It depends on what year. Of course if your talking about 1945 then probably yes
1942-3 i think they fight on
Very good point Imperious Leader. I think Hitler was the fuel of the regime, however Goebbels was doing an amazing job with the propaganda. I think if Hitler was shot during the Battle of Britain, (after Sea Lion was too late) They would have closed that front and negotiated peace and adressed Russia with full force which is what they should have done. If Hitler was shot prior to the first bombs that fell on Berlin, the very bombs that caused him to divert air strikes aimed at ship yards and RAF fields, Britain would have been taken, but at a high cost. They should have left England alone after they took france. Russia was the real enemy if you ask me.
This is an awesome debate! I feel priviledged to finally discuss such matters with others who know enough about the war to bring such insightful topics and points to the table.
I formally apologize about all the grammatical errors in my last post. I was in a hurry. Being an aspiring writer, there’s nothing more embarassing to me.
I am nearly 100% sure that if Hitler was killed before 1941, the German Reich would never had invaded Russia. I think they would have made an accommodation with them to carve up British assets in the middle east. If this was amenable to Stalin and Molotov that would have been enough to prevent Stalin from considering his preemptive invasion of Germany in 1941 because the fear of what Hitler was telling his people in his book would have been removed. But once UK and her colonies were dispatched and nothing left for both sides to feed…then eventually the possibility would renew for a conflict in the future, but German technology would have compensated better if that conflict played out in say 1944 or latter.
Whole battle groups of ‘Landkreuzers’ FTW! :lol:
How could Germany support an invasion force? The Royal Navy would have made quick work of the small German Navy and all attempts to supply the invasion. The Luftwaffe would take a heavy toll on the British ships. With the proud history of the Royal Navy at risk the British Navy would committed every vessel to defending the home islands no matter what the outcome and cost.
I do not believe a German invasion could survive even in 1940-41.
I cannot vote, but I suspect that following the failure of Sea Lion, sometime in October or November of 1940, Hitler is shot, and the Germans start frantically negotiating with the British to clear their backs before the Russians attack.
Yeah that would have been nice if he were shot but Goerring was next in command. Uh. That fat a** was SO lazy. Now if Rommel took full power, the whole Riech would have been a different place to live that didn’t persecute anyone. One of the main problems the Nazis always had was no central leadership militarily speaking. So Hilter (for instace) would settle arguments with Weirmacht and SS High Command by making extremely some poor decision. Then to make matters worse, he would continue to meddle with the battle plans instead of trusting some of the most brilliant strategists in all of Europe.
Hmm, “most brilliant strategists in all of Europe”. You might try reading the Germans own assessment of their strategy in Germany’s Campaign in Russia, 1940-42, Planning and Operations. The Germans THOUGHT that they were the most brilliant strategists in Europe. When it came to logistics, they were rank amateurs. Amateurs worry about tactics and strategy, professionals worry about logistics. They were a bit better with respects to logistics than the Japanese, but that is not saying much at all.
I cannot vote, but I suspect that following the failure of Sea Lion, sometime in October or November of 1940, Hitler is shot, and the Germans start frantically negotiating with the British to clear their backs before the Russians attack.
Yeah that would have been nice if he were shot but Goerring was next in command. Uh. That fat a** was SO lazy. Now if Rommel took full power, the whole Riech would have been a different place to live that didn’t persecute anyone. One of the main problems the Nazis always had was no central leadership militarily speaking. So Hilter (for instace) would settle arguments with Weirmacht and SS High Command by making extremely some poor decision. Then to make matters worse, he would continue to meddle with the battle plans instead of trusting some of the most brilliant strategists in all of Europe.
Hmm, “most brilliant strategists in all of Europe”. You might try reading the Germans own assessment of their strategy in Germany’s Campaign in Russia, 1940-42, Planning and Operations. The Germans THOUGHT that they were the most brilliant strategists in Europe. When it came to logistics, they were rank amateurs. Amateurs worry about tactics and strategy, professionals worry about logistics. They were a bit better with respects to logistics than the Japanese, but that is not saying much at all.
