janh
Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wdolson
I read that Churchill said upon hearing of Pearl Harbor, "well, it appears we have won after all".
Got to love Churchill's quotes. He's one of my favorites -- a very sharp mind, and sarcastic as well. They are definitely a joy to read, and tough on your face muscles.
quote:
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Though I'm not sure the Germans could have won at Kursk no matter what they threw into the cauldron. The Soviets had the time and resources to build probably one the best examples of defense in depth in history.
There is debate in the many book and works on this topic, both by historians as well as military experts. Yet there seems one consensus: Even if the germans would successfully have pinched of the Kursk balcony and made some 200-400k captives/casualties in that progress, it would only have delayed things but not changed the inevitable course. It probably would have been a mere tactical, local victory. The northern Red Army flank was poised to strike anyway, and likely to run into a vacuum of German reserves if they had still been bound by digesting the pocket. Not to mention the toll of continued attacks on the Germans. A Phyrric victory.
quote:
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Fanatic idealism was...
always proven to be foolish (besides baseless) by history. But fortunately helped in this case to unite the Allies and focus on Germany first. Who knows what the hell my have happened if Japan hadn't done Pearl, and Europe would have been no war of ideologies, but "just" land, oil and economy. I believe US would still have intervened, but likely later and things might have lead to a-bombs in Europe...
quote:
ORIGINAL: wdolson
quote:
His interference in the ME-262 program.
quote:
His refusal to allow the development of an automatic assault rifle ...
Not sure this one was uber critical, though a fleet of long range maritime bombers would have made life difficult for the British. Strategic bombers would not have done them much good. The two biggest industrial areas for the Allies were deep in Allied territory (the US and the USSR centers built in late 1941). It would have taken a strategic bomber on the order of a B-36 to reach the US and that would have just stretched Germany's resources even further.
I agree with Bill, neither more 262s, modern tanks, more ARs, any "America Bomber", more of the "guided bombs", the finally developed, guided AA missiles, or maybe the class XXI "first true" subs would have made a difference. None could have come early enough to impact the war up until late 41/mid-42, when things were still less clearly pointing to Allied victory. Germany hardly had the potential to mass-produce them, and as Bill said, was also extremely reluctant and slow to transit to a fully focused war economy. Even if they had decided on a large scale program of a real America bomber, which sounds to me a like a counterpiece of Manhattan, it would have strained the German economy to the limits, or perhaps beyond. Aside that for some of these things requirements existed, like trained pilots, and suitable airfields, that Germany could hardly fulfill in numbers, or that would have made these new toys perhaps easily "targetable" and neuter them (like huge bombers).
Just having new toys doesn't mean the Allies would have sat tight and received them with cheers. Those arguments often stop a thought too early. Plus, I think it is probably right to say that at least the US still fought the war with more than one hand on its back. They still had a huge potential to react to any German or Japanese technological "wonder", and as history taught, they were quick and thorough in that.
quote:
Not releasing armor against Normandy
Absolute faith in the enigma machine (he had help from his Generals on this one)
Not invading Turkey to get at the Crimean oil and Southern Soviet flank
Stripping the Eastern front for the "Battle of the Bulge"
It is a long list and it's a far longer list than the things he did right, with regard to military operations.
Well, the issue about holding back at Dunkirk or the matter of Normandy are big and exciting questions, the what-ifs of history. Just like knowing what had happened had Lee bagged McClellan in the Seven Days. Or much else. But such questions are never easily answered, nor unquestionably. And it is consequently hard to attribute blame uniquely.
Often these were gambles, and like Dunkirk had not only a military relevance. For example imagine if Wehrmacht, exhausted and in some disorder after the race to the French coast, as well as also a bit beaten up in the engagements on the Belgian line, had vigorously assaulted French and British troops and had been repulsed with substantial losses, as was certainly a possibility: the mythos would have suffered, which may or may not have had consequences for the will to fight of future opponents. And maybe on a world political scale as well. No matter how they ended, also here it is pretty sure there would have been an appropriate reaction by the opponents, even if Axis had made one of those - in retrospect - errors.
Yet it sure is fun to speculate about and read other's analysis and theories.
quote:
ORIGINAL: wdolson
The critical resource Germany lacked was oil.
There were a few other resources Germany lacked, like they didn't have access to large tungsten deposits, which affected the quality of AP shells, but oil was the critical large volume commodity they needed.
I think a few other metals were scarce as well, and such lack was felt for the later high-tech weaponry. I recall later armor steels ("Wotan" types or whatever) had to be produced accepting poorer quality, being more brittle than the original design. Another resource that apparently was enormously important for Wehrmacht (and remarked often in the Wehrmachtsberichte of 40, 41 and later), was -- surprisingly today -- rubber. Maybe this one is sometimes underestimated in importance, but guessing from what lengths the Germans went to in order to import it from Asia via Russia or later smuggle it by ship, it was very precious for production.
< Message edited by janh -- 9/26/2012 3:58:30 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Ships that Never Sailed - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread