Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This comment from another topic piqued my interest:

Person A wrote:And even that was move against Soviet union rather than German. Fact lost not by either side. German was already crushed so it was just question of what will Europe look like after it's over.

Person B wrote:Anti West revisionism without a shred of historical underpinning.

Is this Anti-West revisionism? In 1944, the writing was on the wall for Germany. the threat of invasion was de facto the same as invasion, in terms of keeping Nazi forces on the west coast of Europe and away from the Eastern Front.

Without the Western Front, the Soviet forces could have rolled all the way over Europe, and the forces of Oceania vs Eurasia (from 1984)could have been a reality.

 feeder wrote:
This comment from another topic piqued my interest:

Person A wrote:And even that was move against Soviet union rather than German. Fact lost not by either side. German was already crushed so it was just question of what will Europe look like after it's over.

Person B wrote:Anti West revisionism without a shred of historical underpinning.

Is this Anti-West revisionism? In 1944, the writing was on the wall for Germany. the threat of invasion was de facto the same as invasion, in terms of keeping Nazi forces on the west coast of Europe and away from the Eastern Front.

Without the Western Front, the Soviet forces could have rolled all the way over Europe, and the forces of Oceania vs Eurasia (from 1984)could have been a reality.

As person B I was trying to be polite and not say that Poster A was more dumb than a box of rocks.

1. The USSR had been screaming for a second front since the hour after the artillery started on the Eastern Front.
2. When you're at war and the other side is bombing your country (remember Germany was still attacking Britain) you tend to take that personally and try to stop it.
3. Normandy was the best site given geography and defenses. They studied multiple locations down to taking soil samples.
4. Landing in Germany in June 1944 is not sane but anyone who's not a blithering idiot. incredibly long and hazardous supply line while the Germans were close to theirs. No way to bring in sufficient diesel and gas. No hospitable landing site. Locations in Occupied Europe and Norway would have given away the landing fleet.
5. Even with Normandy the US thought it vitally important to have a second invasion in Southern France set up.

The Russians were fighting an ideological battle with revenge at its heart. Germany was also well up for the ideological struggle.
Some would have seen it as ideal if the Western allies joined with the remaining forces to take on Stalins Soviet bolshevik Russia.

The western allies strategy was purely based upon fighting a war and not political. Berlin was really a political target and was a secondary consideration to holding and consolidating territorial gains along with neutralising the German forces.

What exactly is the question? Did Overlord helped end the war? Was Overlord a targeted move to curtail Soviet occupation of Western Europe?

Threat of Invasion is not de facto the same as invasion. The threat of invasion will tie down resources of course, but no where near as many as an actual invasion. That's evident enough with how Germany transferred units to the Western Front following the landings at Salerno and the landings at Normandy. It's not really a question of did the Invasion forces a split in resources (it did) but where that split was meaningful towards ended the war (sort of).

History isn't usually A or B, but "a little A and a little B." Overlord was part "curtail the Soviet Union now when they have to work with us rather than after the war when they don't" and part of it was "defeat Germany and defeat Germany now." Even after the D-Day invasion, at least for contemporaries the writing wasn't on the wall. We can see that in hindsight, but that's the benefit of 20/20 historical vision. Up until the Crossing of the Rhine, nothing was really certain for war planners in the west.

Whether or not the Soviet Union would have occupied all of Europe as some in the west feared is a murkey and hotly debated issue. It did inform their decision making, and Western planners did get support for Overlord by selling it as "we liberate Europe before the Russians. (this was especially popular as an idea with the French and the Polish forces in exile)" There is a line of thought that the Soviet response in the aftermath of WWII, and the formation of the Warsaw Pact, was nothing more than a natural response to the obvious passive aggression of the Western Allies, and that if these powers had been more accommodating the USSR would have been as well.

I view it as an inevitability, so questions about what one might have done is kind of moot to me as a historical question. The paranoia and fear that drove the Allies into the Cold War was so strong, and so much older than WWII itself that questions about "if so so had done X at the end of WWII" is just wishful thinking. The cultural and economic factors were set long by a completely different collection of players, and everyone in 1945 was just stuck with the pieces as they were.

