Switch Theme:

Operation Overlord (D-Day) and the race for Berlin  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

 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.


Yeah, Britain put in a good show. She had the finest Navy, which is really what stopped the Nazis from crossing the Channel in 1940.

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


France was liberated before the end of the war and contributed via the Free French Army (not a great deal, but still).

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.


Points for not suffering many casualties, and points for getting other nations to do they dirty work? That's double dipping

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


But WW2 broke the British Empire. My grandfather's generation ended up so deep in the hole to the US, they never really climbed out.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Southern California, USA

 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 a decision born out of desperation. Germany had lost countless experienced tank commanders and could not replace them by this point. They needed quality panzer commanders and the men of Panzer lehr was all they had left. It was an excellent division and they fought well. But ultimately Allied airpower and fuel shortages took their toll and by late 44 the division was all but destroyed.

Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

 TheCustomLime wrote:
 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 a decision born out of desperation. Germany had lost countless experienced tank commanders and could not replace them by this point. They needed quality panzer commanders and the men of Panzer lehr was all they had left. It was an excellent division and they fought well. But ultimately Allied airpower and fuel shortages took their toll and by late 44 the division was all but destroyed.


Yeah, being an excellent tank crew means bugger all when the enemy has Hawker Typoons and P-47 Thunderbolts flying around unopposed.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in gb
Drakhun





That's because Guderian and Hitler didn't get on. He called him out a few times for being an idiot. Hitler fired him twice.

Then again, there is a debate over how many of his ideas were actually his own. Especially if you ask a few British Tank theorists....

DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+
Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 welshhoppo wrote:
That's because Guderian and Hitler didn't get on. He called him out a few times for being an idiot. Hitler fired him twice.

Then again, there is a debate over how many of his ideas were actually his own. Especially if you ask a few British Tank theorists....
IIRC I dont think he ever claimed to be the sole originator of his theories on armored warfare, rather he was the one to put them into practice and effective use first.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/01 21:23:30


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in gb
Drakhun





 Vaktathi wrote:
 welshhoppo wrote:
That's because Guderian and Hitler didn't get on. He called him out a few times for being an idiot. Hitler fired him twice.

Then again, there is a debate over how many of his ideas were actually his own. Especially if you ask a few British Tank theorists....
IIRC I dont think he ever claimed to be the sole originator of his theories on armored warfare, rather he was the one to put them into practice and effective use first.


That's because the British had no real intention of ever actually putting their theories put forward into practice. At least Guderian had some swing in the German high command.

DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+
Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Aye, and the few French forward thinkers were even more hamstrung.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Vaktathi wrote:
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


Well thats why he was fired wasn't it.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 feeder wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
 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 a decision born out of desperation. Germany had lost countless experienced tank commanders and could not replace them by this point. They needed quality panzer commanders and the men of Panzer lehr was all they had left. It was an excellent division and they fought well. But ultimately Allied airpower and fuel shortages took their toll and by late 44 the division was all but destroyed.


Yeah, being an excellent tank crew means bugger all when the enemy has Hawker Typoons and P-47 Thunderbolts flying around unopposed.


As the French found out in 1940, when German planes smashed their tanks.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
 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.



This is true but it is also unrealistic to talk about WW2 as if the Soviets were fighting it on their own. The Western Allies not only sent a massive amount of aid to the USSR, they also carried out important campaigns in North Africa, Italy, France and the air (strategic bombing.) All of this contributed to the eventual victory over Germany. Ask yourself if the USSR could have beaten the Germans starting from Operation Barbarossa with absolutely no intervention anywhere from the UK or USA. In other words, if the UK had already concluded a separate peace treaty with Germany.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

 Kilkrazy wrote:


This is true but it is also unrealistic to talk about WW2 as if the Soviets were fighting it on their own. The Western Allies not only sent a massive amount of aid to the USSR, they also carried out important campaigns in North Africa, Italy, France and the air (strategic bombing.) All of this contributed to the eventual victory over Germany. Ask yourself if the USSR could have beaten the Germans starting from Operation Barbarossa with absolutely no intervention anywhere from the UK or USA. In other words, if the UK had already concluded a separate peace treaty with Germany.

That's a fair point but not really the thrust of this discussion. Assume the war went as normal up until June '44, then Operation Overlord just never happens. We still get the Lend-Lease Act, and still have the 24 hour bombing and Allied blockade of Germany.

I think the fall of Nazi Germany is assured, regardless of Normandy landings or not.

Does Stalin stop going west with the fall of Germany? Does the Nazi high command flee Berlin for Vichy France or another occupied territory?

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Southern California, USA

 feeder wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:


This is true but it is also unrealistic to talk about WW2 as if the Soviets were fighting it on their own. The Western Allies not only sent a massive amount of aid to the USSR, they also carried out important campaigns in North Africa, Italy, France and the air (strategic bombing.) All of this contributed to the eventual victory over Germany. Ask yourself if the USSR could have beaten the Germans starting from Operation Barbarossa with absolutely no intervention anywhere from the UK or USA. In other words, if the UK had already concluded a separate peace treaty with Germany.

That's a fair point but not really the thrust of this discussion. Assume the war went as normal up until June '44, then Operation Overlord just never happens. We still get the Lend-Lease Act, and still have the 24 hour bombing and Allied blockade of Germany.

I think the fall of Nazi Germany is assured, regardless of Normandy landings or not.

Does Stalin stop going west with the fall of Germany? Does the Nazi high command flee Berlin for Vichy France or another occupied territory?


By the time of Bagration Stalin's main goal was no longer defeating the Nazis. That was already assured. It was the spread of communism. And how convenient that there were German divisions in France...

Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Who knows? As stated earlier, Stalin had been crying out for a second front for years. It's a bit difficult to imagine the western allies doing all the preparation for D Day and then not doing the actual operation. It really can't have done the Germans any good to be attacked from the west and south as well as the east.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 feeder wrote:
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.


It's important to remember that D-Day and Operation Bagration were planned to coincide. Bagration started 16 days after D-Day and it wasn't a coincidence. It was an agreed plan between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
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.


Germany's actual chance of developing a working bomb were about as likely as an occult spell giving Germany a new army of zombie wehrmacht.

And yeah, they had some nice planes developing, but they'd always had nice planes, certainly planes that were significantly better than their Soviet counterparts. But as with all things WWII, it is about production, production, production.

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 truce might have been negotiated for the simple reality that Soviet Russia could have gotten nervous about an America that was growing its military strength exponentially, while taking no part in the war. That had been Stalin's plan in the first place, afterall, for Germany, France and the UK to batter themselves to the point of collapse, at which point Stalin could swoop in. It's likely he would have suspected it of someone else.

Remember there were peace talks before Kursk. But even still, this is dealing with a very unlikely thing.

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


There is no amount of squinting or rationalising that will make the 2,000,000 troops lost through Bagration to be somehow less than the 500,000 lost in Overlord.

I mean, yeah, Panzer Lehr was good, but it wasn't equivalent to 1,500,000 other German troops.

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


Saying one thing is bigger than another is not downplaying the smaller thing. It is simply noting the actual scale of the two things. Concluding that Overlord was one of the greatest victories against Nazi Germany, but not the greatest, is not paying it any disrespect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.


This really asks a different kind of question. I mean sure, if the question was who've overall military organisation I'd like to have, who had the most advanced technology in support of the best doctrine, I'd pick the US army every time. They were fighting a truly modern war.

If the question is who has the sweet weapon platforms, the best pointy edge of the sword, I would personally like to take control of, well give me a German Panther every time.

But if the question is what army I would most like to have in order to win an engagement, well give me the army with by far the most stuff, the Soviets.

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...


Lendlease matters, but to give it a sense of scale note that the UK received many times what the Soviets did in aid. It didn't turn the British in to a Soviet style juggernaut, because lendlease was never on that scale.

SImply put, the overwhelmingly dominant reason that Russia had way more stuff than anyone else is because they made way more stuff than anyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
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.


This isn't true. The Japanese already tried it on against the Russians in 1939 in the battle of Khalkhin Gol. The Japanese were stomped, and made the decision there and then to not mess with the Soviets anymore. The Germans tried to get the Japanese to try again, but they knew that while they had a disciplined and well trained army, they lacked the industrial capacity to match the major industrial powers.

They instead backed their navy against the US... with results that were initially more successful, but ultimately ran in to the same reality that Japan was completely outmatched in industrial production.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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...


YOu have to remember that not everyone recorded a division in the same way. By that late stage of the war, a German division was a fraction of the size of their allied counterpart, even if the German division was close to full strength (and few were).

For example, a German tank division would nominally have something around 200 tanks, but the actual number in the division, let alone actually field capable at any given moment was typically less than 100. In contrast, a US infantry company would have 113 tanks as standard.

When your infantry divisions have more tanks than the enemy's tank divisions, then something is not equal in the division vs division comparisons.

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.


There is a lot of stereotyping there. Sure neither the Germans nor Soviets had the full motor capacity and high levels of aircraft and artillery support of the Western allies, but they were still cutting edge armies for the time.

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


They weren't forced to rely on smaller units. The Red Army in 1941 had 4.8 million troops. Near the end of the war this number grew in excess of 10 million. The reason the Soviets moved to smaller units was because four years of fighting had greatly increased the quality of their officer corps, so that they were able to use more sophisticated doctrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.


The war started with Britain as one of the great powers of the world. They spend the war dependent on US aid, and ended the war completely shut out of the new power structure based around the two super powers.

That is not called winning in anyone's book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 welshhoppo wrote:
That's because Guderian and Hitler didn't get on. He called him out a few times for being an idiot. Hitler fired him twice.


There's also a fairly weird blindspot where the surviving German generals say all the blunders were forced on themselves by the guy who shot himself in the bunker, and for some reason we just believed those generals.

Years later as we've gone and looked at the actual memos of the time, it turns out all those logistical mistakes weren't Hitler over-riding his generals. It turns out for all their expertise in maneuver warfare, the German high command really sucked at logistics.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/09/02 03:25:51


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 welshhoppo wrote:
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 was fully equipped. 2nd and 17th SS Panzer divisions were also fully equipped. I'm not buying this under-strength divisions theory. Eastern Front, yeah, but not on the West.

A lot of Germany's effectiveness during Normandy was due to the fact that it's easier to defend than attack. When the situation was reversed during the battle of the Bulge, the Germans had a tough time trying to shift dug in American infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 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.


Time to unleash some historical perspective

As Sun Tzu once said: one man hardened to the ways of war is worth 10 men who are not.

In other words, don't underestimate veterans in warfare. History is full of this example. Roman Legions were usually outnumbered, but better training, equipment and experience was almost always enough to win them the day.

Building an elite fomration like Lehr carries on this maxim, and fits in with the German doctrine of focusing maximum strength on one point, and a war of manouvere.

So, IMO, Lehr makes perfect sense to the Germans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Mr. Burning wrote:
 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.



This is true but it is also unrealistic to talk about WW2 as if the Soviets were fighting it on their own. The Western Allies not only sent a massive amount of aid to the USSR, they also carried out important campaigns in North Africa, Italy, France and the air (strategic bombing.) All of this contributed to the eventual victory over Germany. Ask yourself if the USSR could have beaten the Germans starting from Operation Barbarossa with absolutely no intervention anywhere from the UK or USA. In other words, if the UK had already concluded a separate peace treaty with Germany.


This is exactly what I'm trying to say. During the Battle of Moscow in 1941, 40% of Russian tanks were British - Matildas, Valentines etc etc

40% of the Red Air Force were Hurricanes. Even during 1942, the Red Army was using Matildas and Churchills, due to their tank shortage.

And a lack of radios in their tanks hamstrung the Red Army during the early days. Russia did not act alone.

People may overlook the role of the West, but the invasion of Italy prompted Hitler to Withdraw 20 divisions from the east, that could have been used at Kursk, plus a few others that were tied down in the Balkans...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/02 08:03:24


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 sebster wrote:
 feeder wrote:
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.


It's important to remember that D-Day and Operation Bagration were planned to coincide. Bagration started 16 days after D-Day and it wasn't a coincidence. It was an agreed plan between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
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.


Germany's actual chance of developing a working bomb were about as likely as an occult spell giving Germany a new army of zombie wehrmacht.

And yeah, they had some nice planes developing, but they'd always had nice planes, certainly planes that were significantly better than their Soviet counterparts. But as with all things WWII, it is about production, production, production.

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 truce might have been negotiated for the simple reality that Soviet Russia could have gotten nervous about an America that was growing its military strength exponentially, while taking no part in the war. That had been Stalin's plan in the first place, afterall, for Germany, France and the UK to batter themselves to the point of collapse, at which point Stalin could swoop in. It's likely he would have suspected it of someone else.

Remember there were peace talks before Kursk. But even still, this is dealing with a very unlikely thing.

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


There is no amount of squinting or rationalising that will make the 2,000,000 troops lost through Bagration to be somehow less than the 500,000 lost in Overlord.

I mean, yeah, Panzer Lehr was good, but it wasn't equivalent to 1,500,000 other German troops.

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


Saying one thing is bigger than another is not downplaying the smaller thing. It is simply noting the actual scale of the two things. Concluding that Overlord was one of the greatest victories against Nazi Germany, but not the greatest, is not paying it any disrespect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.


This really asks a different kind of question. I mean sure, if the question was who've overall military organisation I'd like to have, who had the most advanced technology in support of the best doctrine, I'd pick the US army every time. They were fighting a truly modern war.

If the question is who has the sweet weapon platforms, the best pointy edge of the sword, I would personally like to take control of, well give me a German Panther every time.

But if the question is what army I would most like to have in order to win an engagement, well give me the army with by far the most stuff, the Soviets.

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...


Lendlease matters, but to give it a sense of scale note that the UK received many times what the Soviets did in aid. It didn't turn the British in to a Soviet style juggernaut, because lendlease was never on that scale.

SImply put, the overwhelmingly dominant reason that Russia had way more stuff than anyone else is because they made way more stuff than anyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
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.


This isn't true. The Japanese already tried it on against the Russians in 1939 in the battle of Khalkhin Gol. The Japanese were stomped, and made the decision there and then to not mess with the Soviets anymore. The Germans tried to get the Japanese to try again, but they knew that while they had a disciplined and well trained army, they lacked the industrial capacity to match the major industrial powers.

They instead backed their navy against the US... with results that were initially more successful, but ultimately ran in to the same reality that Japan was completely outmatched in industrial production.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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...


YOu have to remember that not everyone recorded a division in the same way. By that late stage of the war, a German division was a fraction of the size of their allied counterpart, even if the German division was close to full strength (and few were).

For example, a German tank division would nominally have something around 200 tanks, but the actual number in the division, let alone actually field capable at any given moment was typically less than 100. In contrast, a US infantry company would have 113 tanks as standard.

When your infantry divisions have more tanks than the enemy's tank divisions, then something is not equal in the division vs division comparisons.

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.


There is a lot of stereotyping there. Sure neither the Germans nor Soviets had the full motor capacity and high levels of aircraft and artillery support of the Western allies, but they were still cutting edge armies for the time.

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


They weren't forced to rely on smaller units. The Red Army in 1941 had 4.8 million troops. Near the end of the war this number grew in excess of 10 million. The reason the Soviets moved to smaller units was because four years of fighting had greatly increased the quality of their officer corps, so that they were able to use more sophisticated doctrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.


The war started with Britain as one of the great powers of the world. They spend the war dependent on US aid, and ended the war completely shut out of the new power structure based around the two super powers.

That is not called winning in anyone's book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 welshhoppo wrote:
That's because Guderian and Hitler didn't get on. He called him out a few times for being an idiot. Hitler fired him twice.


There's also a fairly weird blindspot where the surviving German generals say all the blunders were forced on themselves by the guy who shot himself in the bunker, and for some reason we just believed those generals.

Years later as we've gone and looked at the actual memos of the time, it turns out all those logistical mistakes weren't Hitler over-riding his generals. It turns out for all their expertise in maneuver warfare, the German high command really sucked at logistics.


Sir John Keegan, respected military historian, has the German loses at Bagration as around 400,000. Still a massive defeat, but nowhere near the scale of Normandy.

As for technology, I stand by my point about the Allies fighting a modern war. I don't deny Panzer Divisions were fully equipped with the best the Germans had, but the bulk of the infantry had to walk. Did they do that because they enjoyed walking? Of course not, the motor vehicles were not there for them.

The BEF was fully mechanized in 1940, and at the fall of Dunkirk, the Germans were astounded at how much trucks and vehicles they salvaged.

Arguably, the invasion of Russia was made possible by the vast number of vehicles captured from the British, the French, and the Czechs.

This lack of vehicles, technology, et al, is why the Germans and Russians had to fight a WW1 style war of attrition and rely heavily on manpower.

The Western allies, with an abundance of vehicles, shells, tanks, radios, etc etc got off more lightly...

