(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Yogi Yohan -> (4/14/2002 3:41:48 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles_22
[B]Yogi Yohan: Yeah, but of course the Soviet officer had no idea of the difficulties involved in an basically defensive force becoming offensive. More and more, when I see people come up with hypothetical stuff, it you really weigh it in real world terms, you start seeing how something which sounds reasonable is actually pretty far-fetched.

Today was something of a good example. I heard on a sports broadcast that the Yankees lost today's game because they became 'a little too daring' because a runner got thrown out trying to steal with two outs, with their being down only one run. Really? So, suppose they didn't try to steal, would they still lose? It seems, that people, when they see a situation where somebody "loses", automatically assumes what they did was the wrong thing to do. In other words, they claim with hindsight that what happened lost it, but that's coming at it from the angle that something else would have worked, and, of course, people will usually also follow that by saying "this would have worked". But really, isn't it entirely possible, in some cases even likely, that the some or all alternatives would have failed too? [/B][/QUOTE]

This is certainly true. About a year ago, I was in a debate at the WiR forum regarding the battle of Kiev in 1941. I tried to defend the position that although it didn't win the war for Germany, the alternative cost for not destroying Buddeny's half-million men and capturing the Donbass industrial region might well have caused a German defeat anyway - even if Moscow was captured instead. We'll never know one way or the other, but at the very least, as you say, there's no guarantee that the alternate course of action would have led to success.



Charles2222 -> (4/14/2002 5:28:08 PM)

Keke:
quote:

All this was a bit confusing for Finns, because all the training otherwise was based on German doctrines. Guderian, in his memoirs, explained this curiosity by the fact that German landowners were so jealous about their forests, that German Army had absolutely no possibilities to train themselves in woodlands.


As far as the Soviet officer's comments go, here's some exceptions. Firstly, if the Finns were attacking the USSR with 3,000,000 they wouldn't be attacking a land with nothing but forests, which indeed had very many wide-open spaces. Secondly, the Germans did do very well in two instances of what you might call forest warfare; the Ardennes battles are those. It wasn't like they did very well at thos battles at overwhelming an even or superior force, but that they both times achieved success beyond the scale of what anybody would've imagined.



Charles2222 -> (4/14/2002 5:45:04 PM)

Mogami: In your response to someone else you said among other things:
quote:

I don't find their period of success that remarkable, much more remarkable is the speed that they lost all their gains once they were unable to war on nations isolated and unready.


There's nothing that remarkable about the speed at which they lost them, but the speed their offensives often had, was in fact. Compare the invasion of France in '40 from the GE perspective and the Allied perspective in '44. Compare the taking of so much USSR land in 6 months, and then how it took over 3 years to lose it. Also if warring on isolated and unready nations is a disqualifier (and certainly that wasn't the case against France or the USSR) then reverse that thinking. When Germany started losing turf, particularly to the Soviets, and even more so at D-Day, weren't the Germans pretty isolated and unprepared? Still, they took France in no time, against foes larger than themselves (and if 8 months wasn't enough to prepare the French and British, then what was?), and they held that same area against forces maybe 2X their size (not including the very large disadvantage to sea and air) for around 6 months.

(a later add-on) You also said:
quote:

I never claimed they were inferiour because we won, I said it because I don't see where they achived anything that their enemies later achived against them.
Fancy wording, but that's saying the same thing as that the Germans were mediocre or awful because they "lost". If you lose the war, you lose everything you gained, and then some. In the case of France, it was the very mediocrity of the Allied forces on that front that prohibited their invading France sooner than they did, and also when compared to the German victory in the same region, it took them so long to take it once invading.



JJKettunen -> (4/14/2002 5:56:44 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles_22
[B]Keke:

As far as the Soviet officer's comments go, here's some exceptions. Firstly, if the Finns were attacking the USSR with 3,000,000 they wouldn't be attacking a land with nothing but forests, which indeed had very many wide-open spaces.[/B][/QUOTE]

With that I very much agree. Finns were specialists in forest warfare, Germans in mobile armoured warfare.

[QUOTE]Secondly, the Germans did do very well in two instances of what you might call forest warfare; the Ardennes battles are those. It wasn't like they did very well at thos battles at overwhelming an even or superior force, but that they both times achieved success beyond the scale of what anybody would've imagined.[/QUOTE]

Well, Germans learned that from the best. For example: "From Finnish troops, the Germans learned a succesful method of using mortars in woods" - Handbook On German Military Forces (Marī45), U.S. War Department



GUTB -> (4/14/2002 7:19:55 PM)

Modern and apolitical historians all pretty much agree that Germany's failure is due to one factor: They couldn't replace their losses.

Now, don't get me wrong. The Germans were loaded with mistakes and inneficiencies. But the one, descisive failure was the fact that Germany was a middle power trying to take on a superpower -- and then later on, TWO superpowers. WW2 had nothing to do with the fight against imperialism as it is often credited as being; it was all about some middle powers trying to defeat the superpowers.

And one last thing: Lend-Lease was the not the decisive factor in the Soviet victory, as the bulk of it arrived after Stanlingrad and Kursk, and only ever amounted to a small percentage of Soviet manufacture (except for locamtives and trucks). What let the Soviets beat the Germans in the end comes down to the fact that the Soviets replaced their losses and got better. The Germans failed to replace their losses, and Soviet strategy and tactics became superior to theirs.



JJKettunen -> (4/14/2002 7:22:07 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GUTB
[B]Modern and apolitical historians all pretty much agree that Germany's failure is due to one factor: They couldn't replace their losses.

Now, don't get me wrong. The Germans were loaded with mistakes and inneficiencies. But the one, descisive failure was the fact that Germany was a middle power trying to take on a superpower -- and then later on, TWO superpowers. WW2 had nothing to do with the fight against imperialism as it is often credited as being; it was all about some middle powers trying to defeat the superpowers.

And one last thing: Lend-Lease was the not the decisive factor in the Soviet victory, as the bulk of it arrived after Stanlingrad and Kursk, and only ever amounted to a small percentage of Soviet manufacture (except for locamtives and trucks). What let the Soviets beat the Germans in the end comes down to the fact that the Soviets replaced their losses and got better. The Germans failed to replace their losses, and Soviet strategy and tactics became superior to theirs. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thatīs all very true, exept Soviet tactics were based on ruthless usage of manpower without any concerns of favourable kill ratios.



mogami -> Favorite Armies (4/15/2002 10:13:08 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles_22
[B]Mogami: In your response to someone else you said among other things:

There's nothing that remarkable about the speed at which they lost them, but the speed their offensives often had, was in fact. Compare the invasion of France in '40 from the GE perspective and the Allied perspective in '44. Compare the taking of so much USSR land in 6 months, and then how it took over 3 years to lose it. Also if warring on isolated and unready nations is a disqualifier (and certainly that wasn't the case against France or the USSR) then reverse that thinking. When Germany started losing turf, particularly to the Soviets, and even more so at D-Day, weren't the Germans pretty isolated and unprepared? Still, they took France in no time, against foes larger than themselves (and if 8 months wasn't enough to prepare the French and British, then what was?), and they held that same area against forces maybe 2X their size (not including the very large disadvantage to sea and air) for around 6 months.

