User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Non Planetarion Discussions > General Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 6 May 2003, 15:17   #1
Perle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 329
Perle is infamous around these partsPerle is infamous around these partsPerle is infamous around these parts
A couple of questions about WW2

I know this must have been discussed often.
but still, i have some things to ask about this issue.
And since i have noticed that there are a couple of experts(more exactly one ) , i am posting them on these bboards.


1. Were the germans able to get moscow , if they had chosen a different strategy? and if yes, what effect would that hgave had on the war against the sovjet union and the war in general???


2. why didnt the germans just bomb stalingrad to oblivion, instead of trying to conquer it?? I doubt that the nazis gave a damn about the people living in there.
they could have just carpet bombed the whole city , instead of the horrific losses they had in the house fights.

4. how could the sovjet war economy outproducve and outclass the german war economy??? How were they able to do that??
it seemed that the sovjets had a significant technological deficit in the 20s and 30s. How were they able to overcome WW1 defeat and the civil wars and be such a strong power in the 40s??

5. Why was the german army so inferior in the air???
how come that after 1940, they didnt put a better defence against the english bombing their cities??
did they underestimat the importance of their air defence??

6. If the germans had tried to invade england right after defeating france, would they have made it?

7. and the last and most important, question: how could gernmany, a country that had lost ww1 and had a major economical crisis in the 20s and had to pay reparations to the allies, become such a military power in the 30s and defeat and conquer so many countries?????
__________________
"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace."
--George W. Bush, July 25, 2003

Mankind is ready to enter the solar system
George W. Bush, in his speech about his space program
Perle is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 15:22   #2
menth0l
dim like a fox
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Finland ffs
Posts: 866
menth0l is on a distinguished road
Hitler wanted to lose.
__________________
I'm nobody.
Nobody's perfect.
I'm perfect.
---------------
ph33r TPE plz. thxbye.
menth0l is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 15:34   #3
ChubbyChecker
King of The Fat Boys
 
ChubbyChecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,331
ChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
4. how could the sovjet war economy outproducve and outclass the german war economy??? How were they able to do that??
it seemed that the sovjets had a significant technological deficit in the 20s and 30s. How were they able to overcome WW1 defeat and the civil wars and be such a strong power in the 40s??
Yes, the Soviet army did suck. Stalin killed all the officers with any initiative during his famous Purges. Also some say that the war in Finland was what convinced Hitler to invade. If the Soviets couldn't even beat the Finnish what chance would they have against the German war machine?
However, the USSR had two things in its favour, space and men. Getting all the way across Russia is no mean feat, this is what beat the Germans back in the end, there was just too much land to conquer. Think of the recent war in Iraq, even the mighty Americans had to pause to get their logistics in place before marching on Baghdad, and Iraq is tiny by comparison.
I'm not exactly sure how many Russians died in the invasion (I've heard it was something like 20million in the whole of WWII) but the basic tactic was to throw men at the Germans to try and stall them. The Germans lost very few by comparison.

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
5. Why was the german army so inferior in the air???
how come that after 1940, they didnt put a better defence against the english bombing their cities??
did they underestimat the importance of their air defence??
The British had radar, the Germans didn't. This might go some way to explain it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
7. and the last and most important, question: how could gernmany, a country that had lost ww1 and had a major economical crisis in the 20s and had to pay reparations to the allies, become such a military power in the 30s and defeat and conquer so many countries?????
History Phd's have been written asking this exact question
Here's the short version:
The German people allowed it because they felt bitter about WWI, they didn't feel like it was a defeat, more like a betrayal by the Weimar Republic. They still felt like a strong military power and allowed a guy to come to power who was willing to break all the rules and make Germany mighty again.
The Europeans (Britain & France) allowed it because they felt guilty for forcing such severe reparations. Plus the last thing they wanted was to be aggressive against Germany. After all, WWI was "The War to End all Wars", or so they thought.
ChubbyChecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 15:35   #4
Marilyn Manson
Gone
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Exclamation Re: A couple of questions about WW2

I am not a military historian, and I don't pretend to know a lot about WW2 either. However:

2 - Well, the city was practically bmbed to oblivion anyway. However, Hitler also ordered assaults on it that wore down the attackers, and thus when the city was captured, and Paulus moved in, the army was substantially drained, and The Soviet encirclement drained it futher, until it's eventual capitulation.

This city itself, however, was of limited neccessity to Hitler, who got fairly obsessed with the idea of capturing 'Stalin's City', instead of concentrating on driving down to the caucasus.

6 - Well, not immediately, no. If he had set himself on it, and bided his time, and not attacked The Soviet Union, of course.

7 - Many other - most, if not all, actually - economies were also battered in the twenties and thirties, though, so everyone was in the same boat to some extent. Although the final Weimar Chancellors did bring about something of a recovery, I believe that the German economy was still fairly fragile. As far as I can tell, Hitler's sucess relied in pushing what he had to the maximum, and combined with the fact that France and The UK were not re-arming, indeed being fairly complacent with regard to their militaries, this was fairly effective. I assume. Of course, re-armement itself creates jobs and bolsters the economy. Not to mention that The Germans had substantially better tactics and planning in the early days, so they didn't really need overwhelming might anyway. As you can probably gather, though, the political economies of the 1930's aren't my strong suit.

Last edited by Marilyn Manson; 6 May 2003 at 15:49.
Marilyn Manson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 15:38   #5
Dreadnought!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle

5. Why was the german army so inferior in the air???
Because the army arent the air force
  Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 15:45   #6
Proteus
Lord Denning
 
Proteus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: City of London
Posts: 2,548
Proteus needs a job and a girlfriendProteus needs a job and a girlfriendProteus needs a job and a girlfriendProteus needs a job and a girlfriendProteus needs a job and a girlfriendProteus needs a job and a girlfriendProteus needs a job and a girlfriendProteus needs a job and a girlfriendProteus needs a job and a girlfriendProteus needs a job and a girlfriendProteus needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadnought!
Because the army arent the air force
They are if they're the US Army Air Force.
__________________
Please bear in mind when reading the above post that I am always right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
He was crowned in York Cathedral as 'Expert in the West' by Pope Urban III in 1186.
Proteus is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 16:07   #7
CjC
Throwing Shapes
 
CjC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 797
CjC has a brilliant futureCjC has a brilliant futureCjC has a brilliant futureCjC has a brilliant futureCjC has a brilliant futureCjC has a brilliant futureCjC has a brilliant futureCjC has a brilliant futureCjC has a brilliant futureCjC has a brilliant futureCjC has a brilliant future
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
5. Why was the german army so inferior in the air???
how come that after 1940, they didnt put a better defence against the english bombing their cities??
did they underestimat the importance of their air defence??
What famous 19th/20th century invention had only really just begun to take off as it were as a weapon during the second world war?

Draw conclusion as to why air defence had not been "Developed" in this particular war.
CjC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 16:26   #8
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Should I bother answering?
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 16:30   #9
Marilyn Manson
Gone
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion
Should I bother answering?
Why should you not, except out of modesty?
Marilyn Manson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 16:34   #10
Structural Integrity
Rawr rawr
 
Structural Integrity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Upside down
Posts: 5,300
Structural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriendStructural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriendStructural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriendStructural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriendStructural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriendStructural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriendStructural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriendStructural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriendStructural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriendStructural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriendStructural Integrity needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by CjC
What famous 19th/20th century invention had only really just begun to take off as it were as a weapon during the second world war?

Draw conclusion as to why air defence had not been "Developed" in this particular war.
No... after WW1 the Germans weren't allowed to have a military airforce. When Hitler came to power he ordered to make aircraft for civilian purposes that could be converted to military aircraft.
Hence, when the war begun the Jerries had only developped a few military aircraft, and converted the rest from their vast civilian airforce. However, these converted craft were far inferior to many allied aircraft.
Radar wasn't a significant factor. It was not like they could pinpoint enemy positions with it. They could only see enemy raids coming with it.

This is also a partial answer to #7. Part of their military strength came from civilian vehicles. I'm not sure if this goes for ground forces too, but about airforces I'm sure.
There is also the expression "Good old German engineering". Germanies military wasn't superior in numbers, but it was much more advanced than that of the allies.

Also, the jerries did have a significant airforce when the war started, but when the war progressed they had lost many experienced pilots. But that also went for the Brittish airforce.
Structural Integrity is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 17:20   #11
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
That’s not really true. Some of the bombers were converted from civilian aircraft designs, but very few, and in fact one of them, the Focke/Wolfe Condor, was an excellent long range medium bomber, used at sea for anti-shipping raids.

Most of the German bombers and all of the German fighters were made as weapons of war, from scratch. The problem did not lie with the equipment: The Me-109 was one of the best aircraft in the world when it was introduced in 1938. The FW-190A was another brilliant aircraft. So were an assortment of other German aircraft. Germany had the means, the technology and the resources to make world class fighters and medium bombers.

The problem was twofold: a) doctrine and b) leadership.

A) Doctrine: The Germans never envisaged their air force as a strategic tool. The Luftwaffe was designed to be a tactical air force to assist the army and the navy in their conquests. Furthermore, it was designed very well, and as a tactical air force it was the best in the world. The idea of the air force being a strategic tool for use on its own was never planned for, though to be fair, Germany was not the only nation suffering from this misconception. Italy, the USSR, Japan and the YSA also had no use for a strategic air arm, only Britain and France figured it out before the war (and the USA learned quickly once the war started).

So when the Luftwaffe suddenly found itself thrown into a strategic role, it was not suited for the job. Fighters had insufficient range, there were no heavy bombers, and medium and dive bombers were less effective at long ranges and without effective air cover. It was simply the problem of fitting a square peg into a round hole. The Luftwaffe was the best in the world at what it was designed to do, and after 1940 it was being asked to do something different. Once Barbarossa started, the Luftwaffe went back to its original role, and once again excelled in the skies over the USSR.

B) Leadership: Goering was the best friend the Western allies ever had. Everyone else in the high command, no matter their weird backgrounds or racist proclivities, everyone else was at least somewhat competent. Hitler was a master diplomat, Speer was a master industrialist. Himmler was a master organiser, and so on. Goering was a drug-addicted ignorant moron with delusions of adequacy who never even bothered to learn the first thing about the force he was supposed to be commanding.

When it came time to replace the Me-109, several companies put forward designs for the new Me-209, or similar projects, the next generation of piston fighter. Goring refused them all, saying the war would be over in a year, and there was no need to spend the money producing new types of aircraft. So they kept upgrading the airframes of the 109 and the 190, which works for a while, but eventually falls short.

No other nation in the war ended the war with the same fighter it started with, even Japan kept in the game producing decent fighters at the end of the war. Germany just kept on producing slightly better versions of the 109 and the 190, and once the P-51 came on the scene, they were simply outclassed. This is 100% the fault of Goring. By the end of the war, the attempt was made to produce the new generation of jet fighters, but constant meddling by both Hitler and Goring delayed them by a year, so that when they finally hit the skies it was too little too late.

I recommend the truly excellent book: Luftwaffe, By Williamson Murray.
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 May 2003, 23:04   #12
Tzencath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The New British Empire
Posts: 146
Tzencath is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
I know this must have been discussed often.
but still, i have some things to ask about this issue.
And since i have noticed that there are a couple of experts(more exactly one ) , i am posting them on these bboards.


1. Were the germans able to get moscow , if they had chosen a different strategy? and if yes, what effect would that hgave had on the war against the sovjet union and the war in general???


2. why didnt the germans just bomb stalingrad to oblivion, instead of trying to conquer it?? I doubt that the nazis gave a damn about the people living in there.
they could have just carpet bombed the whole city , instead of the horrific losses they had in the house fights.

4. how could the sovjet war economy outproducve and outclass the german war economy??? How were they able to do that??
it seemed that the sovjets had a significant technological deficit in the 20s and 30s. How were they able to overcome WW1 defeat and the civil wars and be such a strong power in the 40s??

5. Why was the german army so inferior in the air???
how come that after 1940, they didnt put a better defence against the english bombing their cities??
did they underestimat the importance of their air defence??

6. If the germans had tried to invade england right after defeating france, would they have made it?

7. and the last and most important, question: how could gernmany, a country that had lost ww1 and had a major economical crisis in the 20s and had to pay reparations to the allies, become such a military power in the 30s and defeat and conquer so many countries?????
1- the germans got within 5 miles of moscow, but inevitably, due to the commanders lack of wanting to send in occupational forces, the seige collapsed.

2-they tried, it failed, the russians dug in.

4-the russians could build so much because they had the resources, the man power, and the ability to build and produce arms in places the germans couldn't bomb.

5-after the battle of britain, the luftewafe was smashed, it's air effectivness became less and less. and besides, you'll still find that a good 40% of raiders never returned home at times...

6-no, the royal navy would have smashed an armada to bits, and the RAF still had air supperiority over the channel.

7-because no-one around the world bothered to step in and stop them
__________________
If you eat pasta and then anti-pasta, are you still hungry?
Tzencath is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 May 2003, 00:40   #13
Judge
Doh!
 
Judge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit
Posts: 1,720
Judge is infamous around these parts
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
I5. Why was the german army so inferior in the air???
how come that after 1940, they didnt put a better defence against the english bombing their cities??
did they underestimat the importance of their air defence??

Technology.

Britain had developed better and faster fighters (Spitfire and Hurricain) also they had Radar from 1940 onwards which gave Britain an advantage in defending against bombers.

And the one crucial factor, that everyone forgets, British Pilots were the best trained in the world, much as they are now.
__________________
Spinner: Kudos to Judge for having big cohones!
Judge is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 May 2003, 03:19   #14
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Re: Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Judge
Britain had developed better and faster fighters (Spitfire and Hurricain) also they had Radar from 1940 onwards which gave Britain an advantage in defending against bombers.
Actually, the Hurricane was inferior to the me-109 in every measurable way. The spitfire was roughly equal to the me-109, it could out-turn the messershmidt, but the Germans could both outclimb and outdive it.

The Germans developed Radar about the same time as the British, they had Freya and later Wurtenburg radar sets set up all over the place. They did not develop anything quite as intricate as Dowding's fighter command and control system until several years later though.

In 1940, the Germans held the edge in technology.

Quote:
And the one crucial factor, that everyone forgets, British Pilots were the best trained in the world, much as they are now.
Sorry, but that’s really not true. The British might be able to squeak in at the third best pilot training regimen in 1940, behind Japan (clearly the best by a longshot) and then Germany. Britain’s training only became superlative later in the war, and it was largely due to flight training schools in Canada.