When I said “Brilliant” I meant ALL of Europe including England by the way if that’s what’s gotten up your pants. Rommel was a brilliant strategist. As I had mentioned, there was no real central leadership besides Hitler so officers argued over “who gets what” when it came to the logistics of supplies. I don’t know what your talking about. A god General is completely involved in logistics, just not down to every little detail. They make sure their men fighting have the supplies they need and the lanes of supply convoys do not get closed down
OK Time out guys. I finally got to play last night and I won! It was like the revolutionary war though. My entire German battalions got the bad end of the board with no cover so we were just slaughtered advancing on the Americans. Before finally being killed by a line of artillery, my Brumbar Tank did manage to bombard the entire objective area, clearing it promply of all anti-tank units with special cover rolls.
ANYWAYS. Quesiont about those Barr Gunners. It says if they attack “any soldier” then that unit cant’ fire back. Does that include officers with special abilities?
I cannot vote, but I suspect that following the failure of Sea Lion, sometime in October or November of 1940, Hitler is shot, and the Germans start frantically negotiating with the British to clear their backs before the Russians attack.
Yeah that would have been nice if he were shot but Goerring was next in command. Uh. That fat a** was SO lazy. Now if Rommel took full power, the whole Riech would have been a different place to live that didn’t persecute anyone. One of the main problems the Nazis always had was no central leadership militarily speaking. So Hilter (for instace) would settle arguments with Weirmacht and SS High Command by making extremely some poor decision. Then to make matters worse, he would continue to meddle with the battle plans instead of trusting some of the most brilliant strategists in all of Europe.
Hmm, “most brilliant strategists in all of Europe”. You might try reading the Germans own assessment of their strategy in Germany’s Campaign in Russia, 1940-42, Planning and Operations. The Germans THOUGHT that they were the most brilliant strategists in Europe. When it came to logistics, they were rank amateurs. Amateurs worry about tactics and strategy, professionals worry about logistics. They were a bit better with respects to logistics than the Japanese, but that is not saying much at all.
“When it came to logistics, they were rank amateurs. Amateurs worry about tactics and strategy, professionals worry about logistics”
I’m sorry but I really can’t see where this guy is coming from with this argument. General Patton was a MASTER of logistics. In fact, he planned many of his attacks and key positions around the resupply and mechanized brilliance of his army. He was involved in logistics in EVERY aspect. That’s why his advancement through the Rhine was so brilliant. All logistics. It’s brilliant leaders that are able to delegate only jobs that don’t effect their strategic initiative. Patton was one of those men. I don’t know how he was able to multi-task so many different thing.
My theory is this: The most brilliant Generals in History have been involved in the highest, most meticulous degree in every aspect of their soldiers well being and strategies. Logistics wins wars. Look up what “logistics” means in the dictionary.
As I’ve said and will say it again, the Weirmacht and SS’s lack of having one head general on each front caused their problems with disorganization.
To go even further, Rommel was involved right down to the “logistics” of rations getting to his men and in what amounts. He even designed all the metal obstacles on the beaches of Normandy, and was involved with having them made and placed. This is what caused such high casualties as the American soldiers were forced to land first to clear these obstacles so our armor could land. Hitler denied him tank reinforcemnts from Germany that would have cost us on an even more catastrophic level.
When in the dessert with thousands of British POW’s. He cut his own soldiers rations in half so the POW’s could live comfortably. He even tore up Hitlers orders to execute any Jew taken as a POW. That’s a little off the topic but I love that man.
In closing: I really have no idea where "Timeover51’s argument has any ground whatsoever.
Germany had the worlds second best logistics after United States.
Of course during the winter of 41 and 42 they had some room for improvement, but learned quickly
The Soviets had one of the worst. Most of their offensives lost steam in short order even in clear weather.
So true. Montgummery and Eisenhower were better strategists than Rommel, simply because they didn’t have an arrogance that many generals on the German High Command would have had. The Germans had very easy victories over Poland, the Low Countries, France and Norway. They felt like they could do anything and they would destroy everyone. Hitler was willing to devote all to the Eastern Front, but Italy’s desire to get an African Empire distracted him from the real task at hand. What do you think
Speaking about the war from about July 1943 and onward American victories were due by having more material to work with and better logistics. I think Germany had superior mechanized doctrine and some better equipment but it was scare and no air power to protect it. Of course when Germany was in control of the war they were better in almost every respect. That slipped away completely after 1943.
Obergruppenfuhr, I do not recall saying anything about Patton, or his drive to the Rhine. For that, I would recommend that you read the US Army history, Logistic Support of the Armies, vol. 1, which covers the invasion of Europe, breakout, and drive to the Rhine.
Although this may shock you, I was a US Army Quartermaster, i.e. supply, officer, and one of those odd individuals that enjoy studying logistics. One of the major reasons for the failure of Barbarosa was the breakdown of the logisitcs supply flow from Germany to the front, and Rommel’s failure in North Africa was directly related to a failure to understand logistics. I would recommend that you read Supplying War, by Martin Van Creveld, to get a better understanding of the problems involved. If you wish, I would be more than happy to post extended quotes from the book. They would not reflect well on the German High Command at all. As for the comment “The most brilliant Generals in History have been involved in the highest, most meticulous degree in every aspect of their soldiers well being and strategies. Logistics wins wars. Look up what “logistics” means in the dictionary.” I fully agree that logistics win wars. The Germans lost both WW1 and WW2. The German General Staff in WW2 clearly would not quaiify as the most brilliant in history.
Rommel was a brilliand tactician, questionable as a strategist, and hopeless when it came to logistics. He was repeatedly told NOT TO ADVANCE beyond the Gulf of Sirte, where he could be adequately supplied. Advancing further east compounded supplying him immensely. Driving all the way to El Alamein was utter insanity from a logistical standpoint. He simply could not be supported with the resources available from Italy and Germany. Rommel refused to accept that. He lost.
As for the comment that the Germans has the 2nd best logistics system after the US, I would beg to differ with that. After the US, the British had the best supply system, with the Germans a distant third. As for the Japanese, they were hopeless when it came to supply. I do not regard the Japanese General Staff and army high command as even competent amateurs in WW2 when it comes to the area of logistics.
The following is a quote of a dispatch from General Sato, commander of the Japanese 31st Infantry Division following the collapse of the Imphal Offensive in 1944: “The tactical ability of the Fifthteenth Army staff lies below that of cadets.” That sums it up very neatly with respect to Japan.
As for Mussolini’s desire for an African Empire, he had that already in Libya and Ethiopia, and large numbers of Italian colonists were in Libya prior to WW2. The Cyrenaiaca Plateau is actually capable of considerable agricultural production. The problem was that the British were devastatingly successful with their 1940 desert offensive, and if they had driven to Tripoli, as they could have had not troops been diverted to Greece, and if they had the time to build up their supply lines, the events of 1943 with Mussolini being forced from power would have occurred a couple of years earlier. With North Africa cleared of Italian troops, the British would have been in far better shape to reinforce the Far East, and in much better position to try to persuade French North Africa to side with De Gualle. Hitler was forced to send German troops to bolster the Italians. Malta resupply would have been far easier, with the convoys coming from Alexandria. Malta as a bomber base would have been very much a problem to the Italians, far more than it was. The number of troops deployed under Rommel would not have made a major difference in the outcome of Barbarosa.
I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be highly offensive to some people in the forum. However, if you differ, I would ask that you supply your sources to support your arguments. I am more than happy to post mine.
Imperious Leader, I would agree with your statement up to a point. The war slipped away from Germany in 1942, with the invasion of North Africa and the destruction of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. After May of 1943, with the defeat of the German submarine force, the only question was how long with Germany hold out. Also, it would be helpful if everyone remembered that the Atomic Bomb was intended to be used on Germany, with the primary targets the synthetic oil plants and the Ruhr industrial area. The Rumanian oil fields were lost to Germany in August of 1944, with the advance of the Russians into the Balkans.
Obergruppenfuhr, I do not recall saying anything about Patton, or his drive to the Rhine. For that, I would recommend that you read the US Army history, Logistic Support of the Armies, vol. 1, which covers the invasion of Europe, breakout, and drive to the Rhine.
Although this may shock you, I was a US Army Quartermaster, i.e. supply, officer, and one of those odd individuals that enjoy studying logistics. One of the major reasons for the failure of Barbarosa was the breakdown of the logisitcs supply flow from Germany to the front, and Rommel’s failure in North Africa was directly related to a failure to understand logistics. I would recommend that you read Supplying War, by Martin Van Creveld, to get a better understanding of the problems involved. If you wish, I would be more than happy to post extended quotes from the book. They would not reflect well on the German High Command at all. As for the comment “The most brilliant Generals in History have been involved in the highest, most meticulous degree in every aspect of their soldiers well being and strategies. Logistics wins wars. Look up what “logistics” means in the dictionary.” I fully agree that logistics win wars. The Germans lost both WW1 and WW2. The German General Staff in WW2 clearly would not quaiify as the most brilliant in history.
Rommel was a brilliand tactician, questionable as a strategist, and hopeless when it came to logistics. He was repeatedly told NOT TO ADVANCE beyond the Gulf of Sirte, where he could be adequately supplied. Advancing further east compounded supplying him immensely. Driving all the way to El Alamein was utter insanity from a logistical standpoint. He simply could not be supported with the resources available from Italy and Germany. Rommel refused to accept that. He lost.
As for the comment that the Germans has the 2nd best logistics system after the US, I would beg to differ with that. After the US, the British had the best supply system, with the Germans a distant third. As for the Japanese, they were hopeless when it came to supply. I do not regard the Japanese General Staff and army high command as even competent amateurs in WW2 when it comes to the area of logistics.
The following is a quote of a dispatch from General Sato, commander of the Japanese 31st Infantry Division following the collapse of the Imphal Offensive in 1944: “The tactical ability of the Fifthteenth Army staff lies below that of cadets.” That sums it up very neatly with respect to Japan.
As for Mussolini’s desire for an African Empire, he had that already in Libya and Ethiopia, and large numbers of Italian colonists were in Libya prior to WW2. The Cyrenaiaca Plateau is actually capable of considerable agricultural production. The problem was that the British were devastatingly successful with their 1940 desert offensive, and if they had driven to Tripoli, as they could have had not troops been diverted to Greece, and if they had the time to build up their supply lines, the events of 1943 with Mussolini being forced from power would have occurred a couple of years earlier. With North Africa cleared of Italian troops, the British would have been in far better shape to reinforce the Far East, and in much better position to try to persuade French North Africa to side with De Gualle. Hitler was forced to send German troops to bolster the Italians. Malta resupply would have been far easier, with the convoys coming from Alexandria. Malta as a bomber base would have been very much a problem to the Italians, far more than it was. The number of troops deployed under Rommel would not have made a major difference in the outcome of Barbarosa.
I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be highly offensive to some people in the forum. However, if you differ, I would ask that you supply your sources to support your arguments. I am more than happy to post mine.
Imperious Leader, I would agree with your statement up to a point. The war slipped away from Germany in 1942, with the invasion of North Africa and the destruction of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. After May of 1943, with the defeat of the German submarine force, the only question was how long with Germany hold out. Also, it would be helpful if everyone remembered that the Atomic Bomb was intended to be used on Germany, with the primary targets the synthetic oil plants and the Ruhr industrial area. The Rumanian oil fields were lost to Germany in August of 1944, with the advance of the Russians into the Balkans.
You continually bring the entire world into this question of “logistics” to prove your point with a hundred sources much like a far left liberal debates. Quote all the variables you want. My statement was that Germany had “Some of the most brilliant strategists in all of Europe.” Europe. Not the whole world. Not Japan. Not the US. That was my point. I could site at least 6 different offcers ranking from Obergruppenfuhrer and up that were absolutely brilliant in the german military. Pride was their downfall. They DID lose for reasons I’ve discussed at length in the Leningrad poll in the Minatures discussion forum, and for reasons you’ve discussed. It started from the very first mistakes made after the death of Walter Weaver. I’m not offended at all by your participation and have a great deal of respect for anyone that has or is serving our country. So if you read my quote, there is nothing to argue there. Brining in any other nation has nothing to do with my quote regarding “Strategists in Europe”.
Your list of fun facts is amusing but I know for a fact at least one or two of them is not true. It’s 3am and I’m too tired to go get the sources on your “in bombing range of new york” theory and from my SS archives. “In theory.” If hitler could have done any significant damage to New York, he would have in his rage just like he did to England after the first bombs fell on Berlin causing no real serious damage. Appropriate retaliation against civilian populations opposing The Reich was ALWAYS “worth it” to Hitler. No matter how stupid the outcome. Look at Leningrad. He besieged the city just out of spite when they could have taken it.
I will concede that the Germans had some of the best tacticians in Europe, when it came to fighting a battle. When it came to strategy, the Germans had no real concept of sea power, totally overestimated their own capabilities, especially with respect to the USSR, never really resolved within the General Staff the best strategy to use in attacking Russia, never really got Rommel under control, assumed that because the only conceivable invasion area in France to them was the Pas de Calais, that the Allies would attack the same area, allowed their painfully built up forces in late 1944 to be squandered in the Battle of the Bulge, rather than committed to resist the Russians. Considering the Bulge, the German General Staff were totally astonished that Patton was able to shift the axis of attack for the 3rd Army from east to north in 3 days, instead of the 3 weeks that they thought it would take. They assessment was based on how long it would take THEM to shift an axis of attack. Arrogance does not normally produce good results.
I have not the foggiest idea of what you mean by my posting of attacking New York. I did not post in that at all. My postings in that area involved Unit 731 of the Japanese Army. My own view of an aerial attack by Germany on New York is that Hitler might order it, but it would not be carried out. Even if it did, the likelyhood of the aircraft surviving long enough to drop is a bit small. The US did maintain a full air defense network here, just in case. If somehow, it did make it here and drop a limited number of bombs, I would rather not think of the consequences for German cities. The pressure from the American public to use every means of utterly destroying the German cities by the use of any and every weapon, including chemical agents, would have been very hard to withstand. If the attack occurred prior to the November of 1944 Presidential election, I am not sure that Roosevelt would have been able to hold off, or even be willing to do so.
Lets not forget that a large part of the German Army still relied on animals for tranportation of supplies.
Very well put Timeover51. I appreciate the wealth of knowledge you bring to these discussions.
When it came to strategy, the Germans had no real concept of sea power
I find this to be rather funny when it was the HMS Hood that was sunk in 7 minutes when it encountered the Bismark; and it was the Graf Spee that was scuttled not sunk by enemy action after fighting off/destroying 3 British cruisers off Montevideo when Uruguay forced them to either set sail or be impounded. Not to mention things like the US tasking the USS Washington (North Carolina Class Battleship) with convoy defense in the early years of the war due to the U-Boat et.al. threat.
The Germans had a good solid view of naval power, they just did not have enough time to reach levels of parity with the Allies before Hitler ordered the offensives to begin. And even when the German Navy sailed into battle when they were massively outnumbered in 1939, it STILL took 3 years for the Allies to achieve Naval superiority in their own back yard (the Atlantic Ocean).
For those who question the above, let me recommend the Military Channel’s “Top 10” programs, which puts the German Pocket Battleships and the Bismark Class Battleships in the Top 10 for surface ships (Deutschland Class Pocket Battleship #9, Bismark Class Battleship #7), and the Type VII U-Boat as #1 all time for submarines.
http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/topten.html
Yes Admiral Raeder was an astute commander, perhaps equal to Yamamoto. He only had what resources and command structure he was alloted and used his position to get Hitler to change his mind on rare occasions. Unfortunately the effort for the Kreigsmarine was stymied by Hitlers own narrow knowledge of the capabilities of his navy and fat Goerings inability to support the U-boats with proper reconnaissance or the navy with some control of his Luftwaffe due to inter-service rivalry between Raeder/Donitz and Goering.
The Germans were not ready for war until 1944-46 when the planned Z fleet would be available to contest the British.
The Germans used their navy better than any other considering the amount of forces they had, but it was Hitler that ruined its potential.
The only aspect of the German military was was underutilized was its Luftwaffe. Fat Goering failed in nearly every aspect even when he had superior odds against the enemy.
I wonder what effect would the German Navy in World War 2 have if it’s size has been similar to the Kaiser’s Navy?