In terms of being critical to the ultimate outcome of the war, the Normandy invasions weren't going to change anything. They did however speed up the conclusion and radically change the way the postwar world would have looked otherwise.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In terms of being critical to the ultimate outcome of the war, the Normandy invasions weren't going to change anything. They did however speed up the conclusion and radically change the way the postwar world would have looked otherwise.

This is essentially my position. Once Operation Bagration found it's feet, nothing was going to stop the Soviet war machine. They were out-producing the Nazi tanks and men at hundreds to one.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In terms of being critical to the ultimate outcome of the war, the Normandy invasions weren't going to change anything. They did however speed up the conclusion and radically change the way the postwar world would have looked otherwise.

Incorrect. Without Normandy the Nazis might have had sufficient capacity to effectively stalemate the East for several years, potentially long enough to get the bomb. With a little extra time they could have regained complete air control (via the 262, Heinkel, Arado, etc.) then all bets are off.

The Soviets beat the Germans, but without the Allies the Germans might have been able to put it into a stalemate and then a negotiated truce.

 feeder wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In terms of being critical to the ultimate outcome of the war, the Normandy invasions weren't going to change anything. They did however speed up the conclusion and radically change the way the postwar world would have looked otherwise.

This is essentially my position. Once Operation Bagration found it's feet, nothing was going to stop the Soviet war machine. They were out-producing the Nazi tanks and men at hundreds to one.

Ah. yes. It was only when not not if.

A lot of things needed to change or not have happened for Germany to have any chance at that stage of the war.

 Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. Without Normandy the Nazis might have had sufficient capacity to effectively stalemate

Them and what army? At best, the opening of the Western Front in France pulled 20 or so Divisions off the Eastern Front out of an army of 150 divisions. Sure half those divisions only existed on paper, but that only makes it worse because less than half the divisions on the Western Front were actually properly trained or equipped at any given time. 1 out of every 5 Tigers produced in 1944 went West. The other 4 went East.

It made a difference sure, but Germany's fate was sealed. The claims that they could have "held the line" fall deaf, because Germany kept telling itself that but they couldn't even hold the line in 1943 at Kurks, and they certainly weren't going to do in in 1944. How much the Allies understood the reality on the ground in 1944 is up for debate, but today there is no question that Germany's fate was sealed. There was never going to be a stalemate. Just a slower retreat, and by all accounts not that much slower. 1946 at best.

potentially long enough to get the bomb.

And another myth. Germany was never going to get the bomb. They didn't have the raw materials. Even if they had the materials they didn't have a delivery system.

With a little extra time they could have regained complete air control (via the 262, Heinkel, Arado, etc.) then all bets are off.

No they couldn't have. The Luftwaffe was dead in 1943 and was never going to recover.

The Soviets beat the Germans

Yes. Yes they did

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In terms of being critical to the ultimate outcome of the war, the Normandy invasions weren't going to change anything. They did however speed up the conclusion and radically change the way the postwar world would have looked otherwise.

Incorrect. Without Normandy the Nazis might have had sufficient capacity to effectively stalemate the East for several years, potentially long enough to get the bomb.

Bagration a couple weeks later obliterated the Eastern front lines (and inflicted much more harm than Overlord did), the Germans werent going to stalemate at that point, especially not with Hitler countermanding field commanders with insane and self destructive orders. The Red Army was finally in proper gear and the Wehrmacht could no longer replace the personnel losses they were taking. As for the bomb, the German program neither had access to the materials nor proper facilities to make any such thing a reality in any reasonable timespan, the German program was years from any sort of deployabke weapon, not having to deal with Overlord may have saved Germany a few months, maybe a year. The allies were already on the continent in Italy and the Red Army was really findings its groove right when the Wehrmacht was losing its own.

The scenario you envisio could have been a reality potentially following Kursk had German defenses been allowed to operate as field commanders wanted, but by mid '44 it was too late.

