst the following year plane production went up by nearly 50%. And all this time the oil production was either stagnant or dropping. And when the Romanian oil fields were taken over in 1944 (August I think?) the German fuel situation just went to hell in a hand basket. So training with the number of hours at bat per se had to be curtailed and studies consistently show that the greater number of hours an aircrew has flying or performing manuevers, the greater time they have at that can usually be seen in the combat figures. This can easily be seen as the Japanese hours were curtailed more and more as the war went on, whilst the U.S. pilots hours only went up.

All of this is just to basically say they were screwed either way they went. The only possible thing I could imagine helping them is if Stalin died. As you said his was mainly internal and civil affairs and as I said it was more personally directed by him, so with him out of the picture maybe they would've not wanted a war with Germany. And if this happened before the Germans invaded, and if the Germans had somehow not invaded but kept at war with the eventual Allied forces who would've had to storm a very well prepared German occupied land. I think it would have been a different story but this is getting into completely unrealistic situations because everyone knew Hitler was talking about invading Russia even in the mid thirties long before the war. Or what if Hitler died, the NAZI party mellowed out and they survived to this day, wouldn't that be awkward? Hell what if somehow we ended up defending Germany from the Soviets in the 1950's? Okay now I'm just in fantasy land so I'll stop there. Thanks for feedback I'm always happy to see someone correct or critique me who actually knows what their talking about. But I'm glad you agree how bat-crap insanely bad the NAZI's leadership and command structure was, it's just astoundingly bad and laughable, unless your the one being shot at while begging the nearby SS for some reinforcements.

uloveme
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 11:28

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#49

Post by uloveme » 13 Aug 2016, 20:59

In the WW! and WW2 Germany choose war in a military situation that was obviously going to be a 'near run' BET - they were gambling. They gambled on been better prepared for war and early victory. And better prepared they were, it brought them early and misleading success, but not victory. Once their enemies had recovered and marshalled their resources then the outcome was inevitable.

Don't take a knife to a gun fight. I don't care how good you are with a knife, how shape the knife is or how technologically advanced your knife is, YOU WILL LOSE.[/quote]

I wanted to comment on that topic specifically, so I've written a separate post just for this. I completely agree with what you said, and I wanted to say that what you've stated sums up much of the war and ends most any debate about 'what if'. But coming to the understanding of why they exactly chose those routes is something a little different and I would like to hear what you have to say about why they chose that route.

I hope this isn't confusing, I actually have a medical problem with my brain and memory so it sometimes gets jumbled up and I don't even remember what the topic was. But I digress I will try to make this as clear as possible.

Everyone knows that the 'Lightening War' was USED by the Germans (I refuse to say solely invented). And in that strategy it really spoke to Germany's advantages, and helped mitigate it's disadvantages (resources for one thing like you said). So that all makes sense as to why they would choose that way of making war, and the possible outcome of greater land and resources once the war is done would make it seem like a good deal. But there is another possibility.

The second possibility is pure arrogance that the outcome is victory for the Germans and is inevitable and that the newly developed 'Lightening war' is merely a new means to an end. It was convenient and it worked, so why not.?

The third option is just a combination of the first two, and it's the one that makes the most sense when you look at the decisions Germany chose during the war. Such as the invasion of Greece where they used text book 'Lightening War' tactics to win. And they won against at least decent opposition. But every other time they tried to use the same overall tactic it either failed miserably or ended in a stalemate.

I would like your opinion, and if this is just too much of a confusing rambling jumbled mess for you to understand let me know and I'll try to revise it. My mind isn't what it used to be, and I'm only 25 for gods sake, so thanks either way for reading.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#50

Post by Graeme Sydney » 14 Aug 2016, 02:52

uloveme wrote: THANK YOU for that intelligently written well informed reply, holy cow someone actually understood what I was saying and not only greatly critiqued it but actually wrote additional information. THANK YOU!!!! I rarely if ever get feedback when I'm writing or teaching because there's few people (especially young like myself) that give a damn about deeply understanding any part of history. Once again, thanks.
You are very kind although I think a little too generous in your praise. The forum attracts a wide range of opinion and there are many that are far more knowledgeable, patient, detailed and courteous than I. If I have a characteristic difference is that I view the war firstly at the geo-political level and then then make sense of the detail from this prospective. The more common 'man in the street' does the opposite. In fact most get bogged down at the lowest most detailed level without even the appreciation that the other levels exist or are important.
uloveme wrote:....the Germans were better.
I've said that the German people and the nation were heroic, with woeful leadership. Some of the Germans common collective military characteristics were outstanding and second to done, but I would still hesitate to say the Germans were better. Firstly define 'better' and secondly what part of the German military are you commenting on.