The Germans were superior flyers, and had better aircraft. The stats show the in dogfights with numbers even, the Germans always came out on top during the Battle of Britain, that’s why the RAF ceased contesting the Channel during the early stages, because they were falling prey to German fighter sweeps.

In fact, the British still flew in the awful 3-plane Vic formation, vastly less flexible than the German 4-plane ‘shvarm’ formation. In 1940, most experienced RAF pilots adopted the German formation against Fighter command orders, because it was so much better.

Now against Bombers is entirely different. Hampered by only 8-10 minutes of dogfighting time due to small fuel tanks, the Me-109s had enormous difficulty protecting the under-gunned bombers, thats where the RAF really shone.
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 May 2003, 03:54   #15
starbreeze
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 145
starbreeze is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle

6. If the germans had tried to invade england right after defeating france, would they have made it?

are we counting operation dynamo (ecav of the odd 350k allied troops that were surrounded at the town of Dunkirk)?

if not, then yah...probably. Although one of Germany's serious weakness was in its Navy. Yes it had the two strongest battleships in the world and had all the subs and such, but even the German Naval command doubted that they would be able to win in major 1 on 1 battle with the entire Royal Navy. It was paramount for the Germans to have air superiority before any such invasion could have been feasibly conducted.
__________________
without peons, hc's are ****ing ****s
without hc's, peons are.....still peons
starbreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 May 2003, 10:53   #16
ELeeming
Cultured
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ESS The Darker The Night The Brighter The Star
Posts: 637
ELeeming is an unknown quantity at this point
I read a book recently about Operation Sea Lion (Hitler's plan to invade Britian) from the german view point, and it was very interesting. It basically said that the entire build up for the invasion was a hoax designed to distract the Allies from Barbarossa, and that Hitler had never any intention of crossing the channel.

One of the most important advantages that Britain had (apart from Goering's incompetance) was the fact that any pilot who was hit and bailed out could be rescued and put into another plane almost right away, thus reducing the drastic shortage of pilots that the RAF had at that point.

If Vermillion ever looks back at this thread, I'd quite like to hear his thoughts on Operation Catapult, the Royal Navy plan to sink the French fleet before it could defect like the french government did.
__________________
Resistance Is Character Forming
Lapsed Pacifist
All Through With This Niceness And Negotiation Stuff
God Told Me To Do It
Just Another Victim Of The Ambient Morality
Synchronise Your Dogmas
My site (well, kind of. Actually not at all, but it has my name on it in several places)
Aargh! Killer Bee attack! (\o/) (/o\) (\o/) (/o\)
ELeeming is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 May 2003, 11:19   #17
Luckeh!!!!
-=Murderous Plush Toy=-
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 971
Luckeh!!!! will become famous soon enoughLuckeh!!!! will become famous soon enough
I really doubt it was a hoax, were England joined to France, Germany would have invaded without a doubt, only the channel stopped them.

Had Germany smashed the entire RAF to pieces, a land invasion would surely have followed, htf would the Royal navy compete against surface ships, Uboats and Luftwaffe without decent air cover?
__________________
-Lucky #plush
__________________
Does anyone actually play this anymore?
Luckeh!!!! is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 May 2003, 11:22   #18
Insane Badger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Luckeh!!!!
I really doubt it was a hoax, were England joined to France, Germany would have invaded without a doubt, only the channel stopped them.

Had Germany smashed the entire RAF to pieces, a land invasion would surely have followed, htf would the Royal navy compete against surface ships, Uboats and Luftwaffe without decent air cover?
Where England joined to France we wouldn't have spent all our money on the navy.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 7 May 2003, 11:26   #19
Luckeh!!!!
-=Murderous Plush Toy=-
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 971
Luckeh!!!! will become famous soon enoughLuckeh!!!! will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally posted by Insane Badger
Where England joined to France we wouldn't have spent all our money on the navy.
True, back then England might have designed some decent tanks
__________________
-Lucky #plush
__________________
Does anyone actually play this anymore?
Luckeh!!!! is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 May 2003, 11:27   #20
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Quote:
Originally posted by Luckeh!!!!
only the channel stopped them.
huh? did their maps have "here be monsters" written on them in place of England?
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 May 2003, 12:18   #21
Perle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 329
Perle is infamous around these partsPerle is infamous around these partsPerle is infamous around these parts
Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion
Should I bother answering?

why shouldnt you answer??
actually , your answers are the answers that interest me the most.
__________________
"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace."
--George W. Bush, July 25, 2003

Mankind is ready to enter the solar system
George W. Bush, in his speech about his space program
Perle is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 May 2003, 20:44   #22
Perle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 329
Perle is infamous around these partsPerle is infamous around these partsPerle is infamous around these parts
Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion
That’s not really true. Some of the bombers were converted from civilian aircraft designs, but very few, and in fact one of them, the Focke/Wolfe Condor, was an excellent long range medium bomber, used at sea for anti-shipping raids.

Most of the German bombers and all of the German fighters were made as weapons of war, from scratch. The problem did not lie with the equipment: The Me-109 was one of the best aircraft in the world when it was introduced in 1938. The FW-190A was another brilliant aircraft. So were an assortment of other German aircraft. Germany had the means, the technology and the resources to make world class fighters and medium bombers.

The problem was twofold: a) doctrine and b) leadership.

A) Doctrine: The Germans never envisaged their air force as a strategic tool. The Luftwaffe was designed to be a tactical air force to assist the army and the navy in their conquests. Furthermore, it was designed very well, and as a tactical air force it was the best in the world. The idea of the air force being a strategic tool for use on its own was never planned for, though to be fair, Germany was not the only nation suffering from this misconception. Italy, the USSR, Japan and the YSA also had no use for a strategic air arm, only Britain and France figured it out before the war (and the USA learned quickly once the war started).

So when the Luftwaffe suddenly found itself thrown into a strategic role, it was not suited for the job. Fighters had insufficient range, there were no heavy bombers, and medium and dive bombers were less effective at long ranges and without effective air cover. It was simply the problem of fitting a square peg into a round hole. The Luftwaffe was the best in the world at what it was designed to do, and after 1940 it was being asked to do something different. Once Barbarossa started, the Luftwaffe went back to its original role, and once again excelled in the skies over the USSR.

B) Leadership: Goering was the best friend the Western allies ever had. Everyone else in the high command, no matter their weird backgrounds or racist proclivities, everyone else was at least somewhat competent. Hitler was a master diplomat, Speer was a master industrialist. Himmler was a master organiser, and so on. Goering was a drug-addicted ignorant moron with delusions of adequacy who never even bothered to learn the first thing about the force he was supposed to be commanding.

When it came time to replace the Me-109, several companies put forward designs for the new Me-209, or similar projects, the next generation of piston fighter. Goring refused them all, saying the war would be over in a year, and there was no need to spend the money producing new types of aircraft. So they kept upgrading the airframes of the 109 and the 190, which works for a while, but eventually falls short.

No other nation in the war ended the war with the same fighter it started with, even Japan kept in the game producing decent fighters at the end of the war. Germany just kept on producing slightly better versions of the 109 and the 190, and once the P-51 came on the scene, they were simply outclassed. This is 100% the fault of Goring. By the end of the war, the attempt was made to produce the new generation of jet fighters, but constant meddling by both Hitler and Goring delayed them by a year, so that when they finally hit the skies it was too little too late.