With a little extra time they could have regained complete air control (via the 262, Heinkel, Arado, etc.) then all bets are off.

the Luftwaffe was in a very poor state and mostly concentrated on air defense, german strategic air capability had been long since crushed by this point and production of aircraft and munitions nowhere near required levels, even with German industrial output at its peak.

The Soviets beat the Germans, but without the Allies the Germans might have been able to put it into a stalemate and then a negotiated truce.

a true statement, but only in regards to the overall conflict, by mid 1944 the Germans werent going to fight the Red Army to a standstill. They were outnumbered, rapidly decreasing in quality of fighting units, unable to replace losses, running out of vital strategic materials, and had an actively counterproductive leader meddling detrimentally in not only strategic but operational level details.

Bagration a couple weeks later obliterated the Eastern front lines (and inflicted much more harm than Overlord did), the Germans werent going to stalemate at that point, especially not with Hitler countermanding field commanders with insane and self destructive orders. The Red Army was finally in proper gear and the Wehrmacht could no longer replace the personnel losses they were taking. As for the bomb, the German program neither had access to the materials nor proper facilities to make any such thing a reality in any reasonable timespan, the German program was years from any sort of deployabke weapon, not having to deal with Overlord may have saved Germany a few months, maybe a year. The allies were already on the continent in Italy and the Red Army was really findings its groove right when the Wehrmacht was losing its own.

The scenario you envisio could have been a reality potentially following Kursk had German defenses been allowed to operate as field commanders wanted, but by mid '44 it was too late.

Agreed. But if there's no plans for Normandy we don't know what the situation is. That would effectively have required the US or GB not to be in the war, which means everything changes, including the air war.

I feel the need to jump into this thread.

Nobody doubts the role the Soviet Union played in defeating Nazi Germany, but in recent years, IMO, I think we've also downplayed the role of the Normandy Campaign in defeating the Nazis.

And yet, the Battle of Normandy, and the Liberation of France, was arguably the most crushing defeat the German Army faced in WW2.

50 German divisions were ground to dust. An enitire OKW theatre swept from the board. Panzer Lehr, probably the most elite formation the Germans put in the field during the war, was reduced to 10 panzers, 3 drivers and a dachund! The Germans lost around 400,000 - 500,000 men, give or take a few thousand, plus thousands of tanks,hal-tracks, SPGs, trucks etc etc and were chased all the way back to the German border.

And the Allies did this with 30 divisions. Plus a few naval guns and air superiority.

In comparison, Bagration cost the Germans around 30 divisions, but the Red Army needed 100 divisions to win that one.

At Stalingrad, the Germans lost 6th army, around 15 divisions. These defeats should never be downplayed.

But pound for pound, I would argue Normandy figres higher than Stalingrad or Bagration.

The Allies didn't have the benifet of the vast expanse of Russia to move around in, they faced the Bocage, which gave the Germans every advanatge, but still they won.

We should never downplay the sacrifice the Red Army made during the WW2, but I wouldn't write off the Normandy battle, either.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I feel the need to jump into this thread.

Nobody doubts the role the Soviet Union played in defeating Nazi Germany, but in recent years, IMO, I think we've also downplayed the role of the Normandy Campaign in defeating the Nazis.

And yet, the Battle of Normandy, and the Liberation of France, was arguably the most crushing defeat the German Army faced in WW2.

50 German divisions were ground to dust. An enitire OKW theatre swept from the board. Panzer Lehr, probably the most elite formation the Germans put in the field during the war, was reduced to 10 panzers, 3 drivers and a dachund! The Germans lost around 400,000 - 500,000 men, give or take a few thousand, plus thousands of tanks,hal-tracks, SPGs, trucks etc etc and were chased all the way back to the German border.

And the Allies did this with 30 divisions. Plus a few naval guns and air superiority.

In comparison, Bagration cost the Germans around 30 divisions, but the Red Army needed 100 divisions to win that one.

At Stalingrad, the Germans lost 6th army, around 15 divisions. These defeats should never be downplayed.

But pound for pound, I would argue Normandy figres higher than Stalingrad or Bagration.

The Allies didn't have the benifet of the vast expanse of Russia to move around in, they faced the Bocage, which gave the Germans every advanatge, but still they won.

We should never downplay the sacrifice the Red Army made during the WW2, but I wouldn't write off the Normandy battle, either.

More adavanced combined warfare.

any man with a radio could call on all manner of backup from bombers, to artillary and close to shore mighty naval artially

only takes a single man to wipe out a tiger, destroy a bunker etc

50 German divisions were ground to dust. An enitire OKW theatre swept from the board. Panzer Lehr, probably the most elite formation the Germans put in the field during the war, was reduced to 10 panzers, 3 drivers and a dachund!

Sounds like they still had their most powerful weapon intact.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I feel the need to jump into this thread.

Nobody doubts the role the Soviet Union played in defeating Nazi Germany, but in recent years, IMO, I think we've also downplayed the role of the Normandy Campaign in defeating the Nazis.

And yet, the Battle of Normandy, and the Liberation of France, was arguably the most crushing defeat the German Army faced in WW2.

50 German divisions were ground to dust. An enitire OKW theatre swept from the board. Panzer Lehr, probably the most elite formation the Germans put in the field during the war, was reduced to 10 panzers, 3 drivers and a dachund! The Germans lost around 400,000 - 500,000 men, give or take a few thousand, plus thousands of tanks,hal-tracks, SPGs, trucks etc etc and were chased all the way back to the German border.

And the Allies did this with 30 divisions. Plus a few naval guns and air superiority.

In comparison, Bagration cost the Germans around 30 divisions, but the Red Army needed 100 divisions to win that one.

At Stalingrad, the Germans lost 6th army, around 15 divisions. These defeats should never be downplayed.

But pound for pound, I would argue Normandy figres higher than Stalingrad or Bagration.

The Allies didn't have the benifet of the vast expanse of Russia to move around in, they faced the Bocage, which gave the Germans every advanatge, but still they won.

We should never downplay the sacrifice the Red Army made during the WW2, but I wouldn't write off the Normandy battle, either.

More adavanced combined warfare.

any man with a radio could call on all manner of backup from bombers, to artillary and close to shore mighty naval artially

only takes a single man to wipe out a tiger, destroy a bunker etc

Which neatly follows on to my next point. People rightly talk about the numerical superiority of the Red Army, but they often overlook the material and technological superiority of the Allies.

The American army is a good example. The number of radios it had was mind-boggling. The amount of shells it fired during the Battle of the Bulge was just

and because of this, American artillery was highly effective during that Battle.

The USA was suppling the Red Army, had massive forces deployed against Japan, a massive navy in the Pacfic, major forces in Europe and so on and so on...

That too, should never be underestimated or overlooked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

50 German divisions were ground to dust. An enitire OKW theatre swept from the board. Panzer Lehr, probably the most elite formation the Germans put in the field during the war, was reduced to 10 panzers, 3 drivers and a dachund!

Sounds like they still had their most powerful weapon intact.

Due to the American bombing campaign, factories producing prime steak were knocked out, thus reducing its combat effectiveness.

Sadly, the dachund was a shadow of its former self by 1944

Exactly.

The UK, US and allied armies had high level of intergration above the soviets. Smaller forces could still be hightly dangerous long as had a radio man.

No man was operating alone.
The soviets had massive firepower though.
Many thousands of guns, tanks and rocket systems.

People make a lot of Panzer Lehr, it was one division. Multiple similarly equipped divisons like Grossdeutschland or the LSSAH fought and were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Likewise, while Overlord was a mighty defeat for the Germans, they had already been crippled by the fighting on the Eastern Front, like hopping into a fight after the bad guy already dislocated a kneecap and jammed his gun. the Luftwaffe was already broken, the Germans had already lost most of the armor they made during the war, fuel was becoming critical, and losses among experienced command personnel critical.

The big statistic that always stands out to me is that 90% of German casualties amongst ground forces of all types were sustained on the Eastern Front, and 75% of all German casualties (including Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine) were on the Eastern Front. By the time Overlord rolled around, the Germans had already had their backs broken.


