Defeat of the Luftwaffe

[DonL]

Quite a lot. A true war is not a Risiko as the real Finance is not Monopoly.....
Once an Army moves in a direction it not easy to redeploy it, expecially in extremely narrow and winding hilly lanes, with all the consequent traffic jams and with an enemy that is capable to keep an eye on you. One thing is an enemy that arrives unespected and unsuspected, another one is when arrives expected: the Germans lost the First Battle of Marne for this very reason, and fortunately there were all the Paris taxis to bring the "poilus" to the front.....
The French and British H.Q. were in 1940, IMHO, criminal in this respect, or put it as you want, they were not so lucky like in the WWI...

But this is the whole concept of mobility to strike through unexpected. How often had the Wehrmacht the problem of very good defended stratical points at Barbarossa and how often they were searching a weak spot next to this point in the front, regroup and break through absolutely unexpected 30-60 miles away to drive in the back of the very good defended frontline.

All officers were trained for this and as Siegfried mentioned it was part of their military education.

I don't want to deny that the French Army could stop the Wehrmacht perhaps for one or two weeks but after that, the Wehrmacht had found the one, two, three weak points in the frontline to strike through unexpected!

The whole problem of the French Army was their untrained Soldiers to tank attacks. Most of the units had the "tank scare" and they were unable to built a coordinated frontline, if tanks were in the back of the major frontline.

 

[marshall]

The situation of Ethnic Germans under the Polish government wasn't all that much better in some regions. Its worth noting that the first atrocities of the Polish-German war was by Polish soldiers entering the house of vulnerable and unarmed ethnic Germans and murdering the families there. Its worth putting that in the light of what happened in the subsequent occupation of Poland. The nazi regime may not have shown moderation and a lot of humanity, but neither was the other side without blame.

Can you give some more details about it?

 

[pbfoot]

That isn't quiet correct! The logistics of the Panzer- and motorized Infantry Divisions were also fully motorized!

I agree with parsifal that the grade of motorization of the german Army droped down with every year of the war, because there was not enough supply to replace the losses but from the plan of organisation of the Panzer and motorized Infantry Division they were fully motorized at all units of the Division.

Come on man even Canada made more military trucks then Germany by 800K to 500k

 

[Jenisch]

But this is the whole concept of mobility to strike through unexpected. How often had the Wehrmacht the problem of very good defended stratical points at Barbarossa and how often they were searching a weak spot next to this point in the front, regroup and break through absolutely unexpected 30-60 miles away to drive in the back of the very good defended frontline.

All officers were trained for this and as Siegfried mentioned it was part of their military education.

The Germans had better coordenation and independance of their Panzer divisions, together with the Luftwaffe. Other armies in the world already realized the combination of massive armored assaults with air support (Soviet Union in Khalkhin Gol). The Germans were "just" fully integrated with those techonologies already.

Anyway, I maintein what I posted that had the French and British being more agressive and coordenated than they were, it would be possible to stabilize the front.

 

[tomo pauk]

Would I be banned if I say that plenty of neo-Nazi crap is ruining this fine forum?

 

[tyrodtom]

Siegfried is just regurgatating old propaganda put out by the Reichs Ministry of Propaganda 60+ years ago , and exposed as lies before most of us was born.

 

[marshall]

Would I be banned if I say that plenty of neo-Nazi crap is ruining this fine forum?

I think I would be banned with you.

 

[parsifal]

I will leave it up to individual members to consider his post 505 @ me. To me these are just deluded rantings not worth the effort of a reply. Knowing his earlier efforts in this pace it is no longer any surprise to me what is spewed out of this members mind. I will not glorify it by any other response

 

[Jenisch]

Siegfried is just regurgatating old propaganda put out by the Reichs Ministry of Propaganda 60+ years ago , and exposed as lies before most of us was born.

I think he does some valid points. The racial stuff for example is by some means true. There were people from different ethnic groups fighting with the Germans, and they have relations with many multiethnic societies such as in my country, were the Nazi party was the largest after Germany (in great part because the German immigration) . Many people think they simply wanted to kill anyone different from them, which is definately not truth.

Anyway, there's no excuse for what the Nazis did. But what let me sad in all this story is remember that the Communists are not even close to have legislation against their lies than the Nazis, and talk much more fallacies than them without any respect for the victims of the ideology.

 

[Gixxerman]

Would I be banned if I say that plenty of neo-Nazi crap is ruining this fine forum?

I would just add that I have found the last 2 or 3 days at this site a very unpleasant shock.

 

[tomo pauk]

Legislation or not, nobody here acclaims the deeds of Communists. And just because such legislation is not introduced, that does not mean that we need to listen the neo-Nazi stuff here.
Since you were not at the receiving end of the deeds of a similar warmonger, while I and my family were, I do claim to have a far more crisp view at what is here presented as nothing-but-the-truth.

BTW, how well a predominately political topic fits into an Aircraft sub forum?

 

[tomo pauk]

I would just add that I have found the last 2 or 3 days at this site a very unpleasant shock.

Ditto.

 

[Hoju2k]

and the final decision for the attack in the Ardennes was taked by Guderian and Manstein when they meet in a acampment by random. The Allied plan was to stabilize the front and cut Germany from the Swedish iron to suffocate it. The plan is said to have been very well done, even by modern analists, it's only flaw being the already mentioned overlook of the Ardennes.

How come the decision of the main point of attack be taken by a Corps Commander (G) or a Chief of Staff of an Army Group? (M, later Corps CO).
It can't, the decision was taken by the only man who was able to do that, I'm sure I don't have to name him...
The Guderian-Manstein "connection", if you will, actually happened during the time when Manstein was developing his idea for a new plan (later expresses in several memorandums), when the Headquarters of HGr A and the one of the XIX Korps were both in stationed in Koblenz, and the Generals were billeted in hotels that were next to each other. In that way, Manstein was able to consult Guderian about the feasibility of a Panzer attack across the Ardennes.

About the Allied plan, actually it was a very bad one, while based in some sound military and political principles, it completely misinterpreted the German intentions (that alone would be enough to disqualify it), and the addition of the "Breda" variant, that deprived the only strategic "mass of maneuver" (French 7.Armee), it has to be viewed as a criminal act.

 

[tyrodtom]

. Many people think they simply wanted to kill anyone different from them, which is definately not truth..

You seem to not know , or ignored that the Third Reich not only murdered 6 million Jews, but also almost as many other peoples.

WE all know the Communists murdered more, but over how many years did they do this ? 30 ? 40? The Third Reich did their 10 or 11 million in 6 years.

So yes, I think a good argument could be made that they did wanted to kill everyone different from them. You were either Germanic, a slave, or dead, where ever they ruled.

 

[Jenisch]

You were either Germanic, a slave, or dead, where ever they ruled.

I don't think so. The Germans had allies, which it is not need to mention that were not Germans, not slaves and were well alive fighting alongside them.

Of course, such things by any means justify what the Germans did with millions of people. Just that like Stalin and the Communists, the Nazis didn't commited certain things much popularly mentioned about them.

 

[parsifal]

Actually, it shows Germany outproducing both the UK and the USSR

Actually it doesnt. It shows the germans had greater GDP. My figures are what they got in terms of actual materiel produced. This very clearly shows the germans were outproduced by both Britain and the USSR. You need to re-read the material

The graph (Harrison, "The economics of WW2") do not show "resources", nor those absurd claims that you are making.

Why are my claims "absurd". I was responding to your claim that the germans outproduced the russians and the Brits. I said that with about 70% of the german GDP the Rusians outproduced the germans by a clear margin. I produced data that suggests the GDP of the Russians 1938-45 was about 88% that of the germans, but in certain categories the russians outproduced the germans by as much a 3.24 times. Ther is nothing silly about that. the only thing silly is that you dont know the difference between GDP and equipment deliveries

Not an exhaustive list. What about submarines? or explosives production?, just to name a few, that would show the SU way behind Germany in those categories

.

Ah yes the gernmans outproduced the russians in naval construction for the entire war, but for the period up to June 1941, it was actually the Rusians in the lead. Up to that point they had produced something like 300 submarines about 50 destroyers. they had two battleships and two battlecruisers under construction, and about a dozen cruisers. they had several hundred coastal patrol vessels. In terms of river gunboats, the germans never came close to the Soviet production levels .

In terms of explosives production, I would dispute that the germans outproduced the russians, but would be interested to see what figures you are basing that claim on. ive never seen a completely exhaustive list for either belligerent but the bits and pieces I do have are suggesting the reverse to your claim. German AT ammunition production was less than that of even Canada. The Russians laid more land mines around Kursk than the entire wartime production by the Germans. ive got some other information at home, but I seriously doubt your claims here, which remain unsubstantiated at this point. time for you to put up, or shut up i would suggest. Produce your evidence, or stop callinmg me out with flippant comments. Dont stir me up, you wont like it.

Anyway, what would that prove? That there was no LL for Germany, or that the Germans needed to expand their industrial capacity before expand the armament production, or that the soviets factories did not have to face an "around the clock" bombing, or that the Germans were facing shortages in many key resources?. That simplistic analysis is worthless.

Its only worthless if you have a preconceived agenda and the information doesnt serve that agenda. The basic facts are just that. German productive capacity was potentially much greater than its opponents, but in the finish, due to systemic innefficiencies, resource shortages and manpower shortages, along with shortages of transport and a few other factors, lagged badly behind that of its oppnents. Remember your initial claim, that german production far outstripped that of the russians. You have produced squat to support that. Despite ample opportunity to correct that omission we are all waiting with baited breath for your enlightening clarification. persoanlly i thjink I will run out of breath before that ever happening.