I hardly know where to begin. I get the impression (I hope incorrectly) that you argue for the sake of arguing. To compare Normandy to France 1940 and look at it honestly you would not include the period from landing and buildup. But from the start of the breakout (Cobra) You say they held the area for 6 months. The Allies landed in June the German Army in France collapsed (Much like the French army had-only the German's had the room to retreat.) in Sept (4 Months) The Germans had the winter of 1939-40 to move troops and supplies to the West. I would think it apparent the Western Allies required sometime to do the same before attempting a breakthrough. From June to July is not overly long period. (which means the Western Allies caused the collapse of an enemy who had over 3 years to prepare) in 2 months (about the same amount of time the Germans needed to defeat France) Then again in Russia you start in June 41 saying the Soviets took longer to recapture what they lost. How do you count the same periods twice? The first Soviet Offensive was in the winter of 41-42 it was aimed at pushing the front back from Moscow this it did. The first Soviet Offensive with an objective of destroying an Axis army and leading to the recapture of Russian territory Was in Dec 42. (this group of Operations destroyed several axis armies (6th German 8th Italian among others)
Berlin fell aprox 29 months later (close enough to 3 years for me not to quibble) but I will point out the Soviet Army that defeated the Axis on the Eastern Front required 29 months to recapture what the Germans needed 19 months to capture. You would lead me to believe that 10 months is some amazing length of time. The claim is the better German soldier lost to the inferior Russian in only 30% more time? And the German army the Soviets pushed back was the better equipped. And had the benifit of their 19 months combat experiance.
(I know I know it was shear numbers and that stupid Hitler)
8 months seems like a long time to dig in (France 1940) however it is not enough time to prepare an unprepared army.
Wars are won or lost before the first battle is fought. The Germans were excellent at fighting Campaigns. They first isolated the target politicaly (Poland-via Soviet-Axis non-aggression pact) And then because they were already mobilized attacked. I do not dispute the effectiness of their tactics.
Germany lost the war because they did not know how (or had not prepared) to fight a war. All their plans counted on the enemy being defeated within 6 weeks to 6 months. And then they selected a new target and prepared before attacking again. (Poland/Norway/France & LowCountries/Yugoslavia/Greece/Russia 41
Everyone is entitled to have their favorite choice of 'best army'
best infantry' etc. I was mainly trying (unsuccessfully it appears)
to point out that there is very little difference between soldiers of the major combatants of WW2. They were all equally as brave.
They all contained soldiers who knew what they were doing.
Objective reasoning is dangerous since everything is not equal
The Russian expert infantryman did not first enter combat as a well trained soldier. He had to relie on actual battle field experiance. The German of 39-41 had a good deal of training
and by this measure it could be argued he was the best around.
But he did not keep this distinction. My point is that in order for him to be defeated a level of skill not generally acknowledged would have to be aquired by those who did defeat him. (bad soldiers in any amount still lose battles.-they simply don't (knowhow)fight. In combat you would be amazed at the true number of soldiers who fight (they may fire their weapon and not run but they don't fight) One of the draw backs to 'elite' units made up of combat troops from other units is the weakness they leave in the unit they are recruited from. Italian units that after Sept 43 changed sides and were re-equipped and supplied by the US demonstrated a dramatic improvment in their combat preformance. (like wise all the defeated countries that raised formations using US equippment)
I do not mean to subtract from the German soldiers reputation. Indeed an honest understanding of my points could only enhance it. To state that His opponents ultimatly proved to be at least his equal would imply he was not defeated by inferiour troops. (which is the paradox all those who think he was head and shoulders above everyone else impose on their logic) Put another way, I am not lowering him at all he was a great soldier his opponents were also great soldiers.


(a later add-on) You also said:Fancy wording, but that's saying the same thing as that the Germans were mediocre or awful because they "lost". If you lose the war, you lose everything you gained, and then some. In the case of France, it was the very mediocrity of the Allied forces on that front that prohibited their invading France sooner than they did, and also when compared to the German victory in the same region, it took them so long to take it once invading. [/B][/QUOTE]

No it is nothing of the kind. It is simply what it says. If the German is measured by his accomplishments then his adversarys should be as well. And all I said was they did the same thing. The French troop was not mediocre, if you keep the leadership but place the two armies in opposite roles. The French army would have defeated a German Army lead by Gamelin. As pointed out above the Western Allies recaptured the ground in Approx the same time. The big differance was Gamelin was not Supreme Commader.



Mikimoto -> I always felt... (4/15/2002 2:06:19 PM)

Hi.

I always felt that the Allies won a War of Attrition that Germans could never win. Quantity has a Quality on his own...



JJKettunen -> Re: Favorite Armies (4/15/2002 6:10:20 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]The French army would have defeated a German Army lead by Gamelin. As pointed out above the Western Allies recaptured the ground in Approx the same time. The big differance was Gamelin was not Supreme Commader. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gamelin was commander in Chief of the French and British Armies on the western front, and when the Germans broke through in May 1940, he was removed from command...



Penetrator -> Re: Favorite Armies (4/15/2002 6:45:12 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]
The French army would have defeated a German Army lead by Gamelin. [/B][/QUOTE]

So the differences between the two armies boil down to a single person? I suppose air superiority had nothing to do with it? I beg to differ...



mogami -> France 1940 (4/15/2002 7:01:05 PM)

Ok differ away, France 1940 Gamelin in command of German Army
In stead of 10 Panzer divisions you have 30-40 Pz Bns distributed to the infantry. You do not have the ground support aircraft attached to your mobile corps. (in fact your mobile corps are a mix of Pz-I and horses. You have no radios at your HQ nor teletype instead you have motorcycle couriers. Gamelin had plenty of time to modernize the French Army and he held the posts needed to do it. Money was not his problem, yes manpower was a concideration but the French Army was not out numbered in 1940. 1930 was appointed as deputy commander of the General Staff under Maxime Weygand. The following year he was made Army Inspector General.
Gamelin replaced Weygand as commander of the General Staff when he retired in 1935. Single Persons are sometimes the differance in wars. The Germans did not have that great of air superority In fact if you would go look at the numbers you might be suprised to discover the French Air force was larger when France surrendered then it was before the campaign started. They simply did not use it. Single Men who have been the deciding factor in battles/wars abound throughout history.

