Hitler's Military Interference

Fratton Fred · 06-03-2014 12:47PM

Tony EH wrote: »

You have it a little backwards there.

Russian losses were devastating in the early battles, because Russian tactics were lacking and they believed that pouring overwhelming numbers of men and tanks into the fray would turn the battle.

However, in the latter battles of the war, the Russians had learned somewhat to emulated the Germans in their field tactics. The likes of Operation Bagration is a world away from the early Russian military operations.

They always had the upper hand in men and material, but they were much less wasteful of those resources after 1942/3.

Less wasteful is a relative term I guess, they were still taking heavy casualties despite often outnumbering the Germans six to one.

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 01:31PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Secondly the Battle of Britain was doomed to be a German loss from the outset...

The German high command knew this.

Not only did OKW know it, Churchill knew it too.

I've memorised a quote, years ago, from him that's roughly paraphrased as:

"I'm not saying they (the Germans) won't come...but they won't come by Sealion."

The_Kew_Tour · 06-03-2014 02:11PM

It was what he thought of America that was must funny.

He thought they had pretty much no army and he felt it would take at least 20 years for them to have any type of huge army.

That is often not explained or mentioned, but thats how little or deluded he was on situation.

Dyr · 06-03-2014 02:42PM

What hitler needed to destroy britain was many, many subs

if donitz had the amount of u-boats that he was meant to at the start of world war 2 britain would have been screwed

--Kaiser-- · 06-03-2014 02:44PM

A thread in AH with intelligent discussion on a reasonable topic. I must be in bizarro-world

seamus · 06-03-2014 02:47PM

It's a bit too simplistic to claim that if the USSR fell, the US would have crushed Hitler with nukes. A lot of stuff had to fall into place to accomplish those bombings, and while massive US resources were certainly a main factor, some of it was done on a wing and a prayer and required a lot of things to be aligned.

For a start, you couldn't just fly a B52 bomber from the US east coast to Berlin. You'd need a stopping point; probably Ireland or a very small island somewhere in the east Atlantic, like they did with Japan. But you have to hold that and protect it.

You also have to consider that the Germans weren't sitting on their hands, technology-wise, and much of the jet-powered aircraft and missiles in modern use owe their origins to Nazi engineering.
They were however a bit short-sighted, particularly in terms of nuclear power and hadn't paid it a lot of heed for use as a weapon. Their idealism also caused them to cut their noses off to spite their face - killing/expelling/jailing jewish or other "undesirable" academics unless they were involved in absolutely critical military projects. This limited their pool of talent. This would be like the US removing Oppenheimer from the Manhattan project for ideological reasons - they'd have gotten there in the end, but probably much slower than they wanted.
Had they steamrolled western Russia then their resources wouldn't have been so constricted and we could have seen them discover these technologies in advance of the US.
Of course, spying was rife, so no side was ever going to be more than a few months ahead of the other in terms of development.

Though the underestimation of the US was a key factor in WWII. Japan were aware that the huge success at Pearl Harbour was down to the US military being in a state of unreadiness rather than being incapable, but actually had no idea what level of retaliation to expect.

Iwasfrozen · 06-03-2014 02:48PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

War on 2 fronts was his biggest mistake. If he had left the USSR alone be would have won the war easily.

Question is would Stalin have left him alone? Who knows.

Dyr · 06-03-2014 02:48PM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

It was what he thought of America that was must funny.

He thought they had pretty much no army and he felt it would take at least 20 years for them to have any type of huge army.

That is often not explained or mentioned, but thats how little or deluded he was on situation.

That lecture i linked to on the first page goes into detail on the german assessment of the americans

Der Putsch · 06-03-2014 03:06PM

It's interesting to note that the 5 remaining blood relatives of Hitler made a pact to never have children so they can kill his blood line. They are aged between about 50 -80 now and none of them have children.

Hande hoche! · 06-03-2014 03:08PM

Bambi wrote: »

What hitler needed to destroy britain was many, many subs

if donitz had the amount of u-boats that he was meant to at the start of world war 2 britain would have been screwed

Yep the kriegsmarine was probably the least prepared for war among the military services.

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 03:51PM

Bambi wrote: »

What hitler needed to destroy britain was many, many subs

if donitz had the amount of u-boats that he was meant to at the start of world war 2 britain would have been screwed

This is like saying that what Hitler needed was many many Star Destroyers.

Both are a fantasy and would have been physically impossible.

Hitler would have needed many 100's more U-Boats and of a vastly superior design than the Type IX and Type VII that were in service. It was the U-Boat designs that needed upgrading as well as their numerical expansion, as even at the beginning of the war their time was running out.

The simple fact is, though, that the U-Boat war never once came close to achieving its goal. It only managed to reach its monthly tonnage target on a handful of occasions and once America had entered the war that tonnage target went through the roof.

That's not to denigrate the job that the, frankly, brave crews of the Uboatwaffe did in any way. It's simply pointing out the facts.

The Atlantic campaign was effectively over by 1942 for the Germans and even if they had had many more U-boats, the tide had simply turned in both numbers and technology. It was never really with them in any way.

Dyr · 06-03-2014 04:17PM

Tony EH wrote: »

This is like saying that what Hitler needed was many many Star Destroyers.

Both are a fantasy and would have been physically impossible.

Hitler would have needed many 100's more U-Boats and of a vastly superior design than the Type IX and Type VII that were in service. It was the U-Boat designs that needed upgrading as well as their numerical expansion, as even at the beginning of the war their time was running out.

The simple fact is, though, that the U-Boat war never once came close to achieving its goal. It only managed to reach its monthly tonnage target on a handful of occasions and once America had entered the war that tonnage target went through the roof.

That's not to denigrate the job that the, frankly, brave crews of the Uboatwaffe did in any way. It's simply pointing out the facts.

The Atlantic campaign was effectively over by 1942 for the Germans and even if they had had many more U-boats, the tide had simply turned in both numbers and technology. It was never really with them in any way.

Unlike star destroyers, u boats actually existed and the germans had the capability to build them. They pumped out about a thousand of them before wars end so that dispenses with the fantasy horse ****

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 04:24PM

But they didn't have to facility to build them when they needed them and even if they had, crewing them would have been a different matter again and even if they were able to crew them, allied ASW was far superior to their ability to evade detection.

By 1943, the majority of U-Boats were being sunk without making a single dent on the allied convoys.

My point is, it has much more to do than just numbers when talking about the U-Boat war.

Mike747 · 06-03-2014 05:04PM

I wonder if Walther Wever hadn't died, and the Luftwaffe had been equipped with a fleet of long range bombers, would things have been any different? Perhaps the Luftwaffe would have been able to cripple the Russian factories behnid the Urals.

Augmerson · 06-03-2014 06:37PM

Great thread!

Call Me Jimmy · 06-03-2014 06:41PM

Now that I've got all you WW2 history buffs on the same thread ye'z can make yerselves useful :pac: - best documentary on the whole thing in your opinion(s)? :pac:

Fratton Fred · 06-03-2014 06:43PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Now that I've got all you WW2 history buffs on the same thread ye'z can make yerselves useful :pac: - best documentary on the whole thing in your opinion(s)? :pac:

The BBC series The World at War, imho.

Fratton Fred · 06-03-2014 06:44PM

Tony EH wrote: »

But they didn't have to facility to build them when they needed them and even if they had, crewing them would have been a different matter again and even if they were able to crew them, allied ASW was far superior to their ability to evade detection.

By 1943, the majority of U-Boats were being sunk without making a single dent on the allied convoys.

My point is, it has much more to do than just numbers when talking about the U-Boat war.

Didn't it get to the point where a u boat had a less than 50/50 chance of survival if it attacked a convoy?

Yellowblackbird · 06-03-2014 07:12PM

One point to remember about Hitlers mistakes in Barbarosa is the understanding of the size of Russian forces that the germans had. By about three months into the attack the germans had destroyed or captured an amount of enemy infantry, tanks and artillery equal to the amount that their intelligence estimated at the outset that the Russians had altogether. But they were no where near running out of men or equipement.

Neither Hitler nor the high command understood the hold on the russian citizens and the army that the Communist machine had. It was a true totalitarian society that put germany in the haypenny place. You simply did what you were told or you were shot. Unless Stalin said surrender every last russian would fight to the death from the border of germany to the pacific ocean. These guys were incapable of being blitzed. Russians who daily lived with a gun to their head were not going to be shocked or awed by the speed and success of the german attack. And if the Russians won't give up then it has to become a battle of attrition. And the bigger army will always win a battle of attrition.

guinnessdrinker · 06-03-2014 07:54PM

We hear a lot more about the Western front of WWII but the war on the Eastern front was probably the most ferocious known to man. Approx 11.4 million Soviet soldiers died and 2.7 million German soldiers died during the course of the war.

