Why did Germany lose WW2? - Page 5




 
--
 
January 9th, 2008  
Supostat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
It is this that makes the German declaration of war on the USA rather odd especially since:
(a) It was the only nation they did declare war on.
That is not true. Germany also declare war on USSR, however they did it after actual attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
(b) They were not required to declare war or assist as Japan was the aggressor.
Thats is true and turned to be mistake. However, Germans just completed obligations of allies, showing good will towards Japan. Japan did not answered the same and did not declare war on USSR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The Tiger was operation in mid to late 1942 I don't consider that too late I just don't think the Japanese had a use for it as they were not planning to fight the Russians. However as Doppleganger has pointed out the Mark IV may have been a better overall option as tank for Japan.
First Tigers in Eastern front appeared on very end of 1942 and their first actions were quite unsuccessful.

If Japan wanted to launch a surface attack to USSR, they needed as simple and reliable tank as possible rather than expensive, heavy protected and powerfully armed but caprice tank. Since if they succeed to brake a Soviet front they most likely would operate in rather large territories, what implicate some supply problems, especially in case of successful deep offensives.
January 9th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supostat
That is not true. Germany also declare war on USSR, however they did it after actual attack.
I am pretty sure the Russians figured out they were at war long before the declaration arrived though so it was a rather meaningless gesture by Germany.

Quote:
First Tigers in Eastern front appeared on very end of 1942 and their first actions were quite unsuccessful.
Indeed:
The first 4 Tigers to see combat were sent to the Leningrad area in August of 1942. Unfortunately they were deployed single file over swampy terrain and in their first day of combat all four were knocked out, although their armor was not penetrated. Three were later recovered.

Quote:
If Japan wanted to launch a surface attack to USSR, they needed as simple and reliable tank as possible rather than expensive, heavy protected and powerfully armed but caprice tank. Since if they succeed to brake a Soviet front they most likely would operate in rather large territories, what implicate some supply problems, especially in case of successful deep offensives.
I don't believe Japan had the manpower or ability to carry out successful operations against Russia and I think they knew it, it is for this reason that I think the best support Japan could have given Germany was the continued threat of attack. Once this threat was gone it freed up large numbers of troops to the west at a time when the German army could least afford to face them.
January 9th, 2008  
perseus
 
 
In fact a good time for the axis to form an alliance against Britain would have been earlier in 1940 since the Italian presence in Ethiopia was a potential threat to the Suez route. Japanese expansion to the West via Singapore and Ceylon could have formed a bridge to this Italian colony (prior to the actual Italian defeat in 1941) Japanese support here would have virtually sealed of the Eastern Mediterranean.

Spain should also have been encouraged to join (from an axis viewpoint) Middle Eastern Oil (and for them Gibraltar) being the main prize. With Spanish ports available largely immune from RAF bombing and a quicker route for Japanese Carriers through Suez, the Atlantic routes would have been at the Axis's mercy and Eurasia could have been sealed off from the America's.
--
January 9th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
In fact a good time for the axis to form an alliance against Britain would have been earlier in 1940 since the Italian presence in Ethiopia was a potential threat to the Suez route. Japanese expansion to the West via Singapore and Ceylon could have formed a bridge to this Italian colony (prior to the actual Italian defeat in 1941) Japanese support here would have virtually sealed of the Eastern Mediterranean.
The best use the Italians could have been for the Axis was either as a neutral country or as a fully paid up member of the Allies.

Quote:
Spain should also have been encouraged to join (from an axis viewpoint) Middle Eastern Oil (and for them Gibraltar) being the main prize. With Spanish ports available largely immune from RAF bombing and a quicker route for Japanese Carriers through Suez, the Atlantic routes would have been at the Axis's mercy and Eurasia could have been sealed off from the America's.
If anything I think the Spanish model should have been used for the Italians, lets face it everyone knew where Spains sympathies lay but as long as they remained neutral they could provide intelligence, troops and safe havens to the Axis without needing to be protected, it was the ideal buffer zone.
January 10th, 2008  
rock45
 

Topic: Middle East


I always thought if the Germans would have push further in the Middle East and blocking England's main sources of oil and basically taking away Med early on may have had some longer lasting effects as well.