Incidentally, in response to your rhetorical question "what does this all prove" It shows the latent inneffieiciency of the Nazi system and that Germany, despite considerable economic resources at its disposal, failed to capitalize on that advantage. this doesnt even look at the missed opportunities they squandered with the occupied territories....

 

[tyrodtom]

America had allies, did they rule them ? Britain had allies, did they rule them?

I said where they ruled, in particular the eastern territories. They were not as harsh in Denmark, Belgium, Holland and France, they just murdered you if you showed the slightest resistance, or were a Jew. But in the eastern Europe the Third Reich conquered, you were either Germanic, a slave, or dead when your turn came.

 

[Jenisch]

But in the eastern Europe the Third Reich conquered, you were either Germanic, a slave, or dead when your turn came.

Ok, I understand you now.

 

[Hoju2k]

Actually it doesnt. It shows the germans had greater GDP. My figures are what they got in terms of actual materiel produced. This very clearly shows the germans were outproduced by both Britain and the USSR. You need to re-read the material

Yes, it does. The Gross domestic product is much more comprehensive way to measure actual production that to take the numbers of very very few cherry picked items. If you can't understand this simple fact there's no reason to continue this.

Why are my claims "absurd". I was responding to your claim that the germans outproduced the russians and the Brits. I said that with about 70% of the german GDP the Rusians outproduced the germans by a clear margin.

This is a clear contradiction.

I produced data that suggests the GDP of the Russians 1938-45 was about 88% that of the germans, but in certain categories the russians outproduced the germans by as much a 3.24 times. Ther is nothing silly about that. the only thing silly is that you dont know the difference between GDP and equipment deliveries

What is really stupid is to take "certain categories" and use that to arrive to overall conclusions about the "outproducing". When there's absolutely no need to do that, when the graph clearly shows the overall production.

.

Ah yes the gernmans outproduced the russians in naval construction for the entire war, but for the period up to June 1941, it was actually the Rusians in the lead. Up to that point they had produced something like 300 submarines about 50 destroyers. they had two battleships and two battlecruisers under construction, and about a dozen cruisers. they had several hundred coastal patrol vessels. In terms of river gunboats, the germans never came close to the Soviet production levels .

I suspect of those numbers because by June 22 1941, the Soviets only had 212 submarines... and I don't think they lost that many against the Finnish. Actual war production of submarines by the SU was 51 (june 41-may 45), this can be compared to the approx. 940 German submarines produced during the same period (I calculated the numbers for 1941 as half of the total for that year).

In terms of explosives production, I would dispute that the germans outproduced the russians, but would be interested to see what figures you are basing that claim on. ive never seen a completely exhaustive list for either belligerent but the bits and pieces I do have are suggesting the reverse to your claim.

I'll get back to you on that.

German AT ammunition production was less than that of even Canada. The Russians laid more land mines around Kursk than the entire wartime production by the Germans.

BS

ive got some other information at home, but I seriously doubt your claims here, which remain unsubstantiated at this point. time for you to put up, or shut up i would suggest. Produce your evidence, or stop callinmg me out with flippant comments. Dont stir me up, you wont like it.

I have give you the evidence, you just can't or are unwilling to comprehend it. And thanks for the warning, I'm really impressed.

Remember your initial claim, that german production far outstripped that of the russians.

Did not say that.

 

[Siegfried]

Anyway Siegfried, the French Army and Air Force were under a profound modernization by the time Hitler invaded. So were the Poles and many other countries. It would be unlikely for Stalin conduct any attack in Europe had the mess Hitler turned the continent and consequentely Asia (vulnerable colonies to diverte Japan away from the USSR) didn't existed. So, the Nazis didn't "saved" nobody.

The French problem seems to have been a haphazard and dispersed small scale production of many different types of aircraft, including several models of fighters. This ensured that stable high quality production didn't quite get of the ground. Technically their engines were too weak. If the 860hp MS 460s engine had of matched the outuput of the 1100 or 1170hp DB601 the gap in performance might have been minimal.

France also had severe industrial relations problems that disrupted production, she was teetering on the edge of some kind of communism. National Socialism pretty much solved Industrial relations one way or another.

Given another 6 or 12 months the French would be ready, but then where would the Germans have advanced to.

The icebreaker strategy Suvorov advances involved a Soviet strategy of encouraging war between European countries in oder to exhaust them after which the Soviets would advance. Soviet modernisation plans couldn't quite make it by 1941 as Suvov claims but they certainly could by 1942. Without access to Soviet raw materials the Whermacht could never have rearmed. The Yak 1, MiG 3, LaGG 3 were all in mass production before Barbarossa and would certainly be debugged within 6 months.

It's clear that Stalin was quite capable of taking not only the Baltic states Finland but Rommania, Bulgaria and likely Yugoslavia with or without Hitler. He did as much. and from there the strategic stituation dramatically shifts and improves Soviet options. Yes, Stalin played Ball with Hitler, he tried to things as easily as possible. That doesn't mean he didn't have means without Hitler.