Why did Germany lose WW2?

Interesting thread

Has anyone played games like Panzer General?

On the strategical reasons, it does not give much knowledge. But on the operational and tactical level, it is quite informative.

Adolph Galland wrote in his book that the figther class was a second citizen and wasn't given priority.

From my experience with PG kind of games, I fully agree. Tactical bombers are nice until you find figthers and good AA. So basically, tactical bombers suck unless you control the air with figthers and never send bombers in areas with AA. So that requires good intel.

In PG, it is paramount of importance not to lose manpower and material. In this respect, it was right to destroy the Kiev army and wrong to attack Moscow in the same season. Elastic defense is also absolutely necessary. Always attack weak spot etc etc etc.

Goring was a big fat pig. Germany needed figthers and figthers and figthers. And mobile AA in support of fighters. It is not until you totally control the air that you start using tactical bombers and even then only against weak spot without AAs.

I seriously doubt the usefulness of strategic bombers. Waste of resources, Effectiveness is overrated unless you assiege a small country like the Allies assieging Germany.

Before reading this thread, i was not aware of the terribly difficult logisitc issues. Unfortunately, Panzer General hex games don't incorporate this element in the game mechanics. Once you buy a Tiger unit, it never breaks down :)
 
The funny thing is that when I started this thread it was more or less aimed at logistics and the failure of logistics but as it has gone on over the years I have read several things that have stated German logistics at getting things to the front were very good so I can only assume that if there was a problem it was getting things to rear supply dumps rather than to the front itself and if that is true then I can only assume the loss of air superiority was the cause.

As for Panzer General great game, not really overly realistic but in part I agree with your points on it still if you liked that game try out Panzer Corps by Slitherine it is Panzer General remade and with new campaigns it is just as good.

http://slitherine.com/games/panzer_corps_pc

:)
 
Hi MontyB

I know about Panzer Corps. I'm on the fence because of the price tag. I will buy it once the price goes down. On the other hand, it would be a perfect item for the next indie humble bundle. Increase the market tremendously and people who like it may buy expansions pack.

I have been playing PG 2 lately (10 dollars on gog.com) and it is certainly not realistic in many aspects. But it does very well at showing the player how important it is to control the air.

Just for the fun, I try to win the blitzgrieg campaign without using a single plane. Only doable with 20-30% of your units being half-tracked mobile aa. It works I guess because the AI is dumb enough in PG2.

Someone wrote in this thread, which I read entirely, that at the beginning of the war, German air power for among the best. That really puzzles how they could squander that into a total lack of decent air power during the later stages.
 
I think the problem is that the Luftwaffe was simply overwhelmed from about 1944 onward, decisions made early in the war to concentrate on existing fighter lines due to an expectation that the war was won rather than continue development cost it dearly later in the war.

Tying up vast numbers of aircraft, anti-aircraft guns and crews defending the Reich eventually led to the Luftwaffe being unable to support ground forces nor defend the supply lines which led to greater and ultimately unsustainable losses on the battlefield.

You only have to look at the difference between the 1940 battle for France and the 1944 battle for France to see how far the Luftwaffe had deteriorated, by 1944 any German armoured counter attack was stopped cold by Allied aircraft and artillery two things that were not possible in 1940 due to German air superiority.
 
anyone seen the program "Luftwaffe 1946"? it shows what the luftwaffe might have been capable of if the Germans had been able to stop the allied advance (assuming that they would have the resources, which they didnt). most of the planes were jets, and of course, many of them would have fallen over and exploded, but there are some pretty interisting designs.
 
r.fox said:
anyone seen the program "Luftwaffe 1946"? it shows what the luftwaffe might have been capable of if the Germans had been able to stop the allied advance (assuming that they would have the resources, which they didnt). most of the planes were jets, and of course, many of them would have fallen over and exploded, but there are some pretty interisting designs.
Click to expand...

The thing about the Luftwaffe 1946 designs is that many of them were impractical/desperation designs like the Bachem Ba 349 Natter and the Focke-Wulf Triebflugel, the only genuine threat aircraft coming on tap in 1946 would have been the Focke-Wulf TA-183 and the Horten flying wing designs.

But the real problem for the Luftwaffe was not obsolete aircraft but rather the lack of raw materials to make high quality parts, fuel and trained, experienced pilots to fly any new aircraft produced.
 
Great thread Monty!!

It took me one month to go through it!!

So if you would summarize it and pin point the 10 main reasons, what would be?
 
To be honest I think after all this time there is really only one reason Germany lost, too ambitious.

I am of the opinion that Germany was more capable of fighting any nation in a one on one fight but it lacked that resources (men and material) to take on the world, it was eventually overwhelmed.

In many ways I think the better question would have been "How was the world almost defeated by Germany".
 
MontyB said:
To be honest I think after all this time there is really only one reason Germany lost, too ambitious.

I am of the opinion that Germany was more capable of fighting any nation in a one on one fight but it lacked that resources (men and material) to take on the world, it was eventually overwhelmed.

In many ways I think the better question would have been "How was the world almost defeated by Germany".
Click to expand...
Hm,IMHO,the last sentence is dubious,an exageration .
 
Why is it either dubious or an exaggeration?

Lets be honest here, the only thing that saved Britain was the Channel had the Germans had a land bridge to England it would have been all over by 1941 and without Britain I doubt the USA would have got involved in Europe.

With Britain out of the way the Germans would have had a far greater chance against the Russians even if you look at solely from the perspective of not having Bomber Command to deal with, more 88's going into tanks and not defending the Reich airspace, an extra few hundred thousand troops manning front line positions and not antiaircraft guns etc.

Like it or not WW2 was a very close run affair when in reality it should not have been, the French were not a bad army nor were the British but they were soundly beaten in 1940.
 
1) Well : one can not start from the assumption that if the Channel did not exist,.....:the Channel existed .That's a fact.It is the same as saying : if there was no winter in Russia,the Germans would win .
2)It is dubious to claim that if Britain was out,this would make things easier for the Germans in Russia:
a)Every one is assuming that if Britain was out,the Germans would start automatically Barbarossa,for which,there is no proof .
b)If Britain was out,the result would be:an other country (45 millions of people )to occupuy .
c)The theoretical threat of BC in 1941 had no influence at all on Barbarossa: the Germans committed in june 1941 1060 pieces of 88 mm in Barbarossa.The "reserve" of 88 mm guns in Germany was small.
3)When Britain decided to continue the war,it was over for the Germans: their only chance was to defeat the SU in a few weeks,hoping that the political implications would be that Britain would give up .
The military results of a successfull Barbarossa would be bad....for the Germans : a lot of losses,and....an other country to occupuy.
 
1 is a given and 3 I agree with but I disagree with 2.

My mistake was to talk of 88's when in reality I meant the amount of men and material devoted to Reich defense purely because of the bombing campaign against Germany as well as the lost and destroyed production in said campaign must have had a detrimental affect at the front, further this the morale issues of family dislocations etc. are all aspects that would not have been in play had Britain been knocked out of the war.
 
IMHO,you are starting from the wrong direction :Barbarossa was not conditionned by the war with Britain,it is the opposite :a victory of Barbarossa (this means:a victory in the summer of 1941) would result in the end of the war with Britain .
From the German POV,Britain was a drowning person who was desperately looking for 2 pieces of wrackage to not be drowned:the SU and the USA:if it lost one of the wrackage,it was lost .
Now:about the assumption that peace with Britain would increase the German chances to win :
The effect of the attacks of BC are irrelevant,because they started to be serious only in 1942,when the Germans had lost all chance to defeat the SU .
What was the situation on 22 june 1941?Where there any considerable forces tied by the war with Britain ,forces that could be decisive in the east ,and could these forces be made available for the war in the east ?
The answer is :NO.
From the 199 German divisions (not including the security units),143 were committed for Barbarossa .
From the 56 other ones,only 6 could be used in the east :2 mountain divisions in the Balkans,2 divisions in NA,and 2 (2nd and 5th Pz) in Germany,which were in a status of repair .
The 50 remaining were totally unfit for the east :their equipment was obsolete,and they were immobile (bodenständig).
Even the 143 divisions used for Barbarossa had a lot of shortages ,especially on the transport level.
War or no war with Britain on 22 june 1941,would have changed nothing .
 
I don't disagree with any of that however I think you are underestimating the value of having Britain out of the war, as an empire that spanned the globe supplying raw materials, food and troops it is in my opinion wrong to do this.

For example would troops in Africa have fought on without Britain?
Now I accept that this is a small "sideshow" if you will but the need to go into the Balkans and maintain and supply troops in North Africa was far from it, multiply this by supply to the Western forces and the resources needed to build and maintain defense.

How much more support would have been provided in the East had Luftflotte 2 and 3 been able to be deployed East and so on, the forces in the West were not just 50 poorly equipped divisions they were also air and naval assets.
 
LW strength in the east on 22 june 1941:
LF 1:679 combat aircraft
LF 2:1468 combat aircraft
LF 4: 9O9 combat aircraft
LF 5:110 combat aircraft
Total :3277
Outside the east:
Norway :152
West:812
Balkans:157
NA:194
Germany :286
Total:1601
It is obvious that,if the war with Britain had ended still a very big part of these 1601 aircraft still would be tied ,and not be available for the east .
Only those in the Balkans and NA would be available,minus extra aircraft that would be needed to defend the c oasts of Britain and Ireland .
 
lljadw said:
LW strength in the east on 22 june 1941:
LF 1:679 combat aircraft
LF 2:1468 combat aircraft
LF 4: 9O9 combat aircraft
LF 5:110 combat aircraft
Total :3277
Outside the east:
Norway :152
West:812
Balkans:157
NA:194
Germany :286
Total:1601
It is obvious that,if the war with Britain had ended still a very big part of these 1601 aircraft still would be tied ,and not be available for the east .
Only those in the Balkans and NA would be available,minus extra aircraft that would be needed to defend the c oasts of Britain and Ireland .
Click to expand...

Again no argument with your numbers but I believe you are not taking into account several important aspects such as no Britain means:
- No North African issue.
- No need to invade the Balkans.
- No need to build supplies in the West to the same degree.
- Factories producing war materials in France and Germany unmolested by Bomber command.
- The ability to deploy ships such as the Bismarck to support Army Group North as far as Leningrad etc.
- The ability to bring in raw materials through the Atlantic.
 
I think that with the loss of Britain the allies would lose a big airfield and port. The British would fight on in other parts of the world. D-Day would propably have started in Southern France somewhat later. German troops in Britain would be trapped. The British government would "fight on" from Canada.

In my opinion the loss of Britain would have no big effect on the German operations against Russia.
 
But that only leaves two possible outcomes:
1) Germany wins.
2) The Soviet Union wins.
Neither of those is a particularly pleasant thought.
 
I think that the outcome would have been the same but on a later date. North Africa would replace Britain for the troop build up.
 
BritinAfrica said:
I don't have a problem whatsoever. Your problem and your mate is, both of you refuse to accept studies from historians who are fully qualified. To refer to published studies of ULTRA by historians as boasting by your buddy is a stupid statement to say the least.
Click to expand...

It has been a while but I have just got through reading the Summer 2013 US Naval War College publication and it has an interesting break down on ULTRA and the war in North Africa.

ULTRA1_zps5cb3fb4a.jpg


ULTRA2_zpsd98433cc.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top