I recommend the truly excellent book: Luftwaffe, By Williamson Murray.

hmm very interesting.
I guess that answers question 5.
but what about the rest??
untill now, the only really good answer I got is to question nr 5.
__________________
"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace."
--George W. Bush, July 25, 2003

Mankind is ready to enter the solar system
George W. Bush, in his speech about his space program

Last edited by Perle; 7 May 2003 at 20:51.
Perle is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 May 2003, 15:47   #23
Tzencath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The New British Empire
Posts: 146
Tzencath is an unknown quantity at this point
the war was lost because of the third front. no-one sensible fights a war on two fronts, let alone three. they should have consilidated their gains before starting campaigns in africa and the USSR.
__________________
If you eat pasta and then anti-pasta, are you still hungry?
Tzencath is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 May 2003, 15:59   #24
Insane Badger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Tzencath
the war was lost because of the third front. no-one sensible fights a war on two fronts, let alone three. they should have consilidated their gains before starting campaigns in africa and the USSR.
The African campaign was hardly a significant drain on German resources.Yugoslavia was probably more important.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 8 May 2003, 17:07   #25
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Again, that’s not really true. In terms of tank losses and men losses the North Africa campaign was quite harmful to the German war effort, mostly due to Hitler’s “too-little-too-late” last minute reinforcement of North Africa with huge numbers of forces which eventually become Prisoners. In the final Battles in North Africa the Allies took over 250,000 prisoners, and while a significant percentage of these were Italians, it is safe to say that North Africa cost Hitler at least 200,000 troops, El Alamein alone cost 59,000 German troops.

But the real losses to the Germans in North Africa were in the air. The insane north African airlift (conducted about the same time as the Stalingrad airlift) cost the Germans almost half of their total air-transport fleet, as well as significant fighter and bomber losses. The whole southern flank would be left essentially undefended from the air due to the vast casualties the Luftwaffe took in North Africa in the dying days. Add to that about 1000 tanks lost, and you start to see that the North African campaign was quite costly for the Germans, certainly more than they could afford to lose in late 1942.

Lastly, the North African campaign destroyed the Italian war effort, and from then until the surrender of Italy there was no offensive military action at all from the Italian armed forces. Italy became a huge drain on the Germans, unable to even defend its borders, demanding more and more forces and supplies from Germany to keep it safe.
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 May 2003, 20:03   #26
Insane Badger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion
Again, that’s not really true. In terms of tank losses and men losses the North Africa campaign was quite harmful to the German war effort, mostly due to Hitler’s “too-little-too-late” last minute reinforcement of North Africa with huge numbers of forces which eventually become Prisoners. In the final Battles in North Africa the Allies took over 250,000 prisoners, and while a significant percentage of these were Italians, it is safe to say that North Africa cost Hitler at least 200,000 troops, El Alamein alone cost 59,000 German troops.

But the real losses to the Germans in North Africa were in the air. The insane north African airlift (conducted about the same time as the Stalingrad airlift) cost the Germans almost half of their total air-transport fleet, as well as significant fighter and bomber losses. The whole southern flank would be left essentially undefended from the air due to the vast casualties the Luftwaffe took in North Africa in the dying days. Add to that about 1000 tanks lost, and you start to see that the North African campaign was quite costly for the Germans, certainly more than they could afford to lose in late 1942.

Lastly, the North African campaign destroyed the Italian war effort, and from then until the surrender of Italy there was no offensive military action at all from the Italian armed forces. Italy became a huge drain on the Germans, unable to even defend its borders, demanding more and more forces and supplies from Germany to keep it safe.
wow,i didn't realise we cost them quite that much,still,over the course of the war alot of German troops where tied down in Yugoslavia,I remember seeing a figure of about 18 divisions,which isn't anything to sniff at.

But I was referring more to the delay in Barbarossa* caused by having to deploy and redeploy troops from one theatre to another,could the Germans have done anything with an extra month or two?

*this is going according to a documentary i saw a while ago on either UK History or the history channel,if its incorrect im not going to argue with you about the eastern front
  Reply With Quote
Unread 9 May 2003, 10:45   #27
General Geiger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.
Posts: 157
General Geiger is infamous around these partsGeneral Geiger is infamous around these parts
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
I know this must have been discussed often.
but still, i have some things to ask about this issue.
And since i have noticed that there are a couple of experts(more exactly one ) , i am posting them on these bboards.


1. Were the germans able to get moscow , if they had chosen a different strategy? and if yes, what effect would that hgave had on the war against the sovjet union and the war in general???


2. why didnt the germans just bomb stalingrad to oblivion, instead of trying to conquer it?? I doubt that the nazis gave a damn about the people living in there.
they could have just carpet bombed the whole city , instead of the horrific losses they had in the house fights.

4. how could the sovjet war economy outproducve and outclass the german war economy??? How were they able to do that??
it seemed that the sovjets had a significant technological deficit in the 20s and 30s. How were they able to overcome WW1 defeat and the civil wars and be such a strong power in the 40s??

5. Why was the german army so inferior in the air???
how come that after 1940, they didnt put a better defence against the english bombing their cities??
did they underestimat the importance of their air defence??

6. If the germans had tried to invade england right after defeating france, would they have made it?

7. and the last and most important, question: how could gernmany, a country that had lost ww1 and had a major economical crisis in the 20s and had to pay reparations to the allies, become such a military power in the 30s and defeat and conquer so many countries?????
No time to read replies. Sorry.

1) Yes, they would have. In his idiocy, Hitler thought that his nation was mighty enough to fight a war against both Britain and Russia at the same time. If he'd kept going at Britain, he'd have defeated us, and successfully invaded us; then he'd have been able to shift enough resources to an invasion of Russia to reach Moscow, and possibly take it. He'd have been les bogged down at Stalingrad. The battle for Moscow would have been the battle for Stalingrad, in a different world where he didn't invade Russia before ensuring victory over Britain.

So, yes, if he'd taken a different strategy he could have reached Moscow. The key word here though is "reached". Whether he could have taken is a different matter entirely. Supply lines would have been stretched even further than they were in this reality, and the winter of 1943 would have been just as brutal. Reached Moscow, yes; taken Moscow, maybe not.

If he had, though, then he'd have pushed clean to some river whose name I forget a few hundred miles further east, and that would have been the boundary between the new German and Russian empires. That was the plan in Hitler's mind when he invaded Russia. It is a testament to pure stupidity that he just didn't look before making what he knew would be the most blodthirsty leap in the whole of human history. He knew that many millions of lives hung on what he did, but he went the wrong way about it because he was too hasty. Unbelievable, even from such a man as that.

2) They did "bomb it into oblivion". Pictures of the city reduced to a devastated shell are testament to that. But their air weapons weren't of sufficient accuracy, as comparable weapons might be today, to destroy the Russian ground forces with aerial bombardment. And they wanted to take Russia, and all its cities. To do this they needed to invade, with ground troops. That is the best answer I can give.

3) Where did question three go? You jump straight from 2) to 4).

4) large numbers of people, huge geographical land space, and lucky weather. The Soviets had two hundred million citizens, and their country is so vast that they withdrew and withdrew, and the Nazis followed them, thinking themselves spectacularly successful. But their supply lines were stretched incredibly by sheer distance; behind-the-lines attacks didn't help, and the German army were utterly unprepared for the winter of 1943, while the Soviets were.

Especially so in ground warfare is the truism that beneath all the technology is a fragile human being, vulnerable to cold and hunger and exhaustion. This was especially apparent on the Russian front. Air power ceased to have much relevance in a situation where multiple millions of soldiers were fighting each other in an endless melee of slaughter.

In the Cold War the Soviets were impervious against invasion because their country is so large. The only card NATO had to play was that of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD); the policy that, if the Soviets attacked with nuclear weapons, NATO would be able to attack back, and both sides would be annihilated as effective civilisations. The point is that Russia cannot be invaded with even the hope of annexing a large part of the country by anything short of a powerful nation mobilised for total war. The last nation to be in a position to do this was Nazi Germany in WW2. They failed. They might even have failed if Hitler had done the sensible thing, and defeated Britain before invading Russia, so as to have a maximum amount of resources available to throw into the Russian front. Even European Russia is at the limits of what an invading army of even the vastest size can capture against sustained opposition. The winter of 1943 would have been just as bad as it was in reality, supply lines would have been even more over-stretched and vulnerable, and it is my view that, in this alternate reality that never happened, the Nazi army would have been defeated in a battle for Moscow sometime in 1944 - 45.

5) Hitler threw all his hopes into defeating the entirety of Europe with a single vast campaign. With the size and success of his invasions, I think he can be forgiven for believing that he would succeed. Without America entering the war, he would have. They did have air defence, though. But it was all smashed and pulverised. The thousand-bomber raids on Dresden and Strausbourg did in fact meet significant air resistance; but they were just too big.

I think it comes down to: the Germans had overwhelming land power, but as both Britain and the USA were protected by sea from invasion air power was the more significant on the western front. And, combined, Britain and the USA had superior air power. It was as simple as that. They weren't at the beginning; it took four years to gain air superiority over western Europe.

6) It's impossible to say. I don't know.

7) A powerful, dictatorial leader and a desire for revenge against their unfair treatment in the Treaty of Versailles and at the hands of France in the invasion of the Ruhr provided the combination of factors that made Germany a vast military power by 1939. Hitler effected an astonishing turnaround in German production, industry and military development. He was a good thing to almost everyone, economically speaking, and by the time many realised he might be a bad thing his hold over them was complete. Enough people believed in him strongly enough to die for him that he could not be forced out of power by any means other than foreign invasion.

Germany was completely excluded from the Treaty of Versailles. They were not invited to it. It was just the people who had defeated them who were represented. The Treaty demanded that Germany pay all reparations for the war, in a series of yearly instalments. It is estimated that, had they done so to completion, they would have been paying until about 1980. In essence they were asked to pay an impossibly huge debt while their country was in ruins, their economy devastated, and their political centres in utter disruption. They couldn't do this, and it made a bad situation very much worse. This unfair treatment provided the fuel for people to want revenge on France, Britain, Russia and the USA.
__________________
* CakeGuevara has quit IRC (They keep saying the right person will come along; I think a truck hit mine.)

*morg has never heard of GD
<@morg> sounds like an std to me

<.KraKto5is8> "you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends nose"
General Geiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 May 2003, 14:49   #28
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
2. why didnt the germans just bomb stalingrad to oblivion, instead of trying to conquer it?? I doubt that the nazis gave a damn about the people living in there.
they could have just carpet bombed the whole city , instead of the horrific losses they had in the house fights.

5.
how come that after 1940, they didnt put a better defence against the english bombing their cities??
did they underestimat the importance of their air defence??
I don't really have the time to answer all of these questions, some are very vague and unspecific. However, I will deal with two mentioned above.

Stalingrad: Firstly, as someone mentioned, they did. Stalingrad was an enormous pile of debris once the battle had ended. German tactics, and very effective tactics I might add, was to surround and isolate strongpoints, then move on. This was what had marked their success in 1940 and 1941, and was quite an innovative tactic at the time. The German plan for Stalingrad was to bypass the city, cross the Volga to the North and South, and invest it, then move on to prevent Russians from reforming. However the Summer drive had left the German army in tatters, less than half of their armour was operating and their magnificent mobility was seriously compromised. They did not have the strength to invest the city, nor force a crossing of the Volga, so they decided to storm it. Nobody, neither German or Soviet, had any idea what Stalingrad would turn into, but once the battle started both sides started using the name of the city as propaganda value. The Germans knew they had to clear the near banks of the Volga in order to have any chance of surviving the expected Soviet winter counteroffensive, while the Russian knew that here was a chance to engage the Germans when their main advantage, mobility and flexibility, was neutralised. So came the Battle of Stalingrad. As for the citizens, most dies, as the Soviet authorities did not authorise an evacuation until the battle was well underway. (They felt is seemed defeatist)

Air Defences: The German air defences were excellent. In 1941 the Germans were shooting down British Bombers at up to 50% per raid. One Raid on Kiel lost 75% of the attacking aircraft. The Germans had Radar as well (though more primitive, and they lacked the awesome command and control system the British developed) and aircraft very suitable for bomber-destruction duty. British losses were so bad that they had to call of the daytime precision raids against German targets. The Germans won the first stage of the European air war easily.

The British then went to nightime area bombing. Post war studies showed that Night bombing in 1941and 1942 was worse than useless, and that 85% of all bombs landed further than 10 miles away from the intended target. The British were reduced to bombing cities not by choice, but because that was all they could hit. However, there existed no means to counter nigh bombing, flak was worthless, and aircraft could not see, so the British could bomb with relative impunity.

By late 1942, two things happened to tilt the balance. 1) The USAF entered the fracas with better bombsights and far more aircraft, and 2) A Huge percentage of German air strength was being shifted to Russia. Even so the Allies took a beating, the Shweinfurt raids were a perfect example of what not to do, and the Germans inflicted heavy casualties on the US aircraft.

Common doctrine was that losses in raids of over 4% were not sustainable. 4% does not sound like much, but over 10 raids it means 40%, and over 100 raids it means you have lost your air-fleet 4 times over. At Sweinfurt the US lost over 10% of their aircraft.

Furthermore, by early 1942, the Germans were sending up nigh-fighters, ususall me 110 variants with either internal radars, or close lonk to ground radar guidance. Equipped with an assortment of nasty weapons, like the "Schrage Musik" upwards firing gun, they started to take their toll on night-bomers as well. In 1942 and 1943, the air war was still in question.

By Late 1943 and 1944 Numbers were beginning to tell. The Germans were sending too much of their air-fleet to the east, while the Bombers 9RAF and USAF) were just increasing in number. The Allies adopted round the clock bombing tactics, the RAF would hit a city at night, and the USAF the same city during the day. Germany was already starting to run short on fuel, they had enough to fly their aircraft, but training time was being reduced already, a recipe for disaster.

The last straw was the deployment of the long-range P-51 in March 1944. Suddenly the Allies had fighter aircraft that could escort the Bombers into Germany and back. That meant that the Germans had to dogfight, and take casualties, rather than simply hammer packed bomber formations at leisure. Furthermore, packs of P-51s would raid German airbases prior to bombing raids. These were losses the Germans simply could not take, and not long after the deployment of the P-51, they lost effective control of the skies over occupies West Europe and Western Germany.

