How could Hitler have won WW2?

Del.Monte · 27-12-2020 01:27PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9Xm9st4Sg

A 1942 movie about an invasion of the UK "Went the Day Well" is worth a watch but could stand a remake. It captures the patriotic feeling that prevailed in the UK and Hitler might well have bitten off more than he could chew if the invasion had gone ahead. A reversal of the Dunkirk scenario but this time with no escape as Hitler's invading army wouldn't have been able to maintain their supply lines or be evacuated due to the Royal Navy.

Samsonsmasher · 27-12-2020 01:49PM

Dunfyy wrote: »

He could of invaded England and not gone into Russia and if japan had not attacked america as americans did not want to enter the war

The Germans did not have the naval ships or sufficient amphibious aircraft or trained landing forces to conduct an operation on that scale.
It would have taken years of preparation.
Time which Germany did not have if Hitler was to invade Russia.
Hitler assumed that the British would sue for peace and later in the war having fortified the coast of Western Europe from the Bay of Biscay to the Arctic he was sure the Wehrmacht were more than capable of defeating a landing.
He was nearly right because D-Day almost ended in failure.

paul71 · 27-12-2020 01:57PM

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The Germans did not have the naval ships or sufficient amphibious aircraft or trained forces to conduct an operation on that scale.

And they knew it, even IF they had destroyed the RAF, any invasion fleet would have simply been blown out of the water by a small fraction of the Royal navy. Canal barges vs gunboats, forget about destroyers, corvettes, cruisers, battleships aircraft carriers and submarines.

Samsonsmasher · 27-12-2020 02:01PM

paul71 wrote: »

And they knew it, even IF they had destroyed the RAF, any invasion fleet would have simply been blown out of the water by a small fraction of the Royal navy. Canal barges vs gunboats, forget about destroyers, corvettes, cruisers, battleships aircraft carriers and submarines.

Hitler was hoping an appeaser like Halifax would take over and cut a deal. The British could keep their Empire as far as Hitler was concerned. Many British appeasers believed Hitler could be master of Europe and if he invaded Russia even better. In May 1940 there was brief window of opportunity for both.

paul71 · 27-12-2020 02:06PM

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Hitler was hoping an appeaser like Halifax would take over and cut a deal. The British could keep their Empire as far as Hitler was concerned. Many British appeasers believed Hitler could be master of Europe and if he invaded Russia even better. In May 1940 there was brief window of opportunity for both.

Actually the only hope Germany ever had of winning the war was exactly this. They were never going to defeat Russia, it was a hopeless task from the outset, they simply did not have the oil, (they probably did not have the manpower, although USSR was also having manpower issues at the end of the war).

The only prospect of a victory in the USSR was a secure oil route, which could not have existed without the co-operation of the Royal navy. Even then Germany might well have been fighting beyond the Urals into the 1950s.

Azza · 27-12-2020 06:47PM

paul71 wrote: »

Actually the only hope Germany ever had of winning the war was exactly this. They were never going to defeat Russia, it was a hopeless task from the outset, they simply did not have the oil, (they probably did not have the manpower, although USSR was also having manpower issues at the end of the war).

The only prospect of a victory in the USSR was a secure oil route, which could not have existed without the co-operation of the Royal navy. Even then Germany might well have been fighting beyond the Urals into the 1950s.

I'm not sure that they couldn't have defeated Russia, it was always going to be an extremely difficult task and they would need to make all the right decisions. There is decisions that could of been during the invasion of Russia. The decision to delay the advance on Moscow to deal with the Solmensk pocket may have been one of these decisions that had it not been made allowed the Germans to capture Moscow in 1941. Of course leaving those 600,000 troops on its flank could be potentially a worse move but we will never really know. Like wise the German's made a mess out of Case Blue in 1942 and got their Panzers bottle necked sending them around in almost a circle at one point. With better decisions in Case Blue the German's could of taken Stalingrad on the march without having to fight for it. Also I don't know if you ever watched TIK's youtube channel but he made an interesting point that in 1942-1943 around the time of battle of Stalingrad the German's had plenty of reinforcements available but they where all diverted north up to the Moscow region instead of being sent south to Stalingrad both for logistical reasons and due to the fact that the German high command believed the situation was under control in the South. Had they sent those reinforcements south instead they might have been able to prevent the Stalingrad disaster from happening.

The German's did manage to capture the oil fields at Maykop in the Caucasus which would of provided them with not an insignificant amount of oil had the Russian's not sabotaged them thoroughly. The German needed another few months to able to get it back up and running properly.

paul71 · 27-12-2020 07:47PM

Azza wrote: »

I'm not sure that they couldn't have defeated Russia, it was always going to be an extremely difficult task and they would need to make all the right decisions. There is decisions that could of been during the invasion of Russia. The decision to delay the advance on Moscow to deal with the Solmensk pocket may have been one of these decisions that had it not been made allowed the Germans to capture Moscow in 1941. Of course leaving those 600,000 troops on its flank could be potentially a worse move but we will never really know. Like wise the German's made a mess out of Case Blue in 1942 and got their Panzers bottle necked sending them around in almost a circle at one point. With better decisions in Case Blue the German's could of taken Stalingrad on the march without having to fight for it. Also I don't know if you ever watched TIK's youtube channel but he made an interesting point that in 1942-1943 around the time of battle of Stalingrad the German's had plenty of reinforcements available but they where all diverted north up to the Moscow region instead of being sent south to Stalingrad both for logistical reasons and due to the fact that the German high command believed the situation was under control in the South. Had they sent those reinforcements south instead they might have been able to prevent the Stalingrad disaster from happening.

The German's did manage to capture the oil fields at Maykop in the Caucasus which would of provided them with not an insignificant amount of oil had the Russian's not sabotaged them thoroughly. The German needed another few months to able to get it back up and running properly.

Stalingrad and its attempted capture are overplayed, it was an enormous defeat for Germany but in itself was only a rather unimportant city. The purpose of the drive to Stalingrad was to defend a flank.

It has become important not because it was a city the USSR could not afford to lose, it was the fact Germany lost an army it could not afford to lose and had the troops sent to Moscow been sent to Stalingrad it is possible the hammer that fell on Von Paulus may have instead fallen on Army group center or even on the much reduced Army group North.

Its interesting you brought up TIK, I do watch him, and he does make a lot of interesting observations, one of which was that the Germans rated their own performance in Poland as very poor and in France as only slightly better, due mainly to a lack of NCOs because of the rapid expansion of the army. He made the point that by the start of Barbarossa the German army was at its Zenith as a result of the experience gained in Poland and France by their NCOs. However the first 4 months of Barbarossa cost them those experienced NCOs and they never recovered.

Can I ask do you think that might be merit in the idea that the German army invading Poland and France was fueled by meth, and that by the time Barbarossa came around it had been discovered that it was detrimental in a campaign that was always going to last more than a few months.

Samsonsmasher · 28-12-2020 11:24AM

Azza wrote: »

I'm not sure that they couldn't have defeated Russia, it was always going to be an extremely difficult task and they would need to make all the right decisions. There is decisions that could of been during the invasion of Russia. The decision to delay the advance on Moscow to deal with the Solmensk pocket may have been one of these decisions that had it not been made allowed the Germans to capture Moscow in 1941. Of course leaving those 600,000 troops on its flank could be potentially a worse move but we will never really know. Like wise the German's made a mess out of Case Blue in 1942 and got their Panzers bottle necked sending them around in almost a circle at one point. With better decisions in Case Blue the German's could of taken Stalingrad on the march without having to fight for it. Also I don't know if you ever watched TIK's youtube channel but he made an interesting point that in 1942-1943 around the time of battle of Stalingrad the German's had plenty of reinforcements available but they where all diverted north up to the Moscow region instead of being sent south to Stalingrad both for logistical reasons and due to the fact that the German high command believed the situation was under control in the South. Had they sent those reinforcements south instead they might have been able to prevent the Stalingrad disaster from happening.

The German's did manage to capture the oil fields at Maykop in the Caucasus which would of provided them with not an insignificant amount of oil had the Russian's not sabotaged them thoroughly. The German needed another few months to able to get it back up and running properly.

In 1942 and 1943 the Russians had been given the breathing space to raise new divisions and mobilize their entire society and economy to repel the Nazis.
The Nazis were drawn into a trap when they headed for Stalingrad the Volga and south into the Caucasus. Hitler deluded himself that he had the Reds well and truly on the ropes.
Romanian and Hungarian troops were holding the flanks when Stalin's counterattack that enveloped 6th Army began.
Again Hitler's best prospect of victory had already been lost in 1941 when he failed to capture Moscow delayed by stubborn British resistance which would not have existed if the British had made peace in May 1940

saabsaab · 28-12-2020 09:25PM

I'd say Russia would have collapsed without the supplies and aid coming from the US and British convoys guarded by The RN. Not to mention the intelligence and resource sapping by other fronts provided by the Allies.

tabbey · 28-12-2020 09:47PM

saabsaab wrote: »

I'd say Russia would have collapsed without the supplies and aid coming from the US and British convoys guarded by The RN. Not to mention the intelligence and resource sapping by other fronts provided by the Allies.