Once it was to late Gamelin was replaced and the remains of the army fought markedly better. It was an army molded in his image.
The soldiers everyone makes fun of would have preformed like their German counter parts had they been lead like them.



mogami -> Re: Re: Favorite Armies (4/15/2002 7:06:56 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Keke
[B]

Gamelin was commander in Chief of the French and British Armies on the western front, and when the Germans broke through in May 1940, he was removed from command... [/B][/QUOTE]

And....your point? I know who he was. I think he might have been the all time worst commander of an army in history.



john g -> Re: Re: Favorite Armies (4/15/2002 7:35:44 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Penetrator
[B]

So the differences between the two armies boil down to a single person? I suppose air superiority had nothing to do with it? I beg to differ... [/B][/QUOTE]

If you read Stolfi's "Hitler's Panzers East" his contention is that the battle in France was won due to Guderian ignoring the orders to halt at the Meuse on 15 and 17 May. His action to continue driving forward kept the allies off balance and gave the victory to the Germans in 40. If the Germans had paused at the Meuse, the allies could have moved up forces to contain them and created another WWI style stalemate.

Stolfi asserts that there was no commander in Barbarossa that exibited the same drive to ignore orders to stop the push on Moscow.

Personally I don't think that taking Moscow would have caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that is how some authors like Stolfi see it.
thanks, John.



JJKettunen -> Re: Re: Re: Favorite Armies (4/15/2002 8:26:39 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]

And....your point? I know who he was. I think he might have been the all time worst commander of an army in history. [/B][/QUOTE]

I drank some coffee, and read your message again. Sorry about misapprehension. I didnīt get your point in the first place.



Charles2222 -> (4/15/2002 8:43:29 PM)

Keke: I think you made the same mistake I did. I thought he at first said the the French only lost because Gamelin was't commanding the entire army as though he were good and the other commander was awful, but he rather made the comparison that he was so awful that the Germans wouldn't have won if they had him.

I think we were par for the course, though, because earlier he was claiming Germany only had any success in 39-42 because they were fighting weak unprepared nations, which of course France and the USSR were the greatest peacetime armies in the world, including Germany. Then he later says the Germans were good. It seems to me that Germany is put under the micorscope that if they had failures in the latter years, then they were no good in the first place. Well, I don't have a problem figuring the truth of the matter. They were good to excellent in 39-42, and good to mediocre in 43-45.



mogami -> Still don't get it (4/15/2002 10:02:38 PM)

"IMHO the Germans were pound for pound the best fighting force of WWII. I'm talking about the major combatants who could field large scale military forces and project them well outside their own borders. Many countries have fine units that are experts at fighting in their own element. The Germans proved they could fight in the steppes, the desert, the mountains, central Europe, etc. The Germans certainly didn't have the best equipment or industrial base. How then did they achieve such remarkable success? Simple. Training and leadership. No doubt about it"


"If we restrict it to just Panzer/mobile formations I would be more inclined to agree. " Right in the first paragraph of my reply


OK Charles now I am thinking you don't read posts. Or if you do you only skim them looking for something to disagree with.
Read my very first post on this subject again.
I reponded to "pound for pound the German was the best soldier of WW2 no doubt about it' I have doubts about such a blanket statment. I quite clearly state in my opening paragraph that if this statement was confined to the German Panzer troop
(including of course the Waffen SS Panzer troops" I would be more inclined to agree. In fact i like as not would not even have posted a response. However taken as a blanket statement concerning the bulk of the German army I did not see where they were signifacly better then the infantry or elite fighting units of many other countries.
Ok if you dispute this then that is fine. But don't change what I said or try to give it some hidden meaning. There were plenty of troops in the armies of other countries in WW2 equal to or better then the majority of German leg infantry divisions.
Then to illistrate I pointed out some of the success of other countries that equal what Germans accomplished. My list is not all inclusive. I would maintain that the average US Marine division in WW2 was the equal if not better then the average German infantry division. Do you have some data I missed concerning German success being largely against immobile formations? I do not deny they also defeated enemy armour however if you check I think you will find it was the afore acknowledged Panzer troops doing the winning. German infantry suffered the same as Germany's enemys we facing Armour with out their armoured formations present. Pointing out other countries could also do it does not subtract from the Germans skill. Why you insist that it has to be good versus bad rather then Good versus good I do not understand. I never said it. My quote