Not taking Spain and closing the Med completely was a huge mistake, between the above and leaving there southern flank open was the early down falls.

I think Russia would have attacked them once a little better prepared.

Lack of longer range fighters and attack aircraft was huge, it was very closed minded to think the BF109 would last as long as it did. In late 1940 or 1941 they knew of it's short comings. The 190 did better in ways but the Germans lack something better. Besides subs they needed aircraft that could reach western England from France and maybe from northern Spain if they were smart enough to grab it. As great as there early arms industry was it was there air power or lack of that let them down.

I would used my air power to focus on England's Navy & ship yards which was there life line to the world even more so then the RAF. The English channel would have been a ships grave yard period. British ships block my ports would have just been targets. Can you imagine if hundreds of there early air attacks between 1940 and 1941 went against 70% of all English shipping. They wouldn't have been able to recover it takes to long to build ships and imports are needed to do it. Taking out the RAF with no fuel for it's fighter would have come later. And United States started late we still needed a year or two before out industry jumped into super high gear. I would have went for the neck and choke them to soften them up.

There are another fifty or sixty important things as well but by late 1943 and 1944 our industry would have over came most this anyway but at a higher cost. We would got out foot hold a little deeper in Africa and work our up or in the far north or even through Russia and in the end they would have lost. You can't and win with 20 to 1 odds in aircraft, ships, and personnel against you.

I think I have a good point with Spain that single thing could changed a lot. All of England's oil and goods would have to come all the way around the horn and up. We might not have had a nice island to land on after a while.
January 10th, 2008  
perseus
 
 
Rock45

I think we generally agree that the Med would have been a good strategy, however my emphasis was by involving Japan early in the war in the direction of East Africa and Ethiopia (already under Axis control) it would have sealed of the entire Middle East. Italian incompetence may have been irrelevant if the Japanese had helped. They usually fought adequately under Rommel, why not with a the help of a small Japanese force? the British had few forces to spare.

Would the axis have still succumbed to America if Eurasia was taken by 1943? First you are assuming that the US would have gone to war anyway, without Pearl or the UK to defend there have been little point and a sceptical US public to convince. You also assume that if they did go to war then US production would have been greater than the Axis. However, the Axis would hold the entire Euro-Asia continent reserves and Speer achieved some impressive production quotas without any of this whilst his country was being bombed to bits. Finally would the US have been able to invade an intact Eurasian continent with the competence of the German army defending with resources? It was hard enough when they were being kicked on both sides with their hands tied behind their back.

I think a more likely scenario would have been a stand off, with America with a few low strength Atom Bombs and Germany with the delivery systems. I doubt if it would have taken long for Germany to catch up in nuclear weapons without the stress of a full scale war, would the reverse have been the case?
January 10th, 2008  
Ollie Garchy
 
 
Sorry Perseus,

Some of your assumptions are a bit on the mythical side, although you demonstrate solid logic and a good level of knowledge -- typical for you. I want to focus on one of your comments, namely that Speer had to reorganize German production while the country was "being bombed to bits". I will only make two comments:

(1) German Production: This area, as I have written a million times before, is easy to cover. The bombing does NOT reduce German industrial capacities. Please refer to Abelshauser. German capital goods production increases 20 percent during the war. That simply means that potential German output increases. In fact, German output does increase. No surprise. British and American bombing hits civilians...nothing more, nothing less.

(2) Soviet Union: I have also written enough on this area. The Sovs were by themselves never a real threat to German arms. Overy (KCL) himself argued that the Sovs were basically defeated in 1941...only a barbaric fall into terrorism and the weather saved the Sovs. But regardless, the Germans used the Soviets as great targets -- achieving kill ratios the likes of which the world has never seen. Of the original 20,000 Soviet tanks, built for the defense of the Soviet Union (Ollie laughs), over 19,000 were destroyed during the original German campaign. Even during the final days of the Reich, the Germans were able to slaughter the Russians (such as the Seelower Hoehen) on an incredible and almost Hollywood scale. The Soviets were nothing...just "Germans are incredible soldiers statistics". The war in the east was the greatest example of an enlightened military ethos fighting pure barbarism -- Sparta against Persia, the 300, the glorious, the superior.