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in eu
Fixture of Dakka






Glasgow, Scotland

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Ask yourself if the USSR could have beaten the Germans starting from Operation Barbarossa with absolutely no intervention anywhere from the UK or USA. In other words, if the UK had already concluded a separate peace treaty with Germany.


Spoiler:


1944 was too late in the war for Germany and their allies to do much against their eventual fate, as has been said, the Western allies contributions in Europe just sped things up. By that point in the war the Germans had already shelved their nuclear bomb as being unfeasible within the timescale before they lost the war. If we're pushing things back a few years then the Germans would have probably stalemated the Soviets, had Britain pulled out (and with that no US intervention), though I'm not sure how sustainable a Nazi occupied Europe would be in the long term (well, unless Heydrich's plan was put in place possibly).

One of the soldiers involved in Market Garden did lament though, that had the Western allies campaign been more successful (which it wouldn't had the Germans put anywhere near the forces they had in the East in their way) that the modern world would have looked a lot different. Though again, as has been said here, the war for them wasn't the political crusade the Communists and Soviets obsessed over, they were more pragmatic. We could go into a whole other thread about the Allies coming in on the Nazi's side, but we'd be pushing the time period way back and taking quite a few stretches (more likely they'd let the Nazis/ Soviets drain themselves fighting one another and then sit back and threaten the victor with nuclear bombs ...though that's supposing the stalemate didn't kick the German nuclear program back into gear / sans sabotage).
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

It's an old argument: what would have happened if the Germans could have put the 4 million men they needed in Russia, and instead, transfered them to the Western Front? Would the war have been different?

I would argue no.

Germany: Here's 4 million men and thousands of extra tanks. Take that allies!

Allies: Here's round the clock bombing raids from 1000+ British and American bombers. Let's see how long your men and tanks last. And forget about another Dunkirk, as we have complete air superiority, and if your tiger tanks get to close to the coast, our battleships will pulverise them with 17 inch guns...
Oh, and here's a few atomic bombs for German cities...

The Germans were bringing a knife to a gun fight...

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Frazzled wrote:
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.



Well good you didn't since you are the one dead wrong here.

USSR was screaming at first. At the end they were winning and they knew it. German was doomed. The second front had tiny number of German divisions in numbers AND in quality. Best of Germans were on eastern front. And most numbers,. This is undeniable fact. Soviets were outproducing and outgunning German to the level it wasn't anymore even close to being fair. German was running out of raw materials with no ways to get more. Simple LOGISTICS. It's been very long time if ever where individual quality mattered more than numbers and logistics.

And yeah obviously german wasn't going to be chosen for landing site. Who claimed they should land there? Logistics dictate you go to french and then move toward Berlin. While straight to German might be good in terms that you get further to German to face the Soviets it means you are putting you in sandwich between german forces with even longer supply lines to begin with(logistics, logistics, logistics. That's what win wars) with incoming Soviets to worry either. That could have risked war with soviets as it was. Pretty much only reason that prevented US/Brit vs Soviets was logistical trouble US/Brits had(they weren't ready for large scale fight with Soviets right off the bat) and Soviets were worried about the A-bomb(as it is dropping those to Japan was deterrant for Soviets to keep them from getting funny ideas about Europe).

Did war end faster due to Overlord? Obviously. Was it needed to defeat German? Absolutely not. It would have taken somewhat longer, cost SU more forces but resulted in red europe. Being Finnish I'm happy US/Brits did it but I don't hold illusions about why they did that. They didn't it to beat German(particularly US who frankly had no real need. They weren't getting killed by Germans until they got involved. They could have kept out of it and not have to worry about Germans and let Soviets do the dirty work. Of course that would have meant red europe which was very much against their policy so...) but to ensure they don't have to face Europe ruled by Soviets.

Anybody thinking US did that out of good will and selflessness is kidding themselves. No country does that. US came here because it suited their politics to not have red europe and for that I'm thankful. While not quaranteed it's likely my life wouldn't be as nice now as it is had they not come(then again...Me now wouldn't exists in that case so hard to compare).

Just because real goal was different than stated goal doesn't mean it was bad. Nor am I claiming US/Brits didn't do good job at the Normandy. They did. Good casualties and they were pretty damn effective. By all accounts their attack was good success. But they weren't REQUIRED to defeat German. Hastened the end yes but more essentially it prevented Soviets from swallowing literally entire Europe at their will.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/02 09:17:14


2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In other words, don't underestimate veterans in warfare.


I didn't say they wouldn't have theoretically been very good soldiers.

I said it's absolutely foolish to gut your own training programs to build such an elite unit, as the training of new recruits is far more important. It's a move you make because your stupid, or because you're losing that badly and you're running out of men, let alone good ones.

Japan made the same mistake in the Pacific with its naval air corp. They rarely sent good pilots back to Japan to train new pilots, so experienced Japanese aviators were gradually ground down and killed, leaving no one who actually knew what they were doing to train recruits. Part of why Japan switch to Kamikaze attacks was because it was about all their poorly and rushly trained pilots could do. Many of them by 1944 completely lacked any real training in air to air combat tactics. By 1945, almost no Japanese pilot was trained beyond crashing into something that might blow up.

Roman Legions were usually outnumbered, but better training, equipment and experience was almost always enough to win them the day.


World War Two wasn't waged in 66 BC. That style of military came with a lot of prestige because training a guy to use a sword effectively in combat is hard. There's a reason warrior classes used to exist; being a good soldier took a lifetime of dedication to the task. Comparatively, training a guy to use a M1 Garand and some frag grenades is simple enough you can take just about anyone and teach them how to do it in a few hours. Throw in a few weeks for all the other stuff they have to learn and you've got yourself a soldier, but someone who knows what they're talking about actually has to teach that guy anything.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/02 11:31:33


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



Orlando

Not a single mention of the first allied invasion of Europe and all the underpinning politics of the war.