If the German military had a characteristic it was its diversity and variability in quality - are you talking about an SS Panza division or an Atlantic Wall garrison division, and what period of the war. Both the Western Allies and the Soviet were much more uniform in quality, equipment and effectiveness. More to the point the Allies struck a better overall military balance, be that quality to quantity or firepower to logistics, air power to ground power, strategic force to tactical force. These difference were not just an issue of resources but also choices in doctrine, strategy and policy.
uloveme wrote: The Germans had superb NCO's due to the fact they never cut corners with training. Even near the end of the war they never let unprepared NCO's loose with troops until they had a full year of training. As oppose to the U.S. whose Junior Officers got merely 90 days of training, though that isn't a completely fair example it sets a great example to the troops. When you were given orders from a German NCO you knew that it was the real deal, not someone hastily appointed to the job due to the circumstances. As one Author puts it "The Germans preferred to have fewer leaders than any who were poorly trained".
I'm not certain of the comparison or the details of NCO or leadership training at any level but I'll concede the accolades to the Germans. But that is not to say the Allies weren't good or at least adequate - ditto tanks, arty, MG's, rifles etc etc.
uloveme wrote:In the end I doubt there was anything that could've been done at any point that would've changed the tide even the smallest margin.
Well to be bold and enter into the spirit of the thread and the original question I'll have a go. If I was to go back in the past (or advise today) I would sit down with Hitler and a cup of coffee in 1932 and question him about his purpose (War Aims) and his means (Strategic War Plan).

My first question would be 'a long war (attrition) or a short war (maneuver)? He would have answered "a short war of course". "Then why are you planning and spending resources on Blue Water fleets and subs, and making plans to attack and occupy Norway (long war strategies). You need to need a strong army and air force to defeat France in 8 weeks, cross the English Channel in 2 weeks and defeat Britain in 4 weeks. You need to isolate Russia and the USA in the short term by policy and diplomacy."

"Oh, you can't do it all, well don't do it at all"
uloveme wrote: The one thing that always eats away at me is how the Germans were so close to running out of fuel all the time. Their production of oil was almost nothing compared to the U.S. whose greatest full year production was around 220 million tons (1944) compared to the Germans of the same time period who only produced 8.9 tons of oil that year.
If you want a more telling economic factor consider that one of the first war decisions of the USA was to stop the production of ALL civilian motor vehicles and devote the resources to war production. Talk about focus and decision. America already had an unassailable lead in production capacity and just double down on its advantage, overnight. Then we've had the Germans, their apologists and the uninformed starry eyed fanboys whinging like stuck pigs 'we were better soldiers we were only defeated by the weight of material".

Mind you Germany would not have had an oil shortage if it had pursued and achieved its short war strategic need. But poor and confused initial planning preclude that. The scale of Germany's need for oil for war fighting was evident in 1932.
uloveme wrote:All of this is just to basically say they were screwed either way they went.
Germany could have largely achieve its war aims of restoring pre-WW1 Germany if it was patient and included policy and diplomacy in its plans. As it was in both WW1 and WW2 it relied almost exclusively on its military power.
uloveme wrote: But I'm glad you agree how bat-crap insanely bad the NAZI's leadership and command structure was, .
At the geo-political level virtually non-existent,strategic level bad, operational level good, tactical level great, individual level great. Economic performance patchy. Flexibility and improvisation - excellent to brilliant. Overall, well they run a close second. :roll:

uloveme
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 11:28

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#51

Post by uloveme » 17 Aug 2016, 06:48

Thanks again for taking the time to answer all of my curiosity, I believe that you do indeed deserve the praise that I give. I am a Historian by both passion and career, and I would spend all of my time in devotion to it if I could. And most of that time would probably be spent discussing the second world war and all its aspects. Though I do enjoy all historical era's and I'm probably more educated as a Military Historian than just regular history, I have a special enjoyment for the more recent conflicts such as the Second World-War. But even with all of that, I find it very difficult to find many people to talk to about such matters as we've discussed because they are incapable of discussing it on the same level, or even near the same level. I should probably say that I'm a teacher and that is what I am currently pursuing, so if I'm not discussing History, I'm teaching it.

I'm obviously very young, and it is difficult for me to grasp things from a large scale perspective, strategical terms instead of tactical or smaller terms so to say. So its highly refreshing to see you write on the geo-political level whatsoever, in fact I would listen to virtually anything you would say about both World-Wars and their surrounding era's. Even for most WWII buffs, they usually in my experience anyway, know about the details and things surrounding the details more than the overall picture. So what I want to hear more of, and know more about is usually the opposite (or at least different) than what most interested people want. We all have our special interests which is why we are here in the first place, and I am more than willing to read anything you would like to write as far as observation or even from a perspective point of view concerning the geo-political map during the Third Reich.

Also if you have any suggestions for reading I am always open to suggested reading material, as I can suggest some good books myself, though they are probably well read. :D :thumbsup:

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 12:37
Location: scotland

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#52

Post by doogal » 20 Aug 2016, 21:35

Graeme Sydney wrote - At the geo-political level virtually non-existent,strategic level bad, operational level good, tactical level great, individual level great. Economic performance patchy. Flexibility and improvisation - excellent to brilliant. Overall, well they run a close second. :roll:
It seems at the political level Germany has suffered from the lack of real statesman since maybe Bismark, although he to was willing to resort to naked aggression it was used only in conjunction with limited goals. They were also unlucky through WW1 with first the Kaiser then Hindenburg and Ludendorff, and then Hitler during WW2 it seems a common theme at the highest levels of the late Reich and then the Third Reich.
At the strategic level Germany was definitely at a severe strategic disadvantage, her position straddling northern Europe and eastern Europe with its continually shifting borders had been a problem since unification in the 1800`s. At the strategic level of command a lot of the problems stem from the German Officer corp being deeply rooted in Prussian tradition with its narrow outlook reflecting a mostly land locked territory. Hitlers strategic outlook was to warped by his personal philosophy to be effective.
At the Geo-political and strategic levels you needed to foster relationships based on co-operation and co-ordination with certain neighbours, the views of German political leaders circa 1900 -1945 had an inability to construct such relationships.
Hitler was very much the same way in this respect as Stalin, who only used political relationships if the recipient would give him what he wanted while receiving nothing. (The German-Soviet pact maybe being the exception)

I cant say i would travel back in time and help Hitler
Graeme Sydney wrote -Well to be bold and enter into the spirit of the thread and the original question I'll have a go. If I was to go back in the past (or advise today) I would sit down with Hitler and a cup of coffee in 1932 and question him about his purpose (War Aims) and his means (Strategic War Plan).

My first question would be 'a long war (attrition) or a short war (maneuver)? He would have answered "a short war of course". "Then why are you planning and spending resources on Blue Water fleets and subs, and making plans to attack and occupy Norway (long war strategies). You need to need a strong army and air force to defeat France in 8 weeks, cross the English Channel in 2 weeks and defeat Britain in 4 weeks. You need to isolate Russia and the USA in the short term by policy and diplomacy."


I would imagine not long after these questions that he may have had you shot Graeme

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#53

Post by Graeme Sydney » 22 Aug 2016, 16:49

doogal wrote:
I would imagine not long after these questions that he may have had you shot Graeme
I very much agree with you :thumbsup: - which illustrates the rhetorical nature of the question - Hitler wasn't going to be helped or advised by anyone, for better or worst - the inevitability of history and the pathologically narcissists.

But the purpose of the imagined conversation was to illustrate how fundamentally flawed Germany's/Hitler's/Nazi Grand Strategy/War Plan was. Some make excellent argument supporting and justifying Hitler's decision for operation Barbarossa in 1941 which, in the light of events and circumstances of 1941, I would agree. But my point is that a well thought through Grand Strategy/War Plan would not have put Germany is the position she was in 1941.

The real difference between Bismark and Hitler et al was that Bismark could and did think and plan 10-20 years ahead.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#54

Post by Guaporense » 26 Aug 2016, 05:33

Graeme Sydney wrote:
uloveme wrote:in fact it was probably the overwhelming Airpower
Which was the direct result of a well thought out policy choice arrived at by an astute military appreciation, back by political leadership and achieved with efficient economic resource management. Something the Allies did exceptional well and something the Germans were woeful at.
Airpower did not play a decisive role in WW2. It's most important effect over the entire war was to damage German supply lines in Italy and Normandy, which made Allied advance faster and hence reduced total casualties, but it played no decisive role: if the Allies didn't produce a single aircraft, Stalingrad, Kursk, Moscow, Bagration, etc, would have been the same outcome since airpower had played no significant role in Allied victory there at all. In Normandy, advance would be harder and casualties, heavier, with the Wehrmacht free from logistical strangulation and harassment from the air, but overall the effect would be the same.
In the WW! and WW2 Germany choose war in a military situation that was obviously going to be a 'near run' BET - they were gambling. They gambled on been better prepared for war and early victory. And better prepared they were, it brought them early and misleading success, but not victory. Once their enemies had recovered and marshalled their resources then the outcome was inevitable.

Don't take a knife to a gun fight. I don't care how good you are with a knife, how shape the knife is or how technologically advanced your knife is, YOU WILL LOSE.
Actually from a rational perspective, after the Battle of France it looked like Hitler had won the war for good. It was thanks to the superhuman mobilization of the USSR that the tide was turned. From the perspective of 1941, it didn't look like a third world country like the USSR (as it was perceived at the time) would have survived Barbarossa.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#55

Post by Kingfish » 26 Aug 2016, 23:40

Guaporense wrote:Airpower did not play a decisive role in WW2.
None whatsoever for the entire war?

Did the US sink 4 IJN fleet carriers at Midway with naval gunfire?
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#56

Post by Guaporense » 27 Aug 2016, 05:08

Sorry, I meant in Europe.

Airpower was far more effective in naval warfare than ground warfare. A battleship is like a 250 meter long hunk of steel that can be pierced with a bomb will sink. A similar amount of resources was invested in a division, entrenched, a bombing raid will at most inflict a couple of casualties out of 15,000 soldiers.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012, 16:35
Location: Authie

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#57

Post by BillHermann » 27 Aug 2016, 06:54

Guaporense wrote:Sorry, I meant in Europe.

Airpower was far more effective in naval warfare than ground warfare. A battleship is like a 250 meter long hunk of steel that can be pierced with a bomb will sink. A similar amount of resources was invested in a division, entrenched, a bombing raid will at most inflict a couple of casualties out of 15,000 soldiers.
Hmmm hmm I guess the retreating armies in the falaise gap don't count.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#58

Post by Michael Kenny » 27 Aug 2016, 07:02

Guaporense wrote:Sorry, I meant in Europe.
A similar amount of resources was invested in a division, entrenched, a bombing raid will at most inflict a couple of casualties out of 15,000 soldiers.
Check the results of the GOODWOOD and COBRA area bombing and let us know how the exact number of the 'couple of casualties' in the bombed German units. The survivors accounts make pretty interesting reading as well.
Oh and the Taranto attack in 1940 might be worth checking out.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#59

Post by Guaporense » 27 Aug 2016, 07:38

BillHermann wrote:
Guaporense wrote:Sorry, I meant in Europe.

Airpower was far more effective in naval warfare than ground warfare. A battleship is like a 250 meter long hunk of steel that can be pierced with a bomb will sink. A similar amount of resources was invested in a division, entrenched, a bombing raid will at most inflict a couple of casualties out of 15,000 soldiers.
Hmmm hmm I guess the retreating armies in the falaise gap don't count.
On average, airpower in Europe only inflicted 1-2% of all casualties. In most engagements it was not actually significant.

What makes you think the Germans suffered large casualties due to air attacks in the Falaise gap?

Finally, strategically, the German losses at the Falaise gap were irrelevant. So yes, they don't count.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012, 16:35
Location: Authie

Re: If you could travel back in time to Help Hitler win the war

#60

Post by BillHermann » 28 Aug 2016, 03:04

Yes they do count, if it wasn't for the air attacks in Normandy the outcome would have been different. Also I would suggest you google cobra and the casualties it inflicted as Michael pointed out. Also one can also cite air attacks on ground installations in the early years of the war.
Last edited by BillHermann on 28 Aug 2016, 09:13, edited 1 time in total.

Locked

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”