"Their enemies displayed a talent for adapting to combat their style and use it against them with equal skill. Then the real weakness of the German military was revealed. Not enough mobility. The Panzer division numbers were doubled after France but at the cost of reducing their strength by half. "

"The real weakness of the German army was revealed not enough mobility" Nothing about them not being good troops. I find it impossible to believe I got such an argument over this statement however I stand by it. Every army has it's strong points and weakness. Just because Germany lost the war has nothing to do with it I never mention this or infer it. I never even stated what units I felt were the equals only that other countries had done the same things the Germans had. If I wanted to pick a fight the first point I would have made was they were lousy at fighting in cities. Had no experiance at all conducting opposed landings on hostile islands, or Jungle fighting, And Were prone to panic during night battles on the Eastern Front, and suffered from a lack of ability at fighting irregular forces. Instead of dwelling on negitives I stressed some of their opponents abilties to fight the exact kind of fight. Every one pretty much agrees that US Armoured forces suffered from a qualitve defiecency vis US tanks compared to German tanks. and yet in inferour machines they successfully advanced against the Germans. They had to have been good troops. What if every US Armoured division had been equiped with Panthers? This in no way implies that the Germans were only good because they had Panthers it merly points out their enemies also displayed equal skill.
The Gamelin comparision was an attempt to point out that the quality of a nations soldiers does not always guarentee success or doom you to failure. There is so much more to war. All things considered I still believe even many of the troops in countries Germany defeated were every bit as good. Other factors beyond their control led to defeat. I include Finland in this list. (I would gowith a Finnish unit into combat any day any where. I also would not be afraid or ashamed to fight along side Poles or Italians. ) To be blunt concerning the pound for pound no doubt about it statemnet I still have my doubts. I don't think the differance is enough to support that statement that is all I ever said.



Charles2222 -> (4/15/2002 11:11:14 PM)

Mogami: I call you to task for some of the comments you made, one of those I'll quote again:
quote:

I don't find their period of success that remarkable, much more remarkable is the speed that they lost all their gains once they were unable to war on nations isolated and unready.


I wasn't into infantry debate with you, I was pointing out these 'general' commants on the whole of their success. I just can't see how taking the territory west of Germany in 6 months compares to taking it in 5 weeks. Nor that territory taken in 6 months compares to 3 years or so on the Eastern Front. Call 3 years on the East Front, and 6 months on the West Front fast advances, and the counter German shorter periods not fast if you want, but you have some pretty wild ideas then. You also seem to think that taking France and succeeding to such a degree against the USSR were "isolated and unready" nations, but they were the most ready nations on the planet aside from Germany. What were they supposed to do wait till those nations got twice the force they had, both already larger than Germany's? Would that make those nations 'ready'? You see my point? What if Germany attacked the US in '40 instead? You know what? France was 100 times more prepared for war than the US, though in the long haul the US would be better off. You can't disqualify German success by saying they basically fought wimps, because they fought and had much success against the two largest armys in the world, bar none. Anywhere in the world they could've attacked those periods, they would have attacked wimpier opponents (with the US being a very long haul exception).

As far as losing their gains goes, losing the territory west of Germany in six months was nothing speedy, but fairly good advance perhaps (especially if one dares to compare it to the previously unheard of rapid advance of the Germans there). The advance on the East Front, 3-4 years, was fairly abysmally slow, when the whole period is considered (although, being fair the USSR wasn't just trying to take the turf they lost in '41, but also take some Axis satellites).

If it really matters Mogami, I try, and I think I succeed, in not arguing for the sake of arguing, there's a whole forum for that nonsense, at which I almost never peep in. I strive to disseminate common misconceptions, and apply some analysis to them, but these comments I've pointed out of yours, are a first for me. If you hadn't guessed it already, I'm not a big rah-rah boy, as I often think it pointless to agree with someone on something that seems commonly understood. Call my search for truth being argumentative if you wish (I won't argue about it :D ).