The allies invaded Sicily in July of 1943. This started a campaign that tied up over a million and an half men until April of 1945 and pulled a lot of forces from the eastern and western front from both the allies and the Axis. And contrary to popular belief, the surrender of Italy in 43 didn't mean all the Italian divisions stopped fighting the allies.

Further Stalin wanted D-Day to happen. Sure it opened up a third front but he didn't care about that. His forces were already pushing the Germans back foot by foot and he had the man power. At the treaty of Cairo he and the other world leaders agreed upon not only the third front in Normandy but a fourth front that never happened in Southern France. Conversely, the British wanted to assault Greece in force and push into the Balkans. Having more allied troops from the Western countries in areas he wanted to conquer did not sit well with him and he lobbied hard for both Italy and south France and the US president bowed to his will and veto'd the British plan. However the Southern France invasion never occurred because they expected easy rollover of Italy(they expected to have Rome by Christmas of 1943) and that never happened.

As for the Lehr thing. Very over rated. Yes they were good. So were the Fallshirmjagers. Both did extremely well initially. But when they did start losing people and the vet pool for replacements dried up they started getting new guys like everyone else and quality of training deteriorated as well. By the end they were as good as any other Panzergrenadier regiment.

In battle the vast majority of casualties are new guys, that's why in Viet Nam many time the vets never bothered learning the new guys names until after a few fights. Every now and then you lose a vet. There is something to be said for veteran formations, they can be very nasty as the Lehr proved in Normandy and across France, but in an all vet unit, the only people you can lose are vets.

In Italy, aside from a Panzer Grenadier unit or two, almost the entire German 10th army were veterans of Africa or the Eastern front. In the multi-year campaign that followed those that were not initially either died or became experienced vets. Compared to the allies who had virtually unlimited re-enforcements who always went in relatively fresh and got mauled repeatedly. Granted the Germans were defending and odds usually favor the defenders three to one but there are many instances of the German troops, especially the Fallshirmjagers beating up superior forces that should have been able to walk over them. Point 593 on Snakeshead Ridge for example 800 FJs took on two Polish Infantry Divisions and eviscerated them killing 281 officers and 3500 enlisted. You can say artillery helped and it did but the allies had far more artillery available.

The Germans were not getting any replacements for their losses either as the expected Normandy invasion and the eastern front were tying up their manpower. Kesselring managed with two veteran army groups to hold out and fight versus a numerically far superior force for the rest of the war. Just the final battle of Cassino was six emaciated(most battalions had companies of less than 40 guys) divisions of hardened vets versus 13 relatively new full strength allied divisions plus air support and after 6 months or so of constant artillery and bombings and assault after assault, the final battle for this one point still took 6 days before the Germans withdrew only to push back to even better defenses farther North.

The Lehr while originally all vets and instructors with awesome equipment, got watered down over time as did Fallshirmjager units fighting in central Europe to be a pale shadow of their former ability. Compare this to the remnants of the Fallshirmjagers division in Italy that didn't get replacements that just got better and tougher, albeit smaller and smaller.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/02 12:28:02


If you dont short hand your list, Im not reading it.
Example: Assault Intercessors- x5 -Thunder hammer and plasma pistol on sgt.
or Assault Terminators 3xTH/SS, 2xLCs
For the love of God, GW, get rid of reroll mechanics. ALL OF THEM! 
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

Spoiler:
Col. Dash wrote:
Not a single mention of the first allied invasion of Europe and all the underpinning politics of the war.

The allies invaded Sicily in July of 1943. This started a campaign that tied up over a million and an half men until April of 1945 and pulled a lot of forces from the eastern and western front from both the allies and the Axis. And contrary to popular belief, the surrender of Italy in 43 didn't mean all the Italian divisions stopped fighting the allies.

Further Stalin wanted D-Day to happen. Sure it opened up a third front but he didn't care about that. His forces were already pushing the Germans back foot by foot and he had the man power. At the treaty of Cairo he and the other world leaders agreed upon not only the third front in Normandy but a fourth front that never happened in Southern France. Conversely, the British wanted to assault Greece in force and push into the Balkans. Having more allied troops from the Western countries in areas he wanted to conquer did not sit well with him and he lobbied hard for both Italy and south France and the US president bowed to his will and veto'd the British plan. However the Southern France invasion never occurred because they expected easy rollover of Italy(they expected to have Rome by Christmas of 1943) and that never happened.

As for the Lehr thing. Very over rated. Yes they were good. So were the Fallshirmjagers. Both did extremely well initially. But when they did start losing people and the vet pool for replacements dried up they started getting new guys like everyone else and quality of training deteriorated as well. By the end they were as good as any other Panzergrenadier regiment.

In battle the vast majority of casualties are new guys, that's why in Viet Nam many time the vets never bothered learning the new guys names until after a few fights. Every now and then you lose a vet. There is something to be said for veteran formations, they can be very nasty as the Lehr proved in Normandy and across France, but in an all vet unit, the only people you can lose are vets.

In Italy, aside from a Panzer Grenadier unit or two, almost the entire German 10th army were veterans of Africa or the Eastern front. In the multi-year campaign that followed those that were not initially either died or became experienced vets. Compared to the allies who had virtually unlimited re-enforcements who always went in relatively fresh and got mauled repeatedly. Granted the Germans were defending and odds usually favor the defenders three to one but there are many instances of the German troops, especially the Fallshirmjagers beating up superior forces that should have been able to walk over them. Point 593 on Snakeshead Ridge for example 800 FJs took on two Polish Infantry Divisions and eviscerated them killing 281 officers and 3500 enlisted. You can say artillery helped and it did but the allies had far more artillery available.