This is not to say that the western allied war effort was irrelevant, it wasnt, and the USSR relied heavily on US and UK logistical support to achieve victory, but Overlord was not critical to the wars outcome.

The Normandy landings and subsequent campaigns certainly hastened the defeat of Nazi Germany but they were not a decisive factor. The Germans at this point had long lost the initiative to the "Soviet steamroller" and it was a matter of time before the Wehrmacht capitulated. But Western allied efforts including their devastating bombing campaign played a significant role in the defeat of Hitler's armies and should never be discounted. Let us not forget that if it were not for the Commonwealth and US forces threatening Japan the IJA would've been free to invade the USSR during a critical point in early WW2.

I think what the Normandy campaign accomplished was that it saved Western Europe including, ironically, Germany. Without the presence of the Western allied armies the Soviets would've been free to "liberate" the rest of Europe and make them share the fate of so many other countries finding themselves under the red banner.

 Vaktathi wrote:
People make a lot of Panzer Lehr, it was one division. Multiple similarly equipped divisons like Grossdeutschland or the LSSAH fought and were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Likewise, while Overlord was a mighty defeat for the Germans, they had already been crippled by the fighting on the Eastern Front, like hopping into a fight after the bad guy already dislocated a kneecap and jammed his gun. the Luftwaffe was already broken, the Germans had already lost most of the armor they made during the war, fuel was becoming critical, and losses among experienced command personnel critical.

The big statistic that always stands out to me is that 90% of German casualties amongst ground forces of all types were sustained on the Eastern Front, and 75% of all German casualties (including Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine) were on the Eastern Front. By the time Overlord rolled around, the Germans had already had their backs broken.


This is not to say that the western allied war effort was irrelevant, it wasnt, and the USSR relied heavily on US and UK logistical support to achieve victory, but Overlord was not critical to the wars outcome.

The Luftwaffe was broken by the Allies.

The Luftwaffe was crippled by the Russians. Russia crippled absolutely everything.


Also, D-Day was the third front, everyone seems to forget that Italy was invaded in 1943.

Depends on how you define that. In terms of fighter aircraft, yes, the Western allies destroyed many more of them than on the Eastern Front. In terms of strike aircraft (things like Stukas) then the Germans lost a whole lot more of those on the Eastern Front. Im not sure about heavier bombers like He-111's.

 Vaktathi wrote:
People make a lot of Panzer Lehr, it was one division. Multiple similarly equipped divisons like Grossdeutschland or the LSSAH fought and were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Likewise, while Overlord was a mighty defeat for the Germans, they had already been crippled by the fighting on the Eastern Front, like hopping into a fight after the bad guy already dislocated a kneecap and jammed his gun. the Luftwaffe was already broken, the Germans had already lost most of the armor they made during the war, fuel was becoming critical, and losses among experienced command personnel critical.

The big statistic that always stands out to me is that 90% of German casualties amongst ground forces of all types were sustained on the Eastern Front, and 75% of all German casualties (including Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine) were on the Eastern Front. By the time Overlord rolled around, the Germans had already had their backs broken.


This is not to say that the western allied war effort was irrelevant, it wasnt, and the USSR relied heavily on US and UK logistical support to achieve victory, but Overlord was not critical to the wars outcome.

But who broke the Luftwaffe, though? It certainly wasn't the Red Air Force.

As for Panzer Lehr, I'm no expert, but I cannot think of a more elite German formation. All their best tank crews, veterans, and instructors all under one banner...in Panthers

And another point I forgot to make: 30 Allied Divisions defeat 50 German Divisions, almost twice their number. Despite being outnumbered, the Allies inflict a crushing blow against the Germans...

I think there's something to be said for that.

And one final point, and it's a point I've made before: the Germans and the Russians lost vast amounts of men on the Eastern front, becuase they were technically inferior. Manpower was the one resource they could draw on. Both sides lacked motor transport, and were forced to rely mostly on horse drawn transport, plus poor Soviet infastructure, road and rail, made this even more difficult.