Good day sir.



mogami -> apples and oranges (4/16/2002 12:05:07 AM)

I give up. You completly miss the point. OF COURSE THE GERMANS WERE BETTER IN 1939-41 THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES LOOKING TO GO TO WAR. Using this as proof that they have some inherent better ability is silly. You can only compare the other countries after they have had the time to change their thinking. Then you will notice they fought just as well. I still am not saying the Germans were not good soldiers. If I haul off and punch a child in the nose and knock him out I might have a really good punch but I can't compare fighting ability intill he grows up and I still kick his butt.

"You can't disqualify German success by saying they basically fought wimps, because they fought and had much success against the two largest armys in the world, bar none"


I'm not disqualifying it I am qualifying it. I said it before I'll say it again size did not defeat Germany. Lack of mobility defeated Germany. When Germany had it's period of success in Russia they were the more mobile army. They lost when the Russian's achieved greater mobility. Since it is not the infantry that matters.
We can debate this all you want, but the nations who fought WW2 without a mobile force are the ones that lost. The exceptions being campaigns fought in localities where mobile forces could not be employed due to terrain. (Finland) (Balkan partisan operations) No comparison can be drawn from examining battles/campaigns where a mobile force defeated an infantry/less mobile force. This is why I say many off the early German victories can led to the wrong conclusion. (that they were innately better) Parity existed on the Russian front in 1943 So only the period of parity can be used to compare. (which is what we are doing in essence, comparing performance) Not in 41-42 (if you look at where the Russian mobile forces were used prior to that you see they had success. The very first German versus Russian mobile only battle took place on June 26, 1941. It resulted in the German force retreating. (Stop right here and go look for your self) Army Group South's Panzer Group. 26 June 1941 The Russian force did not have numbers, it did not have the time in advance to plan the action, it did not have air support. It was a result of this engagement and the fear of a possible reoccurrence that led to the operations around Kiev at the expense of driving on Moscow.
5 days after the beginning of the period you want to quote as proof.

"The advance on the East Front, 3-4 years, was fairly abysmally slow, when the whole period is considered "

Well you can't really consider the whole period now can you?
The Germans started when they were ready and more mobile.
So you have to measure from when the Russians gained the mobility to compare. And then there is not that much time differance. and again the West Front was not 6 months it was 4 total 2 once the offensive began. The same as the Germans.
One of my favorite examples German fans will use is Kharkov in Mar 43 but then they ignore the fact the same army fighting on the same ground 2 months later was defeated. I have even seen some who ignore Uranus and Little Saturn and point out that Mars failed. (late 42) You want to cite all the success as a yardstick but claim the failures are not good examples because of numbers. (check the attacker/defender ratio for Kursk 43)
Do you believe that if the German Army in 1941 attacked a Russian Army of 1943 skill (but with the same 41 equpment and numbers) the Germans would have reproduced those results?



mogami -> Leadership (4/16/2002 1:09:16 AM)

Since the forum police have called me to task i will try to clarify it for those looking to read something sinister into it

"I don't find their period of success that remarkable, much more remarkable is the speed that they lost all their gains once they were unable to war on nations isolated and unready."

Are you saying these countries were ready for war? (had they been I doubt Hitler would have attacked them)
You ignore the time needed to plan things. Hitler and his generals knew there would be a war in Europe long before it began. It began when they decided. The other nations right up through 38 had thought they had avoided war. The Western Nations most notably France sought to avoid war at any cost. They refrained from preparing so not to provoke the Germans.
Given they first had to fight just to survive, the speed that Germany dispite all the time to prepre lost is remarkable. WW2 really begins on Dec7 1941. I use this date because that is when the series of German isolated campaigns became a General War.
You could even say it was the day Germany lost the war. Why Hitler declared war on the US is a mystery to me.
42 the year it took the allies to build their army while fighting holding actions ( The Soviets had to build a new army to replace the one lost in 41 while still fighting the defensive battle)
43 the year they began to mount offensive operations (mid year after mid 43 the allies are always on the offensive) so really 43 is when the Allies get to where the Germans began-ready to conduct offensive operations. Only Germany has not spent the last 10 years trying to avoid war. She is armed and mobilized. She has allies (so she is not isolated like Poland or Norway or Yugoslavia or Denmark
44 the year the German army was forced (with a few exceptional failures) to the defensive
45 the conquest of Germany

really pretty fast for countries that intill 1939 had no plan/means to defeat a nation the size of Germany