The Germans were not getting any replacements for their losses either as the expected Normandy invasion and the eastern front were tying up their manpower. Kesselring managed with two veteran army groups to hold out and fight versus a numerically far superior force for the rest of the war. Just the final battle of Cassino was six emaciated(most battalions had companies of less than 40 guys) divisions of hardened vets versus 13 relatively new full strength allied divisions plus air support and after 6 months or so of constant artillery and bombings and assault after assault, the final battle for this one point still took 6 days before the Germans withdrew only to push back to even better defenses farther North.

The Lehr while originally all vets and instructors with awesome equipment, got watered down over time as did Fallshirmjager units fighting in central Europe to be a pale shadow of their former ability. Compare this to the remnants of the Fallshirmjagers division in Italy that didn't get replacements that just got better and tougher, albeit smaller and smaller.


Something else to consider is the attitude and technique of the western allies, particularly in Normandy and western Europe.

The western allies rarely performed manoeuvres in the dark, didn't harrass sentries or perform much scouting during nighttime - This allowed under strength Germans to reform, redeploy,rest and resist much larger formations of American and British troops till the end of hostilities.

Citizen soldiery was pretty damned scared. and Command was reluctant to sacrifice manpower for gains. An over reliance on artillery bombardment saw actions halted whilst large formations refuse to move or move reluctantly until they saw 'enough' softening up being done.

Combined arms manoeuvres were in their infancy. Tank crews complained that infantry refused to move up and flush anti tank guns or deal with pockets of enemy. Infantry often saw tanks halt at the first sign of shots being fired, regardless of what was incoming.

Above all the allies were most hampered by having fairly rigid planning with little tactical leeway for local commanders. German planning allowed small unit leaders to decide how to achieve their objectives under an overall battle plan.




   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Stalin wanted the invasion of Normandy more than anyone else, and even launched attacks in the east to ensure the Germans couldn't swing reinforcements from there to France.

Everyone should read up more on Tehran Conference in 1943.

"Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."
— Joseph Stalin, during the dinner at the Tehran Conference

Col. Dash wrote:
At the treaty of Cairo he and the other world leaders agreed upon not only the third front in Normandy but a fourth front that never happened in Southern France. . .However the Southern France invasion never occurred because they expected easy rollover of Italy(they expected to have Rome by Christmas of 1943) and that never happened.


The allies did invade Southern France. It was called Operation Dragoon.

As far as the USSR winning without Normandy, I don't think they would have taken Berlin. The Soviets were bled pretty badly too and people seem to miss that. Many of their divisions were in the same mess as the Germans, and the Soviets were anything but surgical in their strategy. On a shorter front without extended supply lines, and 140 divisions freed up from France and maybe even more from Norway, I think the Germans could have held out for a number of years. But with allied bombing and control of the seas, yes the ending was inevitable. But to say the Russians could do all that on their own is nonsense.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/02 13:51:44


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



Orlando

Tehran? I thought it was the treaty of Cairo. Going from memory there. I just remember the end results and Stalin's politicking with the campaign.

KTG-You are correct, it did happen. For some reason in all my work I never noticed it. But quick reading makes it look almost like a half hearted measure and the Germans already knew the south couldn't be held. It was kind of pointless. The Germans should have either pulled a Kesselring and had defensive lines already built waiting for occupation or withdrawn to help in Italy or driven into the Northern France salient. Same for the Allies, those troops should have been used to push Italy or Normandy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/02 14:22:35


If you dont short hand your list, Im not reading it.
Example: Assault Intercessors- x5 -Thunder hammer and plasma pistol on sgt.
or Assault Terminators 3xTH/SS, 2xLCs
For the love of God, GW, get rid of reroll mechanics. ALL OF THEM! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





It could have been discussed at Cairo, not sure. I was just saying everyone should read up on the Tehran one because it was in 1943 when Normandy was being decided, and had Stalin thought he was going to win without Western intervention he would have told them not to bother. The fact he was asking for it is telling.

As far as Dragoon, it was pushed for by the US and Churchill opposed. Dragoon was meant to be a play on he was 'dragooned' into supporting it. Either way it seemed like a good idea, even if late in the war. It isnt like the US didn't have the men and means to pull it off.

Which goes to further the point how much the US was capable of doing not just in the European theater but at the same time in the Pacific. European Theater fanboys focus on Stalingrad and Kursk so much, and it isnt like those arent great battles and interesting reading, but the production output of the US and its mobility to choose when and where it wanted to fight is pretty impressive.

The US started out with 3 aircraft carriers and ended the war with 27 I think. That by itself is pretty insane.
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

KTG17 wrote:
It could have been discussed at Cairo, not sure. I was just saying everyone should read up on the Tehran one because it was in 1943 when Normandy was being decided, and had Stalin thought he was going to win without Western intervention he would have told them not to bother. The fact he was asking for it is telling.

As far as Dragoon, it was pushed for by the US and Churchill opposed. Dragoon was meant to be a play on he was 'dragooned' into supporting it. Either way it seemed like a good idea, even if late in the war. It isnt like the US didn't have the men and means to pull it off.

Which goes to further the point how much the US was capable of doing not just in the European theater but at the same time in the Pacific. European Theater fanboys focus on Stalingrad and Kursk so much, and it isnt like those arent great battles and interesting reading, but the production output of the US and its mobility to choose when and where it wanted to fight is pretty impressive.

The US started out with 3 aircraft carriers and ended the war with 27 I think. That by itself is pretty insane.


Exactly. People always say that the Allies were lucky the Germans were unable to transfer 4 million men from the East to the West, and if they did, the Allies would never have succeeded, which overlooks the fact that the US Army and US Navy, had dozens of Marine Divisions and Army Divisions in the Pacific.