The supplies carried by the convoys were absolutely essential to the survival of the russian war effort.

Duke of Schomberg · 29-12-2020 10:49PM

paul71 wrote: »

LOL some real quality posting there, 4 posts on boards and all trash.

I am only just warming up.

Manach · 29-12-2020 11:04PM

MOD General Note:
Please discuss the topic in question and not engage in ad hominem.

Robert146 · 29-12-2020 11:34PM

When WW2 was over Churchill was heard to say "I think that we killed the wrong pig". Churchill wanted to re-arm the Germans and in combination with the United States to turn on and destroy the Soviet Union.

Azza · 29-12-2020 11:53PM

paul71 wrote: »

Stalingrad and its attempted capture are overplayed, it was an enormous defeat for Germany but in itself was only a rather unimportant city. The purpose of the drive to Stalingrad was to defend a flank.

It has become important not because it was a city the USSR could not afford to lose, it was the fact Germany lost an army it could not afford to lose and had the troops sent to Moscow been sent to Stalingrad it is possible the hammer that fell on Von Paulus may have instead fallen on Army group center or even on the much reduced Army group North.

Its interesting you brought up TIK, I do watch him, and he does make a lot of interesting observations, one of which was that the Germans rated their own performance in Poland as very poor and in France as only slightly better, due mainly to a lack of NCOs because of the rapid expansion of the army. He made the point that by the start of Barbarossa the German army was at its Zenith as a result of the experience gained in Poland and France by their NCOs. However the first 4 months of Barbarossa cost them those experienced NCOs and they never recovered.

Can I ask do you think that might be merit in the idea that the German army invading Poland and France was fueled by meth, and that by the time Barbarossa came around it had been discovered that it was detrimental in a campaign that was always going to last more than a few months.

I don't think Stalingrad was overplayed in its significance, just the reason's why the city was fought over was misunderstood. Your correct to say that initially the capture of Stalingrad was simply to secure a flank. It was not a significant target for the Germans but as the fighting went on may have gained more significance in the eyes of both Hitler and Stalin perhaps for symbolic reasons. Whatever the reasons the two sides fought there, the defeat inflicted on the German's was extremely significant.

Its interesting you speculate that had the German's diverted reserves to the South they could of been in trouble in the Moscow region instead. The Russian did actually launch an offensive in the centre at the same time as the South, this was called Operation Mars (the offensive in the South was Operation Uranus). Whats incredible about this is that the scale and scope is virtually the same size as what the Russian's launched around Stalingrad but the German managed to defeat it, yet the offensive is barely ever mentioned in the history books. Its sometimes referred too as Zhukov's greatest defeat. Its not exactly clear is the offensive was a merely a diversion designed to keep the German's away from re-reinforcing the South, if it was actually the primary offensive and the South was the diversion or both offensives where given equal priority and the Russian's where trying to actually score major victories in the South and Centre.

As for the German's on meth during WWII. I've heard of it. I'd need to look into it more, but from what I gather, while it for certain was used, its usage among the German troops was somewhat exaggerated.

Azza · 30-12-2020 12:02AM

tabbey wrote: »

The supplies carried by the convoys were absolutely essential to the survival of the russian war effort.

This is an extremely contentious topic.

From my understanding of it, there was no lend lease sent to Russia in 1941, they survived 1941 on their own.

Only limited amounts of lend lease supplies mostly British arrived in 1942. Its difficult to say how important this aid was. As in what arrived was only a small percentage of the total supplies and equipment the Russian's used but the quality of those supplies/equipment and their availability at certain critical points makes it difficult to ascertain how much of a difference it made to the final outcome.

For sure in 1943 onward significant lend lease arrived and without a doubt itenabled the Russian to achieve greater victories on the Eastern Front than they could of achieved on their own.

raclle · 30-12-2020 12:05AM

I thought it was a well known theory the reason Hitler wanted Stalingrad so badly was because of its name? Yes I've also heard about the Germans using drugs especially during executions. Many didn't want to do it which is why the death camps were introduced.