Those figures don't even include the millions of civilians killed in Russia, Germany and Eastern Europe.

Mike747 · 06-03-2014 07:55PM

One area where Hitler really interfered was his insistence on hitting back at the Allies later in the war. How many resources were squandered on the V2 program?

Also, the Battlefield and Wings of the Luftwaffe documentaries were really good.

cerastes · 06-03-2014 07:58PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Now that I've got all you WW2 history buffs on the same thread ye'z can make yerselves useful :pac: - best documentary on the whole thing in your opinion(s)? :pac:

A bridge too far.

wendell borton · 06-03-2014 09:03PM

A warning from history is excellent.

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 11:27PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Now that I've got all you WW2 history buffs on the same thread ye'z can make yerselves useful :pac: - best documentary on the whole thing in your opinion(s)? :pac:

Unfortunately, there isn't one. 'The World at War' is decent, but flawed. It's sister program, 'The Great War' was good, but flawed too.

But, no...there isn't one catch all program on the whole war. Every documentary glosses over huge amounts of data. There just isn't enough budget and running time to do the conflict justice.

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 11:40PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Didn't it get to the point where a u boat had a less than 50/50 chance of survival if it attacked a convoy?

It was less than that at certain times.

There's a reason why 27,000 men were lost out of the 40,000 personnel in the Uboatwaffe. It's because the odds were very much stacked against them.

dj jarvis · 06-03-2014 11:50PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Wrong, they were a GERMAN army. The National Socialists were the government of the day, that's all.

That the nazis used the country's forces for their ends is neither here nor there.

It simply silly and misleading to call the men who fought in the Wehrmacht a "nazi" army.

By the way the SA were never part of any professional army and in fact were eliminated (although not formally liquidated) a year after the nazis came to power, precisely because they weren't in direct control of them and Ernst Rohm had designs on leadership himself.

you can ignore the fact that they were controlled by the Nazis all you want , they were a army that was CONTROLLED by the Nazis ,
and the SA were commonly know as the Nazis army.

German armed forces from 39 to 45 were a German army controlled by the Nazis - again ergo , a Nazi army.

you are being SUPER pedantic - a bit of a syntax Nazi :cool:

dj jarvis · 06-03-2014 11:54PM

Tony EH wrote: »

You have it a little backwards there.

Russian losses were devastating in the early battles, because Russian tactics were lacking and they believed that pouring overwhelming numbers of men and tanks into the fray would turn the battle.

However, in the latter battles of the war, the Russians had learned somewhat to emulated the Germans in their field tactics. The likes of Operation Bagration is a world away from the early Russian military operations.

They always had the upper hand in men and material, but they were much less wasteful of those resources after 1942/3.

thats becasue uncle joe had the officer class liquidated , the proof was when the tiny Finnish army humiliated the Russians , they had no leadership or tactics and done , repeatedly , the charge of the light brigade straight at well place Finnish gun emplacements , it was a kill difference of 10 to 1 .

Finland owes it freedom from soviet occupation from 1945 to 1990 thanks to Joe killing his own officers

Tony EH · 06-03-2014 11:55PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

you can ignore the fact that they were controlled by the Nazis all you want , they were a army that was CONTROLLED by the Nazis ,
and the SA were commonly know as the Nazis army.

German armed forces from 39 to 45 were a German army controlled by the Nazis - again ergo , a Nazi army.

you are being SUPER pedantic - a bit of a syntax Nazi

Yeh, whatever.

Look, there aren't many (if any) serious studies, historical records or books that would call the German Army of WWII the "nazi army".

Even populist History Channel documentaries or 3rd rate "histories" don't, in the main.

It's silly hyperbole.

dj jarvis · 06-03-2014 11:57PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Unfortunately, there isn't one. 'The World at War' is decent, but flawed. It's sister program, 'The Great War' was good, but flawed too.

But, no...there isn't one catch all program on the whole war. Every documentary glosses over huge amounts of data. There just isn't enough budget and running time to do the conflict justice.

if you are into data , facts and figures , Battlefield was a great series , focus's on a different theater of war each episode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn3nXTrs-8g

Jonny7 · 07-03-2014 12:00AM

dj jarvis wrote: »

if you are into data , facts and figures , Battlefield was a great series , focus's on a different theater of war each episode

Yup extensive, detailed, great series - liked it very much

Hitler's Military Interference

Comments