On that note, I would like to add something. Under Putin, the Russians think that they have become something again. I can only ask...what? More targets for me and my Volk? The current German military ain't that which it was, but they could still deal with any Russian "threat". I can only say: Bring it on!
January 10th, 2008  
Supostat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy
SBut regardless, the Germans used the Soviets as great targets -- achieving kill ratios the likes of which the world has never seen. Of the original 20,000 Soviet tanks, built for the defense of the Soviet Union (Ollie laughs), over 19,000 were destroyed during the original German campaign. Even during the final days of the Reich, the Germans were able to slaughter the Russians (such as the Seelower Hoehen) on an incredible and almost Hollywood scale. The Soviets were nothing...just "Germans are incredible soldiers statistics". The war in the east was the greatest example of an enlightened military ethos fighting pure barbarism -- Sparta against Persia, the 300, the glorious, the superior.
If so, why Germany lost war in Eas? And why actually Germans ended war with Volkssturm and armed Hitlerjugend kids, not Soviets?

Soviets had not superior number of manpower since German forces quickly occupied significantly populated parts of CCCP and thus decreased resources of manpower what CCCP could mobilize. Moreover, during the war the German forces increased with non-german combatants - various Waffen SS divisions as well as non-germans mobilized directly in Wehrmacht (generally Polish and Czech people).

Essential part of any defense operation is counterattack in right time and right place. It is quite difficult to launch counterattack without tanks. And once You took a look on number of tanks of CCCP view them in the context of territory and length of border of CCCP. Then number of tanks is not so great, as it could look in the first step.
January 10th, 2008  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy
Sorry Perseus,
German capital goods production increases 20 percent during the war. That simply means that potential German output increases. In fact, German output does increase. No surprise. British and American bombing hits civilians...nothing more, nothing less.
Ollie

Sorry for drifting of the original subject a bit, but do you have any evidence that production wouldn't have increased even more without bombing? At what point do you say production was highest, when the factories were being overrun by troops? It is difficult to envisage high productivity rates from the ruins of May 45, even the underground factories must have needed supplies via the infrastructure. It seems to me that the de-centralisation must have been less efficient, that is why heavy industries are largely centralised today.

Looking at data, tank production decreased rapidly in 45 even after allowing for the reduced number of months left until the factories were overun. Perhaps this decline started in the later months of 44, when the supply problems started to take effect from the infrastructure destruction, surely this wasn't purely due to raw material shortage?

http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/T...ermany_ww2.htm

I have previously posted the rapid decline in petroleum production from June 44. This was purely due to the the refineries and wells being bombed. The tanks wouldn't have had any fuel even if they had been produced, so perhaps city bombing was unecessary as you say, but this still doesn't proove that strategic bombing was useless.
January 11th, 2008  
rock45
 

Topic: German industrial capacities


Ollie thanks you

I'm at a disadvantage here and realize it but I enjoy the topic. I agree the allied bombing wasn't as effective against German industrial capacities per say but it was effective against the human element. In the end with the technology of that time the human element was important. Even if Germany held onto the Med for a while which I think would have had a major effect on the war in general they lack the numbers in manpower to succeed. I'm at a disadvantage because I don't know the number of troops each side started out with. Ships and planes etc it seem that you do and most here as well but I feel strongly about England's navy being the focus. They were an Island nation a world power at the time that depended on it's huge navy and shipping industry for it's livelihood. I look at like a boxing match keep punching the other guy in his arms and after while he can't hold up his hands.

I have other questions about allied bombers and how air power was used. Watching the Would War II films like World at War and such why weren't German armies targeted? It seem from the films cities were the main targets and industry in and around them but not German troops formations? Another I hope not a stupid question I always wanted to know why weren't the German heavy anti-aircraft guns regiments surrounding the same cites month after month never taken out? I would have assume they weren't moved a lot right. Have fifty or eighty B-17s going after the guns and let the 100 or go for the target. Couldn't they use the gun flashes to target the cannons? There might have been twenty groups of cannons I don't know but even if you took out five or six at least there's a slight path right?
 


Similar Topics
Japan and Germany co-operation in WW2
U.S. Issues Warning On Terrorism In Germany
China plans to invade US!
Allies and neutrals in WW2
How important was Germany right before WWII?