Robert146 · 30-12-2020 12:10AM

I basically agree. However, it was Hitler who declared war on the USA on December the 11th. 1941. The Soviet counter-attack had won the Battle of Moscow by December 5th. Hitler hoped that the Japanese would attack the SU from the east and take the pressure off the German army. Hitler paid too much attention to his generals, with their trophy obsession on Moscow and Leningrad. If the Germans had taken the Ukraine and east as far as Astrakhan, they may have seized the Caucuses oil and deprived the Soviet Union of the major part of their oil supplies. Because the Germans were so far superior militarily to the British and the USA, it is easy to forget what awful racism they practiced. After WW2, the British went back to suppressing the enslaved nations of their evil empire and the USA actually transported the French back to Vietnam etc. for to continue their murderous ways. The USA was desperately building up it's stockpile of atomic weapons after the war and when they had approx. 250, they intended to destroy the Soviet Union. However, on August 28th. 1947, the Soviets exploded their own atomic bomb and the game plan changed.

Azza · 30-12-2020 10:45AM

raclle wrote: »

I thought it was a well known theory the reason Hitler wanted Stalingrad so badly was because of its name? Yes I've also heard about the Germans using drugs especially during executions. Many didn't want to do it which is why the death camps were introduced.

The reason the German's went into Stalingrad was as already mentioned was its capture was need to form a flank that protected Army Group A's advanced into the Caucasus to capture the oilfields there, That was always the primary objective of Case Base. the fact that it bore Stalin's name had no bearing on the German's going into Stalingrad at all. However as the battle for the city went on, its capture did gain symbolic significance in the eyes of both Hitler and Stalin because of the name. Its interesting to note that the German units that went to Staling took more casualties getting in to Stalingrad than in the fighting for the actual city itself (up till the point of encirclement)

As for drugs an executions I'm again not sure on this topic. But yes the execution's did have a psychological impact on the troops carrying them out and the German higher ups wished to avoid that and I believe part of the reason why the German's hit up the idea of gassing its victims.

paul71 · 30-12-2020 10:56AM

Azza wrote: »

The reason the German's went into Stalingrad was as already mentioned was its capture was need to form a flank that protected Army Group A's advanced into the Caucasus to capture the oilfields there, That was always the primary objective of Case Base. the fact that it bore Stalin's name had no bearing on the German's going into Stalingrad at all. However as the battle for the city went on, its capture did gain symbolic significance in the eyes of both Hitler and Stalin because of the name. Its interesting to note that the German units that went to Staling took more casualties getting in to Stalingrad than in the fighting for the actual city itself (up till the point of encirclement)

As for drugs an executions I'm again not sure on this topic. But yes the execution's did have a psychological impact on the troops carrying them out and the German higher ups wished to avoid that and I believe part of the reason why the German's hit up the idea of gassing its victims.

I was they one who brought up drugs, but it was not in the context of executions. Meth was widely distributed to the German army. I need to look it up but I believe I read a figure of 44 million meth tablets issued to the army in 3 months in 1940, that was during the time of the invasion of France, Denmark, Norway, Holland and Belgium.

It is something that is not looked at much, German soldiers were taking 4 meth tabs a day, going 3 or 4 days without sleep. Several medium ranked officers had heart attacks but combat efficiency was greatly increased in the short term. It was central to lightning war but I would love to know if the use the widespread use of Meth in 1939 and 1940 had an adverse effect on those soldiers in 1941 and 1942.

paul71 · 30-12-2020 11:01AM

https://time.com/5752114/nazi-military-drugs/

I was wrong 35 million tablets between April and July 1940. Still the point stands the German army of 1940 was a couple of million strong group of heavily armed Meth-heads. It was central to their victory in France a battle that lasted a few weeks (months) but unsustainable in Russia.

Azza · 30-12-2020 11:15AM

Robert146 wrote: »

I basically agree. However, it was Hitler who declared war on the USA on December the 11th. 1941. The Soviet counter-attack had won the Battle of Moscow by December 5th. Hitler hoped that the Japanese would attack the SU from the east and take the pressure off the German army. Hitler paid too much attention to his generals, with their trophy obsession on Moscow and Leningrad. If the Germans had taken the Ukraine and east as far as Astrakhan, they may have seized the Caucuses oil and deprived the Soviet Union of the major part of their oil supplies. Because the Germans were so far superior militarily to the British and the USA, it is easy to forget what awful racism they practiced. After WW2, the British went back to suppressing the enslaved nations of their evil empire and the USA actually transported the French back to Vietnam etc. for to continue their murderous ways. The USA was desperately building up it's stockpile of atomic weapons after the war and when they had approx. 250, they intended to destroy the Soviet Union. However, on August 28th. 1947, the Soviets exploded their own atomic bomb and the game plan changed.

If your talking about the German's taking Astrakhan in 1941 had they focused on the South I don't think the German's had the logistics to get there.