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Spoiler:
Col. Dash wrote:
Not a single mention of the first allied invasion of Europe and all the underpinning politics of the war.

The allies invaded Sicily in July of 1943. This started a campaign that tied up over a million and an half men until April of 1945 and pulled a lot of forces from the eastern and western front from both the allies and the Axis. And contrary to popular belief, the surrender of Italy in 43 didn't mean all the Italian divisions stopped fighting the allies.

Further Stalin wanted D-Day to happen. Sure it opened up a third front but he didn't care about that. His forces were already pushing the Germans back foot by foot and he had the man power. At the treaty of Cairo he and the other world leaders agreed upon not only the third front in Normandy but a fourth front that never happened in Southern France. Conversely, the British wanted to assault Greece in force and push into the Balkans. Having more allied troops from the Western countries in areas he wanted to conquer did not sit well with him and he lobbied hard for both Italy and south France and the US president bowed to his will and veto'd the British plan. However the Southern France invasion never occurred because they expected easy rollover of Italy(they expected to have Rome by Christmas of 1943) and that never happened.

As for the Lehr thing. Very over rated. Yes they were good. So were the Fallshirmjagers. Both did extremely well initially. But when they did start losing people and the vet pool for replacements dried up they started getting new guys like everyone else and quality of training deteriorated as well. By the end they were as good as any other Panzergrenadier regiment.

In battle the vast majority of casualties are new guys, that's why in Viet Nam many time the vets never bothered learning the new guys names until after a few fights. Every now and then you lose a vet. There is something to be said for veteran formations, they can be very nasty as the Lehr proved in Normandy and across France, but in an all vet unit, the only people you can lose are vets.

In Italy, aside from a Panzer Grenadier unit or two, almost the entire German 10th army were veterans of Africa or the Eastern front. In the multi-year campaign that followed those that were not initially either died or became experienced vets. Compared to the allies who had virtually unlimited re-enforcements who always went in relatively fresh and got mauled repeatedly. Granted the Germans were defending and odds usually favor the defenders three to one but there are many instances of the German troops, especially the Fallshirmjagers beating up superior forces that should have been able to walk over them. Point 593 on Snakeshead Ridge for example 800 FJs took on two Polish Infantry Divisions and eviscerated them killing 281 officers and 3500 enlisted. You can say artillery helped and it did but the allies had far more artillery available.

The Germans were not getting any replacements for their losses either as the expected Normandy invasion and the eastern front were tying up their manpower. Kesselring managed with two veteran army groups to hold out and fight versus a numerically far superior force for the rest of the war. Just the final battle of Cassino was six emaciated(most battalions had companies of less than 40 guys) divisions of hardened vets versus 13 relatively new full strength allied divisions plus air support and after 6 months or so of constant artillery and bombings and assault after assault, the final battle for this one point still took 6 days before the Germans withdrew only to push back to even better defenses farther North.

The Lehr while originally all vets and instructors with awesome equipment, got watered down over time as did Fallshirmjager units fighting in central Europe to be a pale shadow of their former ability. Compare this to the remnants of the Fallshirmjagers division in Italy that didn't get replacements that just got better and tougher, albeit smaller and smaller.


Something else to consider is the attitude and technique of the western allies, particularly in Normandy and western Europe.

The western allies rarely performed manoeuvres in the dark, didn't harrass sentries or perform much scouting during nighttime - This allowed under strength Germans to reform, redeploy,rest and resist much larger formations of American and British troops till the end of hostilities.

Citizen soldiery was pretty damned scared. and Command was reluctant to sacrifice manpower for gains. An over reliance on artillery bombardment saw actions halted whilst large formations refuse to move or move reluctantly until they saw 'enough' softening up being done.

Combined arms manoeuvres were in their infancy. Tank crews complained that infantry refused to move up and flush anti tank guns or deal with pockets of enemy. Infantry often saw tanks halt at the first sign of shots being fired, regardless of what was incoming.

Above all the allies were most hampered by having fairly rigid planning with little tactical leeway for local commanders. German planning allowed small unit leaders to decide how to achieve their objectives under an overall battle plan.






It's important to note that for most of the war, the Germans were on the defensive. Excellent troops as they were, its much easier to defend than to attack, and far more effective. Italy and Normandy being prime examples of this.

But when the tables were turned, Germans counter-attacking at Normandy, then the Germans suffered against dug in infantry.

During the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans could not shift the dug in 101st, or other US infantry divisions that stubbornly hung on, and yet, the Germans had every advantage during the first days of the Battle of the Bulge.

As a result, the German advance stalled, American artillery absolutely hammered them, and the Battle came to an end...

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

KTG17 wrote:
It could have been discussed at Cairo, not sure. I was just saying everyone should read up on the Tehran one because it was in 1943 when Normandy was being decided, and had Stalin thought he was going to win without Western intervention he would have told them not to bother. The fact he was asking for it is telling.

As far as Dragoon, it was pushed for by the US and Churchill opposed. Dragoon was meant to be a play on he was 'dragooned' into supporting it. Either way it seemed like a good idea, even if late in the war. It isnt like the US didn't have the men and means to pull it off.

Which goes to further the point how much the US was capable of doing not just in the European theater but at the same time in the Pacific. European Theater fanboys focus on Stalingrad and Kursk so much, and it isnt like those arent great battles and interesting reading, but the production output of the US and its mobility to choose when and where it wanted to fight is pretty impressive.

The US started out with 3 aircraft carriers and ended the war with 27 I think. That by itself is pretty insane.


Not only insane, but thats lowballing it.

http://historum.com/american-history/36495-us-carrier-numbers-end-ww2.html
37 Essex and Independence class carriers
PLUS
60+ escort carriers

CVE:
Long Island-class
Long Island (CVE-1)

Bogue-class (10 total)
Bogue (CVE-9)
Card (CVE-11)
Copahee (CVE-12)
Core (CVE-13)
Nassau (CVE-16)
Altamah (CVE-18)
Barnes (CVE-20)
Breton (CVE-23)
Croatan (CVE-25)
Prince William (CVE-31)

Sangamon-class (4 total)
Sangamon (CVE-26)
Suwannee (CVE-27)
Chenango (CVE-28)
Santee (CVE-29)

Casablanca-class (45 total)
Casablanca (CVE-55)
Anzio (CVE-57)
Corregidor (CVE-58)
Mission Bay (CVE-59)
Guadalcanal (CVE-60)
Manila Bay (CVE-61)
Natoma Bay (CVE-62)
Tripoli (CVE-64)
Wake Island (CVE-65)
White Plains (CVE-66)
Solomons (CVE-67)
Kalinin Bay (CVE-68)
Kasaan Bay (CVE-69)
Fanshaw Bay (CVE-70)
Kitkun Bay (CVE-71)
Tulagi (CVE-72)
Nehenta Bay (CVE-74)
Hoggatt Bay (CVE-75)
Kadashan Bay (CVE-76)
Marcus Island (CVE-77)
Savo Island (CVE-78)
Petrof Bay (CVE-80)
Rudyerd Bay (CVE-81)
Saginaw Bay (CVE-82)
Sargent Bay (CVE-83)
Shamrock Bay (CVE-84)
Shipley Bay (CVE-85)
Sitkoh Bay (CVE-86)
Steamer Bay (CVE-87)
Cape Esperance (CVE-88)
Takanis Bay (CVE-89)
Thetis Bay (CVE-90)
Makassar Straight (CVE-91)
Wyndham Bay (CVE-92)
Makin Island (CVE-93)
Lunga Point (CVE-94)
Salamaua (CVE-96)
Hollandia (CVE-97)
Kwajalein (CVE-98)
Admirality Islands (CVE-99)
Bougainville (CVE-100)
Matanikau (CVE-101)
Attu (CVE-102)
Roi (CVE-103)
Munda (CVE-104)

Commencement Bay-Class (10 total)
Commencement Bay (CVE-105)
Block Island (CVE-106)
Gilbert Islands (CVE-107)
Kula Bay (CVE-108)
Cape Glouchester (CVE-109)
Salerno Bay (CVE-110)
Vella Gulf (CVE-111)
Siboney (CVE-112)
Puget Sound (CVE-113)
Bairoko (CVE-115)


Charger-class
Charger (CVE-30)

Light Carriers:

Independence-Class (8 total)
Independence (CVL-22)
Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
Cowpens (CVL-25)
Monterey (CVL-26)
Langley (CVL-27)
Cabot (CVL-28)
Bataan (CVL-29)
San Jacinto (CVL-30)

Fleet Carriers:

Lexington-Class
Saratoga (CV-3)

Yorktown-Class
Enterprise (CV-6)

Essex-Class (18 total)
Essex (CV-9)
(Second) Yorktown (CV-10)
Intrepid (CV-11)
(Second) Hornet (CV-12)
Franklin (CV-13)
Ticonderoga (CV-14)
Randolph (CV-15)
(Second) Lexingon (CV-16)
Bunker Hill (CV-17)
Wasp (CV-18)
Hanconck (CV-19)
Bennington (CV-20)
Boxer (CV-21)
Bon Homme Richard (CV-31)
Antietam (CV-36)
Shagri-La (CV-38)
Lake Champlain (CV-39)
Tarawa (CV-40)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/02 14:59:23


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 welshhoppo wrote:
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 was fully equipped. 2nd and 17th SS Panzer divisions were also fully equipped. I'm not buying this under-strength divisions theory. Eastern Front, yeah, but not on the West.
these are a small number of the divisions involved. Very few German divisions on either front were at anything near full strength, and many, if not most of the divisions in France were 2nd line units, only a very small number were fully equipped and at full strength. Even the full strength units were pretty easy pickings lacking any sort of air cover and effective intelligence on allied forces who enjoyed air supremacy and knew almost the entire German order of battle facing them.



A lot of Germany's effectiveness during Normandy was due to the fact that it's easier to defend than attack. When the situation was reversed during the battle of the Bulge, the Germans had a tough time trying to shift dug in American infantry.
well, during the Bulge (where a great uncle of mine was killed stepping on a German landmine), the Germans literally didnt have adequate supplies, particularly fuel, to conduct the operations assigned and were ordered to do so on the assumption (that most of the field commanders knew was absurd) that they would use captured enemy stockpiles to continue their advance. They also lacked air support and suffered from munitions shortages and intelligence gaps. A huge number of German vehicles were lost due to logistical issues, often more than enemy action.




Time to unleash some historical perspective

As Sun Tzu once said: one man hardened to the ways of war is worth 10 men who are not.

In other words, don't underestimate veterans in warfare. History is full of this example. Roman Legions were usually outnumbered, but better training, equipment and experience was almost always enough to win them the day.

Building an elite fomration like Lehr carries on this maxim, and fits in with the German doctrine of focusing maximum strength on one point, and a war of manouvere.

So, IMO, Lehr makes perfect sense to the Germans.
In a short, decisive war, yes. In the end stages of a total war of attrition, not as much. The Germans developed issues with their best pilots and crews staying on the frontlines forever and getting killed and not having experienced people there to teach the new recruits who by the end of the war were getting to be pretty inept.


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in gb
Drakhun





From the four devisioms stationed at Normandy, one was declared "unfit for active duty." And one other was comprised entirely of Russian and Eastern Prisioners of war.

DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+
Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: