OT: WW II buffs and historians of the Paceline...

[kohlboto]

I'm sure many of you have seen this but it is so well done that it deserves to be shared.

It really helps one visualize the staggering scope of loss in the Second World War...

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/one-of-the-most-amazing-videos-ever-the-fallen-of-world-war-ii-watch.html

[gasman]

I hadn't seen it before. That was great, thanks for posting. There's a reason Russia feels like they were the reason WW2 was won. They lost way more of their population than rest of the world. Of course, it took all the allies to win WW II. I'm grateful.

[bironi]

Thank you.
Perspective is important.

[ScottM]

TO understand the Russian perspective it helps to keep in mind that that the combined losses of the U.S. and Great Britain's in WWII were less than those of one city in Russia. (Leningrad or St. Petersburg). Hell on Earth.

[witcombusa]

These are two that I find most enlightening;

Start with the 'Allies' in action against Dresden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU5u7aoSxFQ

Then if you have the stomach, go here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMCOKNCwHmQ#t=116

[Jgrooms]

The heart of the Wehrmacht was crushed in the east. One of the great what ifs of history is Hitler not invading Russia or delaying. While it took all the Allies, its impossible to see UK/US forces having any chance at successful invasion without an Eastern front.

Push the timeline back 6-12 months & Germany has air superiority with jets. Long range rockets can reach east coast of US.

We have atomic bombs, but no reliable way to deliver since Britain was invaded & is a German satellite (Churchill & the dominions fight on from Canada).

Anyway you look at it, it is a vastly different world.

[goonster]

TO understand the Russian perspective it helps to keep in mind that that the combined losses of the U.S. and Great Britain's in WWII were less than those of one city in Russia. (Leningrad or St. Petersburg). Hell on Earth.
N.b. it's not just the "Russian" perspective. Germans know the war was not decided on D-day.

The horror of St. Petersburg is compounded by the fact that it was a senseless sideshow. No strategic impact.

One of the great what ifs of history is Hitler not invading Russia or delaying.
OK, but it's not like this is something that ever really hung in the balance. Nor do I think a one year delay would have made a huge difference in outcome.

[malcolm]

Don't think I could be considered a historian or even a buff, but I do enjoy reading histories and especially histories of war and WW2 in particular.

I think it's interesting to read war history because as I read them it's hard to fathom civilized populations allowing them to happen and then participating in the events of the war.

WW2 I think holds the most interest because of the staggering scope of the loss of life and because it's the only war I can think of where there seems to be a clear right and wrong.

As I read various writers concerning ww2 I'm struck by how different it is from what I was taught in school, I'm mid 50s, so primary education was during the cold war. Russia was barely mentioned and my take until adulthood and I started reading on my own was that the west was hanging on and the US swooped in and saved the day with it's endless manufacturing and superior troops. It makes for a great patriotic story for the US but clearly Russia/geography/weather broke the german war machine.

I also find the scope of atrocities on all sides interesting and how some go almost unmentioned as well and a clear strategic plan for targeting civilians of all sides including the US which also goes largely unmentioned.

It saddens me as the survivors pass and WW2 becomes just history to the younger generations. There are many lessons to be learned.

[MattTuck]

Yes, Russia lost many more troops, but Russia also had a totally different perspective on the way they valued the lives of their own soldiers.

Taking casualties was much more acceptable on the Russian side. So it is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison to look back and say Russia took the brunt of it. They did, but it was partly the result of the choices they made as well.

[Jgrooms]

Yes, Russia lost many more troops, but Russia also had a totally different perspective on the way they valued the lives of their own soldiers.



Taking casualties was much more acceptable on the Russian side. So it is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison to look back and say Russia took the brunt of it. They did, but it was partly the result of the choices they made as well.


"Acceptable"? They had no choice but to throw bodies at a superior military machine.

[malcolm]

I agree Russia probably didn't value the lives of it's soldiers or citizens in the way the allies did, but I don't think that nearly explains the loss of life. It was massive volumes of german troops spread over a geographically huge area in the absolute worst of weather conditions. Both sides were unable to supply their troops and Russia could not supply their troops or cities and refused to evacuate civilian populations. Russia's unwillingness to fold and the vast geography and weather is ultimately what broke Germany in spirit, resources and man power.