As for the German's being militarily superior to Britain and America that again is a contentious topic. There is a perception out their that the German's where like the Space Marines from Warhammer 40,000, those Uber soliders that where only ever beaten because of (A) Hitler's incompetence or (B) the enemies superior numbers but its far more complex than that. Perhaps they where better on the tactical level but the gap between them wasn't that big in my opinion.

I'm not aware of the USA building up nukes for an attack on the Soviet Union, infact they turned down Churchill's proposed attack on the Soviet Union (Operation Unthinkable) if they Russian's broke their pledges on how far they would advance into Europe.

Azza · 30-12-2020 11:24AM

paul71 wrote: »

I was they one who brought up drugs, but it was not in the context of executions. Meth was widely distributed to the German army. I need to look it up but I believe I read a figure of 44 million meth tablets issued to the army in 3 months in 1940, that was during the time of the invasion of France, Denmark, Norway, Holland and Belgium.

It is something that is not looked at much, German soldiers were taking 4 meth tabs a day, going 3 or 4 days without sleep. Several medium ranked officers had heart attacks but combat efficiency was greatly increased in the short term. It was central to lightning war but I would love to know if the use the widespread use of Meth in 1939 and 1940 had an adverse effect on those soldiers in 1941 and 1942.

Military History (not) Visualized take on the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo7MOzC3-SI

Samsonsmasher · 30-12-2020 12:31PM

Azza wrote: »

If your talking about the German's taking Astrakhan in 1941 had they focused on the South I don't think the German's had the logistics to get there.

As for the German's being militarily superior to Britain and America that again is a contentious topic. There is a perception out their that the German's where like the Space Marines from Warhammer 40,000, those Uber soliders that where only ever beaten because of (A) Hitler's incompetence or (B) the enemies superior numbers but its far more complex than that. Perhaps they where better on the tactical level but the gap between them wasn't that big in my opinion.

I'm not aware of the USA building up nukes for an attack on the Soviet Union, infact they turned down Churchill's proposed attack on the Soviet Union (Operation Unthinkable) if they Russian's broke their pledges on how far they would advance into Europe.

The Wehrmacht had superior training discipline and esprit de corps than their enemies earlier in the war. Firstly the Prussian military elite were for generations the best in the world and conscription since the foundation of the Prussian state had produced a militarized society. The Germans typically recruited men from the same regions to serve in the same units together for the duration of the war so the comradeship among men was strong.
In elite units of the Waffen SS fanatical loyalty to Hitler the Fatherland National Socialism and the Final Victory sustained these men through hardships at the front with egalitarianism inspired by race ideology.
Regular army units were actually quite democratic with men of diverse views integrated into the ranks while the relationship between officers and men were close with officers sharing the same hardships and dangers - a higher proportion of officers died at the front than in Allied armies.
Slavs and other occupied people were seen as subhuman and an existential threat to the German Volk by ordinary infantrymen.
For these reasons German units were able to sustain high casualties and still fight effectively often against superior numbers.
The Wehrmacht in 1944-45 was a shadow of the Wehrmacht of 1939-1941 - divisions were typrically understrength with experienced NCOs and men leading inexperienced teenagers and middled aged men and others combed from industry but they still fought well or better than many of the Allied units thrown against them.

Meanwhile the average GI or Tommy was a civilian soldier. The M1 Garand and the Lee Enfield bolt action were superior to the bolt action Mauser K98. They had superior rations and firepower but most were not indoctrinated warriors especially in the latter stages of the war 1944-1945 when replacements were given ever more rudimentary training compared to D-Day veterans who were increasingly dead or wounded or shellshocked. In 1945 kids arrived at the front who were high school kids a few short weeks before. Natural leaders emerged from the crucible of combat but were often killed or wounded before they could pass their knowledge on to replacements.

The Wehrmacht were always on the defensive in the latter part of the war with shorter fronts to defend shorter supply lines expertly constructed defensive lines high morale despite the defeats earlier in the war and a determination to defend the Reich from invasion. The 88 anti tank gun the Tiger and Panther the MG42 the Panzerfaust and MP44 were excellent weapons which allowed smaller German units to hold out and inflict heavy casualties on larger Allied forces making them earn every yard.

The Soviets were the poorest troops of all - expendable conscripts who were simply thrown at the German lines until they achieved a breakthrough. They had a superior tank in the T-34 and the PPsh-41 was a great weapon but smaller German units fought against overwhelming odds in battle after battle mauling the Red Army. The price the Russians paid in Berlin even in the battle for the Reichstag against much smaller German garrison demonstrates this.

The Germans were overwhelmed by the manpower of the Allies and their superior firepower in artillery and airpower and vast industrial output.

They had the edge until the end of 1941 - the quick victory in Poland in 1939 and France in 1940 with sickle like thrusts could not be achieved in Russia in 1941 after which they were always on the backfoot but the Germans did not collapse until March-April-May 1945 and only with titanic effort by the Allies with brutal casualties.

Markcheese · 30-12-2020 02:05PM

Robert146 wrote: »

When WW2 was over Churchill was heard to say "I think that we killed the wrong pig". Churchill wanted to re-arm the Germans and in combination with the United States to turn on and destroy the Soviet Union.

How was he going to rearm the Germans ?
The attrition rate in the german military age-group was huge .. and they're infrastructure was smashed , as well as over a third of germany being in soviet hands ..

Azza · 30-12-2020 02:12PM

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The Wehrmacht had superior training discipline and esprit de corps than their enemies earlier in the war. Firstly the Prussian military elite were for generations the best in the world and conscription since the foundation of the Prussian state had produced a militarized society. The Germans typically recruited men from the same regions to serve in the same units together for the duration of the war so the comradeship among men was strong.
In elite units of the Waffen SS fanatical loyalty to Hitler the Fatherland National Socialism and the Final Victory sustained these men through hardships at the front with egalitarianism inspired by race ideology.
Regular army units were actually quite democratic with men of diverse views integrated into the ranks while the relationship between officers and men were close with officers sharing the same hardships and dangers - a higher proportion of officers died at the front than in Allied armies.
Slavs and other occupied people were seen as subhuman and an existential threat to the German Volk by ordinary infantrymen.
For these reasons German units were able to sustain high casualties and still fight effectively often against superior numbers.
The Wehrmacht in 1944-45 was a shadow of the Wehrmacht of 1939-1941 - divisions were typrically understrength with experienced NCOs and men leading inexperienced teenagers and middled aged men and others combed from industry but they still fought well or better than many of the Allied units thrown against them.

Meanwhile the average GI or Tommy was a civilian soldier. The M1 Garand and the Lee Enfield bolt action were superior to the bolt action Mauser K98. They had superior rations and firepower but most were not indoctrinated warriors especially in the latter stages of the war 1944-1945 when replacements were given ever more rudimentary training compared to D-Day veterans who were increasingly dead or wounded or shellshocked. In 1945 kids arrived at the front who were high school kids a few short weeks before. Natural leaders emerged from the crucible of combat but were often killed or wounded before they could pass their knowledge on to replacements.

The Wehrmacht were always on the defensive in the latter part of the war with shorter fronts to defend shorter supply lines expertly constructed defensive lines high morale despite the defeats earlier in the war and a determination to defend the Reich from invasion. The 88 anti tank gun the Tiger and Panther the MG42 the Panzerfaust and MP44 were excellent weapons which allowed smaller German units to hold out and inflict heavy casualties on larger Allied forces making them earn every yard.

The Soviets were the poorest troops of all - expendable conscripts who were simply thrown at the German lines until they achieved a breakthrough. They had a superior tank in the T-34 and the PPsh-41 was a great weapon but smaller German units fought against overwhelming odds in battle after battle mauling the Red Army. The price the Russians paid in Berlin even in the battle for the Reichstag against much smaller German garrison demonstrates this.

The Germans were overwhelmed by the manpower of the Allies and their superior firepower in artillery and airpower and vast industrial output.

They had the edge until the end of 1941 - the quick victory in Poland in 1939 and France in 1940 with sickle like thrusts could not be achieved in Russia in 1941 after which they were always on the backfoot but the Germans did not collapse until March-April-May 1945 and only with titanic effort by the Allies with brutal casualties.

I disagree with a lot of your points. Firstly in terms of training, I've heard the Wehrmacht described as a spear, the spear tip made up of small number of elite units and the wooden shaft made up of the majority standard average units. For the campaign in France, a French solider on average was better trained than the German solider, but it was more strategy, tactics and morale where they lost to the Germans.

Prussia was not doubt a strong military force who had beaten France in the Franco-Prussian war but of course it became subordinate to Germany and the German's did lose WWI and before the Franco-Prussian war Napoleon had utterly crushed the Prussians at one point. Hell it could be argued that it was Napoleon who thought them how to fight.

The SS where not elite units in terms of military training though they where however very well supplied compared to regular units.

I agree with you the relationship between the officers and the men and the Germans view on the slavs.

Yes Allied and Soviet numbers told out in in the long run but not to the extent you likely think it did. For much of Barbarossa the German's/Axis powers enjoyed numerical superiority to the Russian's and I believe they also enjoyed it for a large part of 1942 in the South where Case Blue was launched. It was only in 1943 did the Russians start enjoying a significant numbers advantage over the Germans. The German superiority in numbers and qualitative advantage in equipment was a huge factor in their successes in Russia 1941-1942 as much as it was to do with the quality of their troops.

Agree with you on the State of the Wehrmacht in 1944-45.

Yes the Allied troops where not as indoctrinated as the Germans, though I'd argue the Soviet resistance to the German's in 1941 and 1942 was ever bit as fanatical as the German's resistance later on.

But does that make British and American troops less effective?. Maybe but I'd argue tactics and strategy play a more decisive role in determining the outcome of winning a battle and the German track record on tactics and strategy here is somewhat more spotty.

Yes German morale held up well till the very end of the war. Yes they also possessed many fine weapons of war, but the effectiveness of the Tiger and Panther is another highly debatable topic.

The Soviets where without a doubt no match for the German's in terms of equipment, training and yes even numbers in the opening stages of Barbarossa. And this situation got worse before it got better for them. However they did fight with extreme fanaticism in these stages, often fighting until they ran out of bullets before surrendering, this crucially inflicted heavy casualties on the German's, degrading the German's military to the point that Operation Barbarossa failed.

By late 1943 into 1944, the Russians in terms of equipment, supplies and training where vastly improved and while its unlikely the average Red Army solider would of been as capable as the average German solider at the peak of the Wehrmacht's strength, the Red Army on the whole was able to surpass theWehrmact's ability to implement maneuver warfare or out Blitzkreig the German's so to speak and I'm am referring to both of them at the peak of their capabilities. In addition the Russian's where far superior to the German's in the art of deception, completely outwitting on them occasion, most notable during Operation Bagration.

The T-34 was not superior to the German Panzer III and IV during Operation Barbarossa. Its probably the most overrated tank of the war.

As for the Battle of Berlin, yes absolutely the Germans inflicted higher casualties on the Russian's but the Russian high command didn't care about casualties and was effectively pitting its commanders in a race against each other as to who take Berlin, Zhukov basically tank spammed his way through the Selow height defensive position regardless of casualties.

If you go back to 1944 and the Russian inflicted far more causalities on the German's than they took in Operation Bagration. That clearly shows how devastating the Red Army was capable of being. Had the Russian commander not been on the clock to take Berlin, they could of fought a more deliberate, careful battle and taken fewer causalities.

The odds become overwhelming by the mid point of the war and onwards butagain the odds where not overwhelming at the start of the war with Russia, that's basically Nazi propaganda.

I agree they had an edge on land against all opponents they came up against until the end of 1941 and still had something of advantage in Russia for at least part of 1942.

beauf · 30-12-2020 02:44PM

Enjoying this discussion.

Samsonsmasher · 30-12-2020 03:13PM

Azza wrote: »

I disagree with a lot of your points. Firstly in terms of training, I've heard the Wehrmacht described as a spear, the spear tip made up of small number of elite units and the wooden shaft made up of the majority standard average units. For the campaign in France, a French solider on average was better trained than the German solider, but it was more strategy, tactics and morale where they lost to the Germans.

Prussia was not doubt a strong military force who had beaten France in the Franco-Prussian war but of course it became subordinate to Germany and the German's did lose WWI and before the Franco-Prussian war Napoleon had utterly crushed the Prussians at one point. Hell it could be argued that it was Napoleon who thought them how to fight.

The SS where not elite units in terms of military training though they where however very well supplied compared to regular units.

I agree with you the relationship between the officers and the men and the Germans view on the slavs.

Yes Allied and Soviet numbers told out in in the long run but not to the extent you likely think it did. For much of Barbarossa the German's/Axis powers enjoyed numerical superiority to the Russian's and I believe they also enjoyed it for a large part of 1942 in the South where Case Blue was launched. It was only in 1943 did the Russians start enjoying a significant numbers advantage over the Germans. The German superiority in numbers and qualitative advantage in equipment was a huge factor in their successes in Russia 1941-1942 as much as it was to do with the quality of their troops.

Agree with you on the State of the Wehrmacht in 1944-45.

Yes the Allied troops where not as indoctrinated as the Germans, though I'd argue the Soviet resistance to the German's in 1941 and 1942 was ever bit as fanatical as the German's resistance later on.

But does that make British and American troops less effective?. Maybe but I'd argue tactics and strategy play a more decisive role in determining the outcome of winning a battle and the German track record on tactics and strategy here is somewhat more spotty.