Does that help?
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 May 2003, 15:10   #29
Woof
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Wearing Speedos
Posts: 1,021
Woof is an unknown quantity at this point
One of the ebst thread on GD in yonks.
Vermillion, you write some interesting stuff..have a
Woof is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 May 2003, 15:32   #30
Perle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 329
Perle is infamous around these partsPerle is infamous around these partsPerle is infamous around these parts
Re: Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion
the fracas with better bombsights and far more Germans were sending up nigh-fighters, ususall me 110 variants with take casualties, rather than simply hammer packed bomber formations at leisure. Furthermore, packs of P-51s would raid German airbases prior to bombing raids. These were losses the Germans simply could not take, and not long after the deployment of the P-51, they lost effective control of the skies over occupies West Europe and Western Germany.

Does that help?
oh yes very good, thank you.
would be nice if you could answer the other questions.
and especially nr 7!!

Where do you think was the germans essential mistake(s)?
__________________
"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace."
--George W. Bush, July 25, 2003

Mankind is ready to enter the solar system
George W. Bush, in his speech about his space program

Last edited by Perle; 9 May 2003 at 16:09.
Perle is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 May 2003, 15:33   #31
Woof
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Wearing Speedos
Posts: 1,021
Woof is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Re: Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
oh yes very good, thanky ou.
would be nice if you could answer the other questions.
and especially nr 7!!

Where do you think was the germans essential mistake(s)?
Why do i get the feeling GDers are doing your home work assignment?
Woof is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 May 2003, 15:53   #32
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Re: Re: Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle

Where do you think was the germans essential mistake(s)? [/b]
Do you have any idea how big a question that is? I could write a hundred pages on that.

As for the Rise of Germany, time to do some of your own work:

The classic:
Origins of the Second World war in Europe: PMH Bell

The original and very controvercial:
Origins of the Second World War: AJP Taylor.

The best survey of the war ever written:
A World at Arms: Gerhard Weinburg

An essantial book for the topic of economics:
The Economics of World War II: Mark Harrison

The best documentary resource available end of story:
Nazism: 1919-1945, A Documentary Reader: Noakes and Pridham (Vols 1 and 2)

Good book, deals with the economics and politics well:
Weimar and the Rise of Germany: AJ Nicholls

And finally, the authoritative Brilliant, if incredibly expensive book, volume 1 of a 10 volume set the most complete history ever written of german involvement in WWII:
Germany and the Second World War: Volume 1: The rise of German Agression: (various authors; published OUP)
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 May 2003, 16:11   #33
Perle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 329
Perle is infamous around these partsPerle is infamous around these partsPerle is infamous around these parts
Re: Re: Re: Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Woof
Why do i get the feeling GDers are doing your home work assignment?
I am a computer science student.
I have no homework about ww2. Its just that it interests me alot , because it was the hugest war in the history of mankind.
__________________
"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace."
--George W. Bush, July 25, 2003

Mankind is ready to enter the solar system
George W. Bush, in his speech about his space program
Perle is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 May 2003, 13:15   #34
Archi
Mack Daddy
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Imperial States of America
Posts: 151
Archi is an unknown quantity at this point
1. Were the germans able to get moscow , if they had chosen a different strategy? and if yes, what effect would that hgave had on the war against the sovjet union and the war in general???

The troops that saved Moscow were crack veterans from Siberia that fought the Japanese in Manchuria in 1936 and were used to cold weather combat (The greatest Soviet Marshal, Zhukov came from this Army Group). They also escaped most of the purges that Stalin initiated in the 30's. If Hitler could have had Japan attack from the east he could have pinned these troops down in Siberia, allowing the Germans to waltz right into Moscow.

4. how could the sovjet war economy outproducve and outclass the german war economy??? How were they able to do that??
it seemed that the sovjets had a significant technological deficit in the 20s and 30s. How were they able to overcome WW1 defeat and the civil wars and be such a strong power in the 40s??


Something that is never mentioned was the micromanagement of the German production. At the beginning of the war it was German common opinion that they had the best tanks in the world. Then they came across the T-34 which shattered that illusion. They then went on to produce the Tiger and Panther tanks to counter this. After developing these tanks they should have concentrated on production of numbers (especially in the case of the Panther). Instead they kept going on to weird variants up through the King Tiger finally culminating in the abomination that is the Maus. Therefore they didnt have the armor to stop the endless waves of T-34's that counterattacked.

Then there is the case of the Superguns. Dora (the supergun that shelled Sevatapol) took 2k men to operate and needed double rail tracks to even move. Resources would have been better used in more quantities of regular artillery.

Finally it boils down to trucks. The Germans had 256 types of truck (compared to the 54 of the US). This made maintence a nightmare as none of the parts matched. Forcing the Germans to use horse drawn wagons for supply in many theatres. Albert Speer's greatest accomplishment as armaments minister was to consolodate this into more common types, thereby increasing production greatly.
__________________
History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme a lot.
Archi is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 May 2003, 22:43   #35
Tzencath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The New British Empire
Posts: 146
Tzencath is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Insane Badger
The African campaign was hardly a significant drain on German resources.Yugoslavia was probably more important.

it wasn't a drain on resources, but it took one of the greatest military commanders (rommel) away from duties that could have sure as hell made a difference on another front.
__________________
If you eat pasta and then anti-pasta, are you still hungry?
Tzencath is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 May 2003, 23:20   #36
Starbucks
It was a Stupid Dream
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Winchester, UK
Posts: 2,077
Starbucks is on a distinguished road
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

1. Eastern front would of had guerilla warfare meaning they couldnt concentrate on the western front as like the situation that would of happened, they would of withdrawn on allied invasion into france and left moscow, war would of lasted a few months perhaps longer, still an allied win

2. It was a useful port, and strategic foothole, they needed it in working order.

4. The soviet war machine is very simple, people were only payed the minimam, usually in kind, the production and research of weapons were mainly "aqquired", the fromer soviet union has a large amount of natural materials and a reasonable infrastructure in the eastern side, they were an upcoming superpower due to determination and "for the common good"

5. The Royal airforce was drastically under-powered and inferior to the luftwaffe, when the americans joined in, an offensive was pointless and they then increased air defence because of this, the battle of britain was won by "the few" the few being as an aproximate count around 30 fully working planes, the rest not fully working or faulty, or just plain near-destroyed

6. No, invading an island is an extremelly difficult task, and the english were prepared for such an incident a few months before dunkirk happend, anyone would be, but the fact of the matter is hitler didnt want to, he actually liked the english and respected them (biographer source)

7. They started to make stuff, ignored reparations, thats pretty much it really, we let them, they could
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 May 2003, 23:39   #37
oldtown
Volcano
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Island
Posts: 50
oldtown is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Vermillion
..........
Common doctrine was that losses in raids of over 4% were not sustainable. 4% does not sound like much, but over 10 raids it means 40%, and over 100 raids it means you have lost your air-fleet 4 times over. At Sweinfurt the US lost over 10% of their aircraft.

...........


Since when does 4% become 40% over 10 raids....if you are losing 4% then the number of raids shouldnt be relavant.....if losses are 4% it remains 4% regardless how many raids...for example you raid with 100 planes and lose 4 which is 4% for 10 raids that is 1000 planes and 40 lost which is still 4%
__________________
wastin away again in margaritaville!!
oldtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 May 2003, 02:08   #38
Ditcher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 214
Ditcher is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Starbucks
5. The Royal airforce was drastically under-powered and inferior to the luftwaffe, when the americans joined in, an offensive was pointless and they then increased air defence because of this, the battle of britain was won by "the few" the few being as an aproximate count around 30 fully working planes, the rest not fully working or faulty, or just plain near-destroyed
Is it not that the "RAF was on the edge of destruction" just a myth? I did some reading about it some time ago and found out, that only one fleet out of three was in grave danger. Naturally the one positioned southest. However, Luftwaffe didint even have means to touch the airfields in northern island because of limited range. As for the number I think that one is totally way off. I came to reading numbers varying from 400 to 700 fighters.

Quote:
Archi
Something that is never mentioned was the micromanagement of the German production. At the beginning of the war it was German common opinion that they had the best tanks in the world. Then they came across the T-34 which shattered that illusion. They then went on to produce the Tiger and Panther tanks to counter this. After developing these tanks they should have concentrated on production of numbers (especially in the case of the Panther). Instead they kept going on to weird variants up through the King Tiger finally culminating in the abomination that is the Maus. Therefore they didnt have the armor to stop the endless waves of T-34's that counterattacked.
If you look at the composition of German panzer fleet at the time you will notice that the most produced types are panzerIV,panzerV and Stugs by far. So as a matter of fact they did try to keep numbers up and not to focuse on bigger stuff. Numbers of produced kingtigers, jagdtigers etc. are very small compared to "work-horse" types. Of course it is hard to say how much resources did these prototypes drain from more crucial parts of industry but I think its safe bet to say that their appeareance did not have too much of an impact on Germanys defeat. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/prod.htm#stat if you want to know the numbers of what was build and how much.
__________________
so not!

Last edited by Ditcher; 11 May 2003 at 02:32.
Ditcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 May 2003, 10:41   #39
Insane Badger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Tzencath
it wasn't a drain on resources, but it took one of the greatest military commanders (rommel) away from duties that could have sure as hell made a difference on another front.
Rommel is over-rated,and by no stretch of the imagination could have made a difference on the Eastern front.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 12 May 2003, 10:25   #40
ChubbyChecker
King of The Fat Boys
 
ChubbyChecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,331
ChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Re: Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by oldtown
Since when does 4% become 40% over 10 raids....if you are losing 4% then the number of raids shouldnt be relavant.....if losses are 4% it remains 4% regardless how many raids...for example you raid with 100 planes and lose 4 which is 4% for 10 raids that is 1000 planes and 40 lost which is still 4%
What he meant was that if those 100 planes go on ten raids you will end up losing 40% of your planes. Actually you only lose 34%, but you get the general idea (I hope).
ChubbyChecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 May 2003, 12:35   #41
Tzencath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The New British Empire
Posts: 146
Tzencath is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Insane Badger
Rommel is over-rated,and by no stretch of the imagination could have made a difference on the Eastern front.
if he was respected and feared not only by his own men, and the enemy, then he could have made a difference elsewhere. war is not a case of simply having better weapons, if you can inspire your own men, and bring fear to your enemys, thats the most potent weapon of them all.
__________________
If you eat pasta and then anti-pasta, are you still hungry?
Tzencath is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 May 2003, 13:28   #42
Morden
The Face Of Evil
 
Morden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: #t&p
Posts: 684
Morden is a splendid one to beholdMorden is a splendid one to beholdMorden is a splendid one to beholdMorden is a splendid one to beholdMorden is a splendid one to beholdMorden is a splendid one to beholdMorden is a splendid one to beholdMorden is a splendid one to behold
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

1. Were the germans able to get moscow , if they had chosen a different strategy? and if yes, what effect would that hgave had on the war against the sovjet union and the war in general???

- The biggest problem was as said Hitler's determination in taking Stalingrad, however had Britain not opened up a front in greece thus forcing the germans to send in units to back up the Itallians then barbarrosa would have gone ahead as planned and the german army would have swepth through russia taken stalingrad and moscow in 6-8 weeks, simply because they wouldnt have had to fight against the russian winter which crippled there supply lines.

2. why didnt the germans just bomb stalingrad to oblivion, instead of trying to conquer it?? I doubt that the nazis gave a damn about the people living in there.
they could have just carpet bombed the whole city , instead of the horrific losses they had in the house fights.

-They did, but it wouldnt have made a difference, Stalingrad was a stratigical location because of its point on the river Volga which was keeping the russian army suppled from the industrial complex deep within russia.


4. how could the sovjet war economy outproducve and outclass the german war economy??? How were they able to do that??
it seemed that the sovjets had a significant technological deficit in the 20s and 30s. How were they able to overcome WW1 defeat and the civil wars and be such a strong power in the 40s??

-russia is enourmous and had a huge resource abundance coupled with the fact that both britain and america were supplying resources to russia. you also have to note that Germany was fighting a war on 3 fronts, Eastern, western and southern, they couldnt pull too many troups from europe because the allies would invade which meant that a large portion of there forces couldnt take part.

5. Why was the german army so inferior in the air???
how come that after 1940, they didnt put a better defence against the english bombing their cities??
did they underestimat the importance of their air defence??

-They were by no means inferior and had they brought out the ME262 as a fighter rather than sending it back to the designers to be made a fighter/bomber then they could have crippled any airforce in the world, it cost them 2 years and by the time they started producing it there economy was crippled.

6. If the germans had tried to invade england right after defeating france, would they have made it?

-Well hitler wanted peace with britain and up until they declared war on germany was trying to get a german-british alliance sorted, that is why he allowed them to escape and dunkirk, had he not done that it would have crippled britains army even more and made cirtain that britain couldnt play much of a part in the war later on.

7. and the last and most important, question: how could gernmany, a country that had lost ww1 and had a major economical crisis in the 20s and had to pay reparations to the allies, become such a military power in the 30s and defeat and conquer so many countries?????

-Germany didnt lose the great war, they agreed to a ceasefire and got shafted by britain and france and the treaty of versailles was considered unfair and unjust by most germans, who longed for revenge and thus wanted a strong leader who would help them reclaim there place.
as for how did they regain there economic power, that was mainly due to the manipulations of the work force which was very very effective, before hitler came to power a large portion of the german peoples were unemployed, he found them jobs, wether it be in the arms industry or in building the motor ways which would be used to transport there army at a later date
__________________
"The enemy to be feared, is the one that wears the face of a friend"
Hasimir Fenring
Morden is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 May 2003, 13:35   #43
Ditcher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 214
Ditcher is an unknown quantity at this point
Eastern front was full of other equally and more competent and respected commanders. Rundsted, Manstein, Model, Guderian, Hoth.... the list can go on forever. Certainly Rommel could have replaced some division/corps commander but no way he could have made big difference. And about his over-rating that happened because allies made him look like an anti-Hitler person that died because of plotting against the evil fuhrer. In truth Rommel was not even near the biggest anti-nazis and in fact he had great respect for Hitler during the first war years. Hitler personally made him have his first panzer division when Rommel quit his vacancy as a commander for Fuhrers escort company.

Morden, are you mixing up years 41 and 42? I mean Stalingrad was not that important in 41. Moscow and Leningrad were the goals and Leningrad was dropped because of difficulties there and turned into a siege. I dont know how many weeks the Greece campaing eventually delayed Barbarossa but there were other delays also. Luftwaffe was behind schedule with building airfields and summer was generally late that year.
__________________
so not!

Last edited by Ditcher; 12 May 2003 at 13:43.
Ditcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 May 2003, 14:21   #44
Fifth_teletubbie
Commander etc
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 436
Fifth_teletubbie is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Perle
I know this must have been discussed often.
but still, i have some things to ask about this issue.
And since i have noticed that there are a couple of experts(more exactly one ) , i am posting them on these bboards.


1. Were the germans able to get moscow , if they had chosen a different strategy? and if yes, what effect would that hgave had on the war against the sovjet union and the war in general???


2. why didnt the germans just bomb stalingrad to oblivion, instead of trying to conquer it?? I doubt that the nazis gave a damn about the people living in there.
they could have just carpet bombed the whole city , instead of the horrific losses they had in the house fights.

4. how could the sovjet war economy outproducve and outclass the german war economy??? How were they able to do that??
it seemed that the sovjets had a significant technological deficit in the 20s and 30s. How were they able to overcome WW1 defeat and the civil wars and be such a strong power in the 40s??

5. Why was the german army so inferior in the air???
how come that after 1940, they didnt put a better defence against the english bombing their cities??
did they underestimat the importance of their air defence??

6. If the germans had tried to invade england right after defeating france, would they have made it?

7. and the last and most important, question: how could gernmany, a country that had lost ww1 and had a major economical crisis in the 20s and had to pay reparations to the allies, become such a military power in the 30s and defeat and conquer so many countries?????



1. 'what-ifs' are useless. They can never be fully answered.

2. Stalingrad was already reduced to a collection of ruins, not much was left to bomb. The significance of holding it was two fold, firstly it was situated on the Wolga and if you control it, you control the flow of materials from the wolga estuary onwards into the russian mainland.
Secondly, it had propagandistic value to both sides, the city named after the Great Leader himself.

3. no 3?

4. Russia's potential wa simply huge. Their access to raw materials and manpower was much, much greater than that of Germany. It simply took a while to mobilize it all (large parts were moved to the Urals and rebuilt there etc). But once it got momentum, it was able to easily outproduce any other nation in the world except the US (which had had the largest industrial output since the late 19th century and to the present day).

5. Germany was actually superior in the air in many ways at the start of the war. As the war progressed however, they were handicapped both by Goerings refusal to allow for much R&D, and by the general disadvantage in production power (see 4); Germany had great planes like the FW190, but the allies and especially the US could replace their losses tenfold while the germans could not.

6. again, what-ifs are useless.

7. A complicated question. I propose reading a good book on the subject. Suffice to say for now it is a combination of factors internal and external including the Great Depression, allied (mainly british) guilt over Versailles, the german mindset and last but not least the personality and motivations of Hitler himself (I recommend 'Anmerkungen zu Hitler' by Haffner on the last subject).

Hope it helps somewhat.
__________________
Daevyll

Ostraka: It's a Social Club with guns (and K-Y)
Fifth_teletubbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 May 2003, 15:11   #45
ELeeming
Cultured
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ESS The Darker The Night The Brighter The Star
Posts: 637
ELeeming is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Ditcher
Is it not that the "RAF was on the edge of destruction" just a myth? I did some reading about it some time ago and found out, that only one fleet out of three was in grave danger. Naturally the one positioned southest. However, Luftwaffe didint even have means to touch the airfields in northern island because of limited range. As for the number I think that one is totally way off. I came to reading numbers varying from 400 to 700 fighters.
Air Group 10 got hammered during the first part of the Battle of Britain, since they were defending London and the South East. Just after Aldertag, they got rotated with 11 Group (South West)to get some fresh blood to the front line.

12 Group (Midlands) and 13 Group (North and Scotland) got a couple of raids from Norway about Aldertag, but nothing serious.

[edit] just to make it clear, almost all new pilots were put into 10 Group, and individual Squadrons were transfered all over the place. The Command Structures were the main focus of the rotation. 11 Group and 12 Group would regularly reinforce 10 Group, protecting the main Airfields like Biggin Hill while 10 Group were out. Douglas Bader (the guy with no legs) regularly lead planes from 12 Group over London.
__________________
Resistance Is Character Forming
Lapsed Pacifist
All Through With This Niceness And Negotiation Stuff
God Told Me To Do It
Just Another Victim Of The Ambient Morality
Synchronise Your Dogmas
My site (well, kind of. Actually not at all, but it has my name on it in several places)
Aargh! Killer Bee attack! (\o/) (/o\) (\o/) (/o\)
ELeeming is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 May 2003, 18:31   #46
Insane Badger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Tzencath
if he was respected and feared not only by his own men, and the enemy, then he could have made a difference elsewhere. war is not a case of simply having better weapons, if you can inspire your own men, and bring fear to your enemys, thats the most potent weapon of them all.
The Eastern Front was an entirely different war to the one fought in Africa,it was way too big for one general to affect the course of,inspiring your men simply isn't enough.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 12 May 2003, 18:56   #47
Tzencath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The New British Empire
Posts: 146
Tzencath is an unknown quantity at this point
inspiring your men is not what i said. i said inspire your men and bring fear to your enemys.

to have a general such as rommel on the front who could control an army core, such as army core A which was trying to take the northern cities, could greatly reduce the moral of an opposing force. and with russian moral already pretty low, breaking it wouldn't have been that far away.

a good commander doesn't just use weapons, they use tactics that will bring them famous victories, so that the enemy thinks twice before each battle, indecisivness is the greatest key to victory, it can buy valuble time to deploy your forces, and bring home the attack.
__________________
If you eat pasta and then anti-pasta, are you still hungry?
Tzencath is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 May 2003, 20:27   #48
Vermillion
Historian
 
Vermillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
Vermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to allVermillion is a name known to all
Re: Re: A couple of questions about WW2

Quote:
Originally posted by Morden
-They were by no means inferior and had they brought out the ME262 as a fighter rather than sending it back to the designers to be made a fighter/bomber then they could have crippled any airforce in the world, it cost them 2 years and by the time they started producing it there economy was crippled.
One of the most common misconceptions of the war is a opinion known by modern historians as the "Cult of the 262". There is a commonly circuated belief as held bove that the Me-262 could somehow have altered the air war in some drastic manner had it been deployed earlier, clearing the skies of allied bombers and shifing the result of the war.

This is not the case. Even if the Me-262 had been put into mass production as a fighter as soon as humanly possible, it would not have made a huge difference to the war effort. Yes, allied air casualties would certainly have gone up, but it was not the wonderweapons peple make it out to be.

The Me-262 was a terribly difficult aircraft to fly. Accidents on takeoff were collon, and the front landing gear was weak, meaning it collapsed on any hard landings. The engines needed to be completely replaced after only 25 hours of flying time, and the fuel that the aircraft used was extremely expensive and difficult to produce.

While well equipped as a bomber-killer, it was weak against other fighters due to its huge turning circle and main armament, which was entirely cannon and no MGs. MGs has a faster bullet speed and ROF, essential when fighting other fighters.

On a full dive, the Me-262 would go transsonic and fall apart, something that killed many inexperienced pilots, and almost killed Galland himself. The aircraft was easy to damage, and even a few bullet hits cold make it fall apart or worse explode. (The FW-190 was famous for being resistant to damage, taking many many hits and staying in the air)

A P-51 on a full dive was as fast as the Me-262, and when combined with above factors, it means that if th P-51 came in from above they would usually win a dogfight. (Thats how Chuck Yaeger shot down his first 262)

The 262 was incredibly expensive, and very dangerous to the pilot. It was useless in poor weather or at night, and had a limited ceiling.

Early deployment would have made things more difficult for the Allied air war, but not that much, worst case scenariom the US just switches to night bombing, or even worse, deploys B-29s to Europe, which flew above the 262's maximum ceiling.
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."

"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
Vermillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018