Compare this to the Allies: smaller divisions, but technologically far superior. The fiepower an average American division could churn out was astonishing. The shells they could waste, the material they could waste, the 50,000 Shermans they produced and so on...

Its interesting to note, that later in the War, the Red Army, having lost millions of men in the earlier days, were forced to rely on smaller, but better equipped armoured divisions, which were much more effective than the mass infantry divisions they were relying on in 41' and 42.'

Due to the American trucks, jeeps and half-tracks, they were making deeper penetrations than before.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
IMO, I think we've also downplayed the role of the Normandy Campaign in defeating the Nazis.

Bagration cost the Germans around 30 division

Germany had over 1,000,000 men defending the front at Bagration. They had about 500,000 on the Front at Normandy, and eventually brought up another 500,000 from deeper in France as part of their defense plan. The Normandy battle involved 2,000,000 men on the side of the allies by August. Bagration involved about 2,400,000 Soviet troops. In terms of real scale, Normandy and Bagration were quite similar, except Bagration was a little bit more costly in terms of men lost for Germany, and quite a lot more costly for Russia. The difference is that losing 800,000 men would of have been a monumental disaster for the Western Allies, but for the USSR it was just a statistic (so to speak ). How many divisions the Russians needed to achieve a major strategic goal like Bagration is kind of just stroking ego. Functionally, all that matters is that they had the resources to do it and they did it.

I think we can totally make an argument that in 1944, the Western Allies were much better organized operationally than the Red Army was in 1943 (or 1944 arguably), but that's not really relevant to the grand scheme of the war. The Eastern Front went from being a game of leap frog to a crashing line of dominoes, and it's a victory that wasn't wholly dependent on Normandy anymore than Normandy was wholly dependent on Bagration. The big difference between the two is that after Bagration, Germany did nothing but lose more and more at increasingly alarming rates. The Western front meanwhile became a ground pounding slog, and was hugely set back by the lack luster achievements of Operation Market Garden. In the grand scheme of the war, Bagration produced more tangible results than Normandy did, and that isn't really a downplay on Normandy. Logistically and operational it is easily one of the wars most awe inspiring achievements. It's just an acknowledgment of a reality that Bagration ended up being a fair bit more meaningful on ground level. Germany actually did manage to hold a line against the Western Allies, who eventually lost their taste for the carnage and resolved themselves to letting the USSR finish Germany at the very end (the Race to Berlin that is).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Also, D-Day was the third front, everyone seems to forget that Italy was invaded in 1943.

North and Central Italy are natural fortresses. Yeah but Italy was a front with literally little tangible progress being made. In fact, Germany was so certain they could hold it that they transferred most of their forces from the region to shore up the East after Bagration, and they did indeed manage to hold it (up until complete collapse that is).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



But who broke the Luftwaffe, though? It certainly wasn't the Red Air Force.

As above, depends on how you define it. The western allies destroyed more fighters, but far more ground attack aircraft were lost on the Eastern Front.

As for Panzer Lehr, I'm no expert, but I cannot think of a more elite German formation. All their best tank crews, veterans, and instructors all under one banner...in Panthers

It was well equipped but other divisions were as well. Grossdeutschland was historically the best equipped German Heer division with its pick of new recruits, Lehr was a relatively new formation.

And another point I forgot to make: 30 Allied Divisions defeat 50 German Divisions, almost twice their number. Despite being outnumbered, the Allies inflict a crushing blow against the Germans...

I think there's something to be said for that.

with air supremacy, knowing almost the entire enemy order of battle, enjoying support from the local population, with probably the greatest logistical train in history up to that point, and an opponent increasingly short on supplies and little ability to replace losses, who had already lost millions of men and tens of thousands of aircraft and vehicles on the east, on what ultimately was a secondary front for the enemy with lots of 2nd rate units.

Not that I want to make such a victory out to be meaningless, but with such advantages victory, while bloody, shouldn't be surprising.

And one final point, and it's a point I've made before: the Germans and the Russians lost vast amounts of men on the Eastern front, becuase they were technically inferior. Manpower was the one resource they could draw on. Both sides lacked motor transport, and were forced to rely mostly on horse drawn transport, plus poor Soviet infastructure, road and rail, made this even more difficult.

Compare this to the Allies: smaller divisions, but technologically far superior. The fiepower an average American division could churn out was astonishing. The shells they could waste, the material they could waste, the 50,000 Shermans they produced and so on...

I dont think anyone would deny most of that (except the part about manpower as it relates to the Germans, they lost because they couldnt sustain those losses). However it should also be noted that this is variable depending on the scale as well. A German infantry platoon for instance could generally outshoot a platoon from any other nation, as they integrated machine guns and mortars in much greater levels and numbers at the squad level than their opponents.

I'm finishing up for the night after this,, but I will say this:

People might accuse me of bias, but Britain's victory in WW2 was probably the greatest achivement in the whole war.

Why? Well, of the 3 nations that started the war in 1939, Britain was the last man standing in 1945.

It achived victory with significantly less losses than the Germans or the Russians, or Japan, who suffered horrendous losses.

Britain in comparison got off lightly. Britain also got other nations such as Russia, and the USA to do most of the fighting for them.

By Sun Tzu's principal rule, Britain got the maximum gain, with the minimum effort.

That in itself, is one hell of an achivement...

Sun Tzu would be impressed...

When look at the German Divisions, don't forget that by 1944 the average German Division was only at 50% strength. So really the Allies were only fighting about 25 full division. Also the Germans had this wonderful idea to increase the amount of panzer divisions, they did this by making them smaller and therefore having more of them.

Also, the Germans did surprisingly well for being such a haphazard force. You had some HitlerJugen SS divisions lying around as well, literally 16 year old boys. Even with Air Supremacy, excellent recon, and more man power, the Germans held back for a good six months. Only really collapsing at the start of 1945.

Lehr gets a lot of talk, but think gor a moment about what Lehr was; all the tank instructors in Germany. So, who the feth is teaching people how to drive tanks if all your best instructors are now off on the front line dying? It's no coincidence that the quality of German tank crews, one of the main strenghts of the German military in the war, hit the absolute gakker in the aftermath of this absolutely foolish decision.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm finishing up for the night after this,, but I will say this:

People might accuse me of bias, but Britain's victory in WW2 was probably the greatest achivement in the whole war.

Why? Well, of the 3 nations that started the war in 1939, Britain was the last man standing in 1945.

It achived victory with significantly less losses than the Germans or the Russians, or Japan, who suffered horrendous losses.

Britain in comparison got off lightly. Britain also got other nations such as Russia, and the USA to do most of the fighting for them.

By Sun Tzu's principal rule, Britain got the maximum gain, with the minimum effort.

That in itself, is one hell of an achivement...

Sun Tzu would be impressed...

In many ways yes, I would agree. However, Britain also didnt have the means to engage the Germans on their own in full scale continental warfare that would result in taking the kinds of casualties suffered by other nations.

Additionally, the cost if the conflict did make the maintenance of the British Empire untenable for much longer, the Germans did basically break the "Empire" indirectly. The first and second world wars drained Britain of an enormous amount of wealth and influence, mostly off to the US.

 LordofHats wrote:
Lehr gets a lot of talk, but think gor a moment about what Lehr was; all the tank instructors in Germany. So, who the feth is teaching people how to drive tanks if all your best instructors are now off on the front line dying? It's no coincidence that the quality of German tank crews, one of the main strenghts of the German military in the war, hit the absolute gakker in the aftermath of this absolutely foolish decision.

IT was quite literally a case of putting all your eggs in one panzer.

I would agree, but also the Germans actually stopped producing tanks that went along with their doctrine. They were supposed to be quick and powerful attacking tanks, designed to outflank and surround their opponents.

But by the end of the war, many of the German tanks were defensively minded. Like the Stug III and IV, along with the heavier tiger and King tiger tanks. Even the Panther was overweight.

While obviously to be taken with a grain of salt, reading Heinz Guderians memoirs one gets the impression of a man banging his head against a desk at the sea of stupidity he's powerless to do anything about