Yes German morale held up well till the very end of the war. Yes they also possessed many fine weapons of war, but the effectiveness of the Tiger and Panther is another highly debatable topic.

The Soviets where without a doubt no match for the German's in terms of equipment, training and yes even numbers in the opening stages of Barbarossa. And this situation got worse before it got better for them. However they did fight with extreme fanaticism in these stages, often fighting until they ran out of bullets before surrendering, this crucially inflicted heavy casualties on the German's, degrading the German's military to the point that Operation Barbarossa failed.

By late 1943 into 1944, the Russians in terms of equipment, supplies and training where vastly improved and while its unlikely the average Red Army solider would of been as capable as the average German solider at the peak of the Wehrmacht's strength, the Red Army on the whole was able to surpass theWehrmact's ability to implement maneuver warfare or out Blitzkreig the German's so to speak and I'm am referring to both of them at the peak of their capabilities. In addition the Russian's where far superior to the German's in the art of deception, completely outwitting on them occasion, most notable during Operation Bagration.

The T-34 was not superior to the German Panzer III and IV during Operation Barbarossa. Its probably the most overrated tank of the war.

As for the Battle of Berlin, yes absolutely the Germans inflicted higher casualties on the Russian's but the Russian high command didn't care about casualties and was effectively pitting its commanders in a race against each other as to who take Berlin, Zhukov basically tank spammed his way through the Selow height defensive position regardless of casualties.

If you go back to 1944 and the Russian inflicted far more causalities on the German's than they took in Operation Bagration. That clearly shows how devastating the Red Army was capable of being. Had the Russian commander not been on the clock to take Berlin, they could of fought a more deliberate, careful battle and taken fewer causalities.

The odds become overwhelming by the mid point of the war and onwards butagain the odds where not overwhelming at the start of the war with Russia, that's basically Nazi propaganda.

I agree they had an edge on land against all opponents they came up against until the end of 1941 and still had something of advantage in Russia for at least part of 1942.

We can agree that Nazi Germany was outproduced and outmanned by the vast mobilization of the Soviets and the United States. The window to win was in 1940 to 1941 when the American military was puny and far away and the Soviets were reeling from the invasion while Britain stood alone feeling impotent.
Again Churchill's leadership was decisive.

Azza · 30-12-2020 03:29PM

Yes absolutely the Russian's and American's out produced and out numbered the German's over the course of the war. However in the past historians have made the claim that on the eastern front the German's where killing 10 or even 20 Russians for every German killed, its a narrative that has stuck but its very far from the truth. It also contributes to the myth that the German's where vastly better at fighting than their opponents, they "might" have been but if they where it was an extremely close between them.

Yes the Germans had a very limited window to win the war. Any delay in going into Russia makes their oil crisis even more accurate and allows the Russians to be better prepared to withstand what ever Germany throws against them. Knocking Britain out of the war in 1940 and been able to trade for oil might have helped with the oil crisis but the Germans where no position to invade Britain, hence I think there best shot was destroying the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk, something which "may" have convinced the British to come to terms. The other factor Germany could of controlled is not declaring war on the USA. This "may" have kept America out of entering the war in Europe.

jackboy · 30-12-2020 03:35PM

Azza wrote: »

The other factor Germany could of controlled is not declaring war on the USA. This "may" have kept America out of entering the war in Europe.

I think as long as Britain was in the war there was a high chance of the US entering eventually. Knocking the brits out quick (with a peace deal) was hitlers best chance. I think unsupported, Russia would here been defeated eventually.

Samsonsmasher · 30-12-2020 03:54PM

Azza wrote: »

Yes absolutely the Russian's and American's out produced and out numbered the German's over the course of the war. However in the past historians have made the claim that on the eastern front the German's where killing 10 or even 20 Russians for every German killed, its a narrative that has stuck but its very far from the truth. It also contributes to the myth that the German's where vastly better at fighting than their opponents, they "might" have been but if they where it was an extremely close between them.

Yes the Germans had a very limited window to win the war. Any delay in going into Russia makes their oil crisis even more accurate and allows the Russians to be better prepared to withstand what ever Germany throws against them. Knocking Britain out of the war in 1940 and been able to trade for oil might have helped with the oil crisis but the Germans where no position to invade Britain, hence I think there best shot was destroying the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk, something which "may" have convinced the British to come to terms. The other factor Germany could of controlled is not declaring war on the USA. This "may" have kept America out of entering the war in Europe.

Hitler could not spare tanks to crush the pocket in Dunkirk. He needed them to take Paris and overrun the French before they establish a new defensive line. Paris was the prize.

How could Hitler have won WW2?

Comments