[MattTuck]

"Acceptable"? They had no choice but to throw bodies at a superior military machine.

For example.

After seeing millions of Soviet troops captured in the early days of the German blitzkrieg, Joseph Stalin issued August 1941’s “Order No. 270,” which proclaimed that any troops who surrendered or allowed themselves to be captured were traitors in the eyes of the law and would be executed if they ever returned to Russia. The dictator later upped the ante with July 1942’s famous “Order No. 227,” better known as the “Not One Step Backward!” rule, which decreed that cowards were to be “liquidated on the spot.” Under this order, any troops who retreated were to be shelled or gunned down by so-called “blocking detachments”—special units who were positioned behind their own lines and charged with shooting any soldier who tried to flee. Stalin’s draconian orders were designed to increase the Red Army’s fighting spirit, but they weren’t empty threats. According to some estimates, Soviet barrier troops may have killed as many as 150,000 of their own men over the course of the war, including some 15,000 during the Battle of Stalingrad.

[Mark McM]

Yes, Russia lost many more troops, but Russia also had a totally different perspective on the way they valued the lives of their own soldiers.

Taking casualties was much more acceptable on the Russian side. So it is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison to look back and say Russia took the brunt of it. They did, but it was partly the result of the choices they made as well.

Yes, the Soviet Union lost more troops than the Western Allies, but that's only a portion of their losses. Most of the losses on the Soviet side were civilians. Given the rate of civilian losses, it is not surprising that the Soviets were more willing to take the troop losses, if it meant pushing the enemy off their territory.

[Jgrooms]

.





OK, but it's not like this is something that ever really hung in the balance. Nor do I think a one year delay would have made a huge difference in outcome.


Well AH could have not invaded. It was not a forgone conclusion that he would. The world was shocked, as were his generals.

Ask a B-29 or a P-51 pilot what it was like to go against a jet & imagine them deployed in numbers. The key to any invasion of Europe was air dominance. Jets would have flipped the game.

Then look a year out at the deployment of Germany's new subs.

[FlashUNC]

The Eastern Front, whether WWI or WWII, was a miserable place.

[Saint Vitus]

Well AH could have not invaded. It was not a forgone conclusion that he would. The world was shocked, as were his generals.

Ask a B-29 or a P-51 pilot what it was like to go against a jet & imagine them deployed in numbers. The key to any invasion of Europe was air dominance. Jets would have flipped the game.

Then look a year out at the deployment of Germany's new subs.

One must include the resources necessary for maintaining such a fighting force, both men and material. I doubt Germany could've hold up for long no matter what technology they had up their sleeve.

[Davist]

Well AH could have not invaded. It was not a forgone conclusion that he would. The world was shocked, as were his generals.

Ask a B-29 or a P-51 pilot what it was like to go against a jet & imagine them deployed in numbers. The key to any invasion of Europe was air dominance. Jets would have flipped the game.

Then look a year out at the deployment of Germany's new subs.

I read the Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich and some other stuff. so no expert here, but a couple comments:

The quick success on the continent left Nazi Germany almost "looking" for something to do. Initially, they considered the Britons part of a similar "tribe" (ick) so to speak, but then continued on. In the Battle of Britain, certainly a major contributing factor was Goering's initial refusal to believe that radar worked giving the limited resources of the Brits at least the proper direction. British airplanes were superior, if I remember correctly.

By the time the jets came out, there really weren't enough resources in Nazi Germany left to build/fly/maintain etc. I'd guess the early ones were "buggy" as would be expected of new technology, don't know if they'd have the consistent repeatable range. A P51D Mustang goes about 450+ MPH which has to be fairly close (though slower) than one of the early jets while being (more?) maneuverable. Point taken about timing though, shifting 6 months at the end could have had impact

The Japan/China side is absolutely horrible the more I learn about it (and completely absent in my schooling as above). I've visited Nanjing in the last 10 years, and it's still top of mind there.

I saw a movie (sorry) about Stalingrad (enemy at the gates, I think) and the first 10 minutes or so were devastating.

Thanks for sharing, I hope we learn from his point and never have this type of conflict again.

[dave thompson]

Stalin had a very different perspective. He famously said ' One Death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic.'

[witcombusa]

Thanks for sharing, I hope we learn from his point and never have this type of conflict again.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" Santayana

Oh the people it happened to learn from it just fine (those that live), it's the self-serving psychopath politicians who just don't give a damn...:no:

[bikingshearer]

A few thoughts/observations:

Russian military doctrine was incredibly wasteful of human life, basically variations on human wave tactics. But as Stalin also said: "Quantity has a quality all its own."

The Me-262 jet was a serious challenger in fighter-on-fighter or fighter-on-bomber encounters, but it was not without drawbacks. The main one was that it was quite short-ranged compared to the available Allied fighters. P-51 pilots quickly figured out that the best way to nail a 262 was to jump it as it was taking off or landing. By that point in the war, the Germans would have been hard-pressed to produce them in the quantities needed to reverse the verdict.

The unbelievable losses the Russians suffered in the two world wars is part of the reason for their paranoid world view. For another one, take a look at a globe with Russia in the center. Then notice what the rest of the world looks like to them. To their eyes, they are literally surrounded by enemies: Western Europe (and the German and, somewhat earlier, French invaders) to the west; China to the south and southeast; volatile Islamic states to the south and southwest (with the potential to sow seeds of dissension among the Central Asian folks living in Russia); the US (Alaska) and Japan to the east (there is no love lost between the Russian and the Japanese, and that has been true for over a century), and Canada (a definite US ally) just over the pole to the north. Almost anywhere they look on the compass, they see someone who is an active threat, a potential threat, and/or a past attacker. It's enough to drive one to vodka.

[Jgrooms]

One must include the resources necessary for maintaining such a fighting force, both men and material. I doubt Germany could've hold up for long no matter what technology they had up their sleeve.


You are missing the original premiss. The Red Army won the war. No Eastern front & German resources in men & material are hardly tapped. The excellent video by the OP shows the meat grinder it was. Now imagine all the tanks, and it was a tank war in the East, turned into planes, subs & long range weapons unleashed against the West.

Whenever the Germans were on anything near equal footing in material & the all important air element they were rarely bested. And the Allies were reading their codes traffic!

[goonster]

The world was shocked, as were his generals.

Which generals? Keitel proactively prepared staging infrastructure in Poland, before being told to do so. Even Chief of General Staff Halder, previously involved in coup plots against AH, did not object to Barbarossa or the Commissar Order. If there was shock, it was not in the OKW or OKH.

The Red Army won the war. No Eastern front & German resources in men & material are hardly tapped. The excellent video by the OP shows the meat grinder it was. Now imagine all the tanks, and it was a tank war in the East, turned into planes, subs & long range weapons unleashed against the West.
Russia was not a means to defeat the West, it was the other way around. AH is on record that the western campaign was a preemptive strike against interference when he finally got down to the real business of exterminating his racial and ideological nemeses in the East.

It all boils down to Germany failing to land a knockout punch in '41. They had a second chance in '42, but Stalingrad is the tipping point in many ways (not least among them: civilian morale). The initiative is (barely) regained for a '43 offensive, but after Kursk the goose is fully, irredeemably cooked.


Whenever the Germans were on anything near equal footing in material & the all important air element they were rarely bested.
They were bested when they had to abort all plans to invade GB in '40. They were bested at Stalingrad. Neither can be chalked up to lack of resources.

[Jeff N.]

A while back, in my RN days, I took care of an old German guy in the CT scanner who claimed he was in the Waffen SS; said he got captured by the Russians toward the end of the war. "Zey ver not kind to us...", he said. I said back, "Well, no, I don't imagine so! In fact, I'm surprised you are here to talk about it". From what I've read, the Russians rarely took prisoners toward the end, if ever.-Jeff N.

[AngryScientist]

thanks for sharing.

my dad is a WWII vet. he'll be 91 this year. i'll share this with him when i see him this weekend.

[Jgrooms]

Which generals? Keitel proactively prepared staging infrastructure in Poland, before being told to do so. Even Chief of General Staff Halder, previously involved in coup plots against AH, did not object to Barbarossa or the Commissar Order. If there was shock, it was not in the OKW or OKH.


Russia was not a means to defeat the West, it was the other way around. AH is on record that the western campaign was a preemptive strike against interference when he finally got down to the real business of exterminating his racial and ideological nemeses in the East.

It all boils down to Germany failing to land a knockout punch in '41. They had a second chance in '42, but Stalingrad is the tipping point in many ways (not least among them: civilian morale). The initiative is (barely) regained for a '43 offensive, but after Kursk the goose is fully, irredeemably cooked.


They were bested when they had to abort all plans to invade GB in '40. They were bested at Stalingrad. Neither can be chalked up to lack of resources.

"Jodl...without any preamble, disclosed to us that Hitler had decided to rid the world once and for all of the danger of Bolshevism by a surprise attack on SR to be carried out at the earliest...
The effect of Jodl's words was electric. Our consternation was, if possible, even greater when we realized...that the struggle against England was not necessarily to be concluded first but that on the contrary, victory over Russia, the last force on the continent, was to be the best method of forcing England to make peace...
There was a chorus of objections...
...we were bringing upon ourselves the war on two fronts...
why the sudden change...?

31 July 1940 Adolf Hitler:
Russia is the factor by which England sets the greatest store...If Russia is beaten, England's last hope is gone.

Source: Warlimont, Hitler's HQ 39-45.

I could pull a dozen more, (Guderian, Manstein, Goerlitz, Ziemke, for example) but suffice the OKW WAS NOT prepared or pleased with the prospect of a two front war.

The subject of "bested". I wasn't speaking of Georing's freak show, but the Wehrmacht. And as far as the Battle of Britain goes, do you believe a landing supported by the best airborne units in the world would have failed against the British remnants of Dunkirk & the ragtag Home Army? In the end it was called off & the issue not tested. Good thing.

Stalingrad? A huge strategic over reach by AH for the name. And as of 42 Summer offensive Adolf was C-in-C. And yes Stalingrad was all about resources. The bombing campaign was taking a toll, resources were moved West due to AH's paranoia, Rommel was on the defensive & Hitler instead of concentration of force insisted on a push all along the East. Cut off and surrounded by a vastly superior force was the Sixth, they were not anywhere close to equal footing with the Russians. When the Sixth was, they kicked everyone's ass!

Any good student of military history knows how the greatest fighting force the world had seen would be frittered away by the corporal. Its a good thing, if the pros had remained in charge the war would have went on much longer.

About the only thing your close on is 1941.

[sg8357]

Some comments,

German jet engines had a life span of 10 hours of less, fuel shortages kept many planes grounded. If the Germans had extended the war 6 months,
ie the Bulge worked. Berlin gets nuked.

The old saw "history is written by the victors" doesn't apply to the Eastern Front. What the West knew of the war is east was written by Germans
till the fall of the wall. David Glantz and others got into the Soviet archives
iun the 90's and wrote new histories of the Eastern Front.

[Jgrooms]

But this is a bike forum :-)

[Jgrooms]

Some comments,

German jet engines had a life span of 10 hours of less, fuel shortages kept many planes grounded. If the Germans had extended the war 6 months,
ie the Bulge worked. Berlin gets nuked.

The old saw "history is written by the victors" doesn't apply to the Eastern Front. What the West knew of the war is east was written by Germans
till the fall of the wall. David Glantz and others got into the Soviet archives
iun the 90's and wrote new histories of the Eastern Front.

Again the original premiss, no East. No East & the Allies are not on the continent. Maybe US doesn't have its little island aircraft carrier. No nuke gets to Berlin in this scenario.

The first A bomb use was not going to happen in Europe. Too much concern over a dud & the Germans might be able to do something w it. There were no B-29s in European theater & there were not a lot of bombs laying around. 6 months on? Not unless Allies had complete air superiority would a 29 & squadron with a bomb be risked. 6 months on the Germans would be deploying wire guided air to air rockets.

As it was the Allies were plenty good at destroying European cities without need for A bomb.

[Louis]

The only possible utility of AH (Alternate or Alternative History) is entertainment:

What if the Athenians had lost the Battle of Marathon? Europe as we know it would probably not exist.

What if the 20th Maine had retreated instead of charging at Little Round Top when they were nearly out of ammunition? The Union would have likely lost the Battle of Gettysburg and the war.

What if, during the Battle of Midway, McClusky had called off the search for the Japanese fleet as his planes were running low on fuel? The result changed the entire battle, which was probably the single biggest turning point of the Pacific war.

One can go on and on and on.

[Buzz]

Here is an informative article on the industrial output of Japan vs USA before and during ww2

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

The U.S. Navy by 1945 was larger than the all of the navies of the world combined!

My dad a ww2 vet always said that the industrial might during the was in the U.S. was amazing and the ultimate decider in the outcome of the war. Just about everyone was working in the war effort every town, every city, every state. 3 shifts a day pumping out high quality munitions, airplanes, trucks, weapons, uniforms, communications and the list goes on.

A lot of that output went to Britain and Russia war effort.

Per this article at the end of the war the U.S. Economy accounted for 50% of the worlds gdp and the U.S. Had an extra 2 billion dollars and manpower to develop a single weapon that may or may not have worked (atom bomb).

A truly pivotal period in the history of the world. And as the op video points out there has been a long period of relative peace since then.

[gasman]

But this is a bike forum :-)

And THATs why this place is so great. I've read a lot on WW2 and find in two pages I've learned a little more. Cool

[Ken Robb]

But this is a bike forum :-)
Well, I find this to be a forum of intelligent, educated, OPINIONATED folks who happen to ride bikes. And it is often thought-provoking fun besides providing good info on cycling.

[witcombusa]

A truly pivotal period in the history of the world. And as the op video points out there has been a long period of relative peace since then.


Really? :confused: Seems we've been at war (a rose by any other name) virtually my entire lifetime. NOTHING has been learned by the few that orchestrate these actions for 'other' reasons.

[Jeff N.]

...standing on Omaha Beach, Normandy, France. If you are a WW2 Buff, put a visit here on your bucket list. Jeff N.

[Saint Vitus]

Well, I find this to be a forum of intelligent, educated, OPINIONATED folks who happen to ride bikes. And it is often thought-provoking fun besides providing good info on cycling.

Hey, leave me out of this!

I met a guy once whose last name (given, not adopted) was Hitler. Even said so on his Driver's license.

[DukeHorn]

"Jodl...without any preamble, disclosed to us that Hitler had decided to rid the world once and for all of the danger of Bolshevism by a surprise attack on SR to be carried out at the earliest...
The effect of Jodl's words was electric. Our consternation was, if possible, even greater when we realized...that the struggle against England was not necessarily to be concluded first but that on the contrary, victory over Russia, the last force on the continent, was to be the best method of forcing England to make peace...
There was a chorus of objections...
...we were bringing upon ourselves the war on two fronts...
why the sudden change...?

31 July 1940 Adolf Hitler:
Russia is the factor by which England sets the greatest store...If Russia is beaten, England's last hope is gone.

Source: Warlimont, Hitler's HQ 39-45.

I could pull a dozen more, (Guderian, Manstein, Goerlitz, Ziemke, for example) but suffice the OKW WAS NOT prepared or pleased with the prospect of a two front war.

The subject of "bested". I wasn't speaking of Georing's freak show, but the Wehrmacht. And as far as the Battle of Britain goes, do you believe a landing supported by the best airborne units in the world would have failed against the British remnants of Dunkirk & the ragtag Home Army? In the end it was called off & the issue not tested. Good thing.


You are arguing as if conquering Britain was gospel. It's not so cut and dry. Let's see

1) Regardless of manpower, the Luftwaffe had issues with the Spitfires and British radar/intelligence. The Battle of Britain was already lost by October of 1940 and Operation Barbarossa didn't start till June of 1941 so part of your thesis goes out the door right there. If the Germans could have pulled off Sea Lion they would have done so before the Russian invasion.

2) The Me262 jet didn't hit combat readiness till June of 1944 so your 2 year window goes out the door.

3) The P-51 Mustang is introduced in 1942. US production greatly outscales any sort of German production. Doubtful air superiority argument.

4) Battle of the seas....Romantic imagery aside--the German navy was way too small. You have to remember that when the Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk at Singapore in December of 1941, the Brits had enough mastery of the Atlantic that they could send capital ships to the Pacific.

5) German factory production/quality. People tend to forget how reliant the German military was on horses. The Tiger I and Panthers were not that reliable and they only came into existence as a response to the the Russian T-34 and KV-1. British tanks in 1940 (Churchill and Matilda) were generally better than the PzII and early Pz III. Rommel's Afrika Korps generally were outgunned which is why the German success has been attributed to military doctrine over equipment. Anyway German production rate was pretty low compared to the Allies. I'm not sure how they would produce sufficient LSTs and transport them to the Normandy coast without severe losses.

6) Amphibious assault--All those later stage great tanks don't mean squat if you can't get on the ground. You need overwhelming air/naval superiority to attack a island country. Germany would have neither.

7) RADAR--can't accent this enough. Both the Germans and Japanese discounted the benefits of radar for air and naval combat. If you're going to be fighting half-blind, it's hard to expect to win (think all those night-time Japanese destroyer runs at Guadacanal which totally decimated their covering ships for later in the war against the US subs).

8) As for your German airborne argument, not buying it. Considering how bad the German paratroopers were decimated at Crete (and subsequently removed from German combat doctrine), I don't imagine they would have fared better in larger scale battles like Britain.

9) Finally, this is all sort of moot since the reason Hitler attacked Germany was that he was sure Stalin was going to attack him first. So, even if Hitler had held off on Barbarossa, who is to say that Stalin would allow a burgeoning superpower to sit on the Russian border?

That's off the top of my head. (and I did spend a semester in college taking four courses on WWII).

[Jgrooms]

You are arguing as if conquering Britain was gospel. It's not so cut and dry. Let's see

1) Regardless of manpower, the Luftwaffe had issues with the Spitfires and British radar/intelligence. The Battle of Britain was already lost by October of 1940 and Operation Barbarossa didn't start till June of 1941 so part of your thesis goes out the door right there. If the Germans could have pulled off Sea Lion they would have done so before the Russian invasion.

2) The Me262 jet didn't hit combat readiness till June of 1944 so your 2 year window goes out the door.

3) The P-51 Mustang is introduced in 1942. US production greatly outscales any sort of German production. Doubtful air superiority argument.

4) Battle of the seas....Romantic imagery aside--the German navy was way too small. You have to remember that when the Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk at Singapore in December of 1941, the Brits had enough mastery of the Atlantic that they could send capital ships to the Pacific.

5) German factory production/quality. People tend to forget how reliant the German military was on horses. The Tiger I and Panthers were not that reliable and they only came into existence as a response to the the Russian T-34 and KV-1. British tanks in 1940 (Churchill and Matilda) were generally better than the PzII and early Pz III. Rommel's Afrika Korps generally were outgunned which is why the German success has been attributed to military doctrine over equipment. Anyway German production rate was pretty low compared to the Allies. I'm not sure how they would produce sufficient LSTs and transport them to the Normandy coast without severe losses.

6) Amphibious assault--All those later stage great tanks don't mean squat if you can't get on the ground. You need overwhelming air/naval superiority to attack a island country. Germany would have neither.

7) RADAR--can't accent this enough. Both the Germans and Japanese discounted the benefits of radar for air and naval combat. If you're going to be fighting half-blind, it's hard to expect to win (think all those night-time Japanese destroyer runs at Guadacanal which totally decimated their covering ships for later in the war against the US subs).

8) As for your German airborne argument, not buying it. Considering how bad the German paratroopers were decimated at Crete (and subsequently removed from German combat doctrine), I don't imagine they would have fared better in larger scale battles like Britain.

9) Finally, this is all sort of moot since the reason Hitler attacked Germany was that he was sure Stalin was going to attack him first. So, even if Hitler had held off on Barbarossa, who is to say that Stalin would allow a burgeoning superpower to sit on the Russian border?

That's off the top of my head. (and I did spend a semester in college taking four courses on WWII).

Sort of expanding the subject? Original premiss, the war was won/lost in the East. No invasion of Russia in 41 & its difficult to see the Allies ever gaining a foot hold. The Germans, despite horses, radar and their cipher traffic being read were the superior force. It took millions of Russians to wear them down & the industrial might of the US to eventually crush them.

1). The Battle of Britain was not "lost." The Germans disengaged after loosing the initiative (due to strategic shift to London for political purposes) and facing mounting looses. Simply a deadline for G had passed. The RAF & The Battle of Britain, now there is some romantic imagery. Time to move East.

2) again original premiss is the timeline is pushed back due to no Russian invasion or delay. 1 yr on & everything we know about jets is different. They improved and are used in squadrons and not piecemeal, for example. Jets with wire guided rockets attacking bomber formations? They most certainly change the strategic balance of the air campaign in that one year later scenario.

3) see 2. Sort of like brewing up 10 Shermans to kill a Tiger?

4) not sure on the romantic imagery. But again, one year on and the Atlantic is full of a new breed of sub that like the jet, upsets the strategic balance.

5) makes my point. Superior doctrine bludgeoned by bodies and material. Take the bodies out & give them time to consolidate material, how do the Allies gain that foothold?

6) if Sealion was real, the Luftwaffe simply shifts back to attacking the RAF within their closer operational window. The tactic that was winning the battle. If the Germans commit the navy and the sub force? Again, If Sealion was real. It was Hitler's bluff to see if a political solution (removal of WSC) could be found.

7) ok.

8) Hitler removed them. Sealion committed, airborne committed. Pretty good track record in 40? Pretty good track record attached to regular units for the remainder? You bet.

9) absolutely no evidence or prep on Stalin's part to invade Germany. He was going so far out of his way to fulfill the obligations of the treaty, the generals were stunned at the idea of invasion. They were getting their raw materials cheap. The stunning initial successes of 41 show how utterly unprepared the Russians were.

If you think it impossible for the Germans to cross the channel & defeat the British Home Army and the Expeditionary Force with no equipment in 40, then reverse & imagine Eisenhower defeating a German army 6 million plus stronger and led by say Rommel of Cairo in 45 or 46. Even with radar & reading Rommel's love letters to his wife, it's a chilling scenario.

[oldpotatoe]

Sort of expanding the subject? Original premiss, the war was won/lost in the East. No invasion of Russia in 41 & its difficult to see the Allies ever gaining a foot hold. The Germans, despite horses, radar and their cipher traffic being read were the superior force. It took millions of Russians to wear them down & the industrial might of the US to eventually crush them.

1). The Battle of Britain was not "lost." The Germans disengaged after loosing the initiative (due to strategic shift to London for political purposes) and facing mounting looses. Simply a deadline for G had passed. The RAF & The Battle of Britain, now there is some romantic imagery. Time to move East.

2) again original premiss is the timeline is pushed back due to no Russian invasion or delay. 1 yr on & everything we know about jets is different. They improved and are used in squadrons and not piecemeal, for example. Jets with wire guided rockets attacking bomber formations? They most certainly change the strategic balance of the air campaign in that one year later scenario.

3) see 2. Sort of like brewing up 10 Shermans to kill a Tiger?

4) not sure on the romantic imagery. But again, one year on and the Atlantic is full of a new breed of sub that like the jet, upsets the strategic balance.

5) makes my point. Superior doctrine bludgeoned by bodies and material. Take the bodies out & give them time to consolidate material, how do the Allies gain that foothold?

6) if Sealion was real, the Luftwaffe simply shifts back to attacking the RAF within their closer operational window. The tactic that was winning the battle. If the Germans commit the navy and the sub force? Again, If Sealion was real. It was Hitler's bluff to see if a political solution (removal of WSC) could be found.

7) ok.

8) Hitler removed them. Sealion committed, airborne committed. Pretty good track record in 40? Pretty good track record attached to regular units for the remainder? You bet.

9) absolutely no evidence or prep on Stalin's part to invade Germany. He was going so far out of his way to fulfill the obligations of the treaty, the generals were stunned at the idea of invasion. They were getting their raw materials cheap. The stunning initial successes of 41 show how utterly unprepared the Russians were.

If you think it impossible for the Germans to cross the channel & defeat the British Home Army and the Expeditionary Force with no equipment in 40, then reverse & imagine Eisenhower defeating a German army 6 million plus stronger and led by say Rommel of Cairo in 45 or 46. Even with radar & reading Rommel's love letters to his wife, it's a chilling scenario.

But if the German's were more successful, and Hitler had not spiraled into oblivian, would Rommel have participated in an asassination attempt? And Rommel certainly gooned up as the commander of German's in prep of Normandy. BUT maybe Normandy would not have happened with German successes. Fascinating stuff. Technologically, the German's were very advanced, particularly in aircraft design.

[gasman]

[QUOTE=Jgrooms;1771981]

1). The Battle of Britain was not "lost." The Germans disengaged after loosing the initiative (due to strategic shift to London for political purposes) and facing mounting looses. Simply a deadline for G had passed. The RAF & The Battle of Britain, now there is some romantic imagery. Time to move East.





This is more of my recollection of the Battle of Britain

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

[93legendti]

Germany's jets would not have made a difference, just as Germany's superior tanks (in much fewer numbers) didn't make a victorious difference compared to the lower tech, but extremely abundant Sherman's and t-34's. Germany could build 300 tanks a month. We built as many as 1,500 per month, built over 40,000 Shermans and provided 8,000 tanks to Russia.

Russia had a strategy of 1) Rings of defense, which by design chews up men and materiel, and 2) Set objectives and then consolidation until the next phase.

The "lessons" were implemented (unsuccessfully) by her Arab clients at Abu Ageila in '56 and '67 and the Golan in '73.

Deciding that a "superior" weapon could have changed the outcome of a battle/war is easy on paper...But wars and battles are won on the battlefield...the Russian Styx naval missile had a range of ~30km, while the Israeli Gabriel naval missile's range was only 20km. Yet Israel won the Battles of Latakia and Baltim by sinking 19 Arab missile boats while losing none of their own, and surviving the 10km missile belt advantage enjoyed by the Arabs.

[DukeHorn]

. And as far as the Battle of Britain goes, do you believe a landing supported by the best airborne units in the world would have failed against the British remnants of Dunkirk & the ragtag Home Army?.

Again, superior armor doctrine doesn't matter if you can't get on the ground.

Your original "thesis" was somehow miracle jets (and, now, miracle subs) would change the course of war. Fine, whatever.

You then made an assertion that with airborne troops Britain was a gimme. That's the one post I was responding to (notice why I quoted it). So you changed the goalposts first without even discussing naval assets.

Yes, I believe a landing supported by the best airborne troops in the world would have failed since amphibious assaults are notoriously difficult. Dropping paratroopers when you discount radar drives up casualties. Those jets you are counting were not overwhelming superior to existing Allied planes. There's no pretense of a naval argument in your scenario. Ok....

As for the argument that German moved on from the Battle of Britain because they "lost interest". Just look at the casualty rates in 3 months. 4,500 Germans killed/captured/lost versus 1,000 Brits. Even if you lost somewhat equivalent aircraft numbers, the Germans weren't recovering crews lost over the UK or the channel.

The "ragtag" Home Army versus the "vaunted" Wehrmacht wasn't going to happen in a vacuum.

Here are other people's discussion on this topic:

The myth is that there was one German operation to invade Britain in 1940. In fact the German Army, Navy and Air Force had different plans. The Army simply expected a souped up opposed river crossing, and expected the Navy to carry them over the channel. The Navy never took the idea seriously and went through the motions waiting for Hitler’s attention to turn elsewhere – Russia, or its own favourite the Med. The Luftwaffe thought it could win on its own by using terror tactics to cause a collapse in the will to resist. It hadn’t even learned the lessons of Dunkirk


The BoB has been war gamed over and over again by just about every air force in the World (and a lot of others) and it is almost impossible for the Luftwaffe to win, unless Park really stuffs up.

[Louis]

Not sure if it's come up yet in the thread, but another huge advantage for the Brits was that with Polish help they had broken the Enigma code.

Knowing what the other guy is thinking and likely to do in war (and diplomacy) makes it all a bit easier.