I should add, I think the big difference that time brought, was not an increase in the skill of opposing soldiers. Certainly that also happened. I think the major cause was that the Soviet/Allied leaders learned how to fight. I will not dispute the fact that in 1939 Germany had the finest Officer Corps/General Staff in Europe. The Soviets had possessed a very fine one till 1937.
Even German officers who fought in both WWI and WW2 offered the opinion the army (soldiers) was better trained and disiplined in the first war then the second.
read Manstien 'Lost Victories' Rommel repeatly stated this, Rundstedt when trying to explain why on differant occasions a German Army Group would Collapse. I would say German Units fought 20%-50% above what their numbers would suggest due to this advantage. The Hitler meddled argument has a degree of merit in pointing to why they lost. Countered somewhat by it was he that saw to its being used in the first place. I would say that the real argument would be which country had the most desperate army. There you only have 4 real candidates Germany/Soviets/Japan/Finland



Charles2222 -> (4/16/2002 2:36:13 AM)

Mogami:
quote:

And then there is not that much time differance. and again the West Front was not 6 months it was 4 total 2 once the offensive began. The same as the Germans.


The Germans didn't take 4 months to take France, Belgium, etc. if that's what you're saying. See here: May 12- June 22nd http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/blitz/index.htm (a month and 10 days, 5 or 6 weeks, however you want to round it off).

Also, I consider German losses in the territories they gained to be approximately 1/1/45. The 6/6/44 invasion from that is basically 6 months. What is this 2 month exception you talk about? You start an attack that is where it starts, not after you've taken so much territory and then want supplies to catch up and then you start the clock again. The Germans did their stopping in France too, but that hardly makes that not count into how long it took them. The stopping is every bit as neccessary, and part of the plans as the advancing. In any case, the Allied forces didn't sit back for 2 months to resupply. I suppose what the following page terms as "Development of the Normandy Bridgehead" is what you would call resupply, but that ended on 6/18, and still they were attacking outwards during that period (Cotentin Penisula on the 10th, etc.). If they were resupplying 2 months, then explain all these MAJOR attacks on these pages that were commenced before 8/6: http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/normandy/index.htm http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/westfront/index.htm



mogami -> I'm going to bed (4/16/2002 3:28:46 AM)

You make my head hurt. Now we are going to say 6 weeks is to big a difference when compared to 2 months?

You do not read my posts it is clear. Just find something you can raise some kind of objection to,


"I strive to disseminate common misconceptions, and apply some analysis to them, " more on this at bottom


I wish I could see your analysis. OK one last time as simple as I can make it.
Prior to May 10 1941 the Germans moved their forces to the West
are you still with me? Then they placed the required material where it was needed to support their coming offensive..right?
Then when the time came they opened the attack. I see that your start date is 12 May 1940 right? the date the Germans had everything they needed to make their attack. and began.

But with the Western Allies you start the clock on 5 June 1944
because to you thats the day the offensive began (hey they made an attack...right) Well to me those 5 divsions do not represent the Offensive to recapture France. They represent the offensive to secure a base from which to launch the offensive to recapture France. At this point the Allies do not even hace a plan for the recapture of France since there was no way to predict what conditions would exist for that attack . First they need to secure the landing area, then they need to capture and repair a port to move the men and material they would need to make the future offensive. "Attacking outward in the Cotentin Pen" illistrates you do not know how to read a map. Which is sad because your links have the maps and explain what was going on. Cherburg (the PORT!!!!)(on the Cotentin Pen) was not captured till June 29th. So the build up could not begin intill it was repaired. The offensive begins on July 24th 1944 since this is the offensive meant to destroy the enemy and recapture occupied territory (the one on par with the German 1940 offensive) that is where I start my clock. You can start your clock where ever you want. And I promise in the future to not post anything concerning your posts so please stay out of mine I can't stand the over 'analysis

Although you have done a good job of disseinateing common misconceptions (I could not have picked a better word myself) I am pretty sure you meant a different word (which I havn't a clue)
I can go to almost any WW2 web site and find the same such statements. It is pointless for me to try to explain my position
You believe in your myths and I will stick to mine.


Main Entry: dis·sem·i·nate
Pronunciation: di-'se-m&-"nAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
Etymology: Latin disseminatus, past participle of disseminare, from dis- + seminare to sow, from semin-, semen seed —more at SEMEN
Date: 1603
1 : to spread abroad as though sowing seed
2 : to disperse throughout
- dis·sem·i·na·tion /-"se-m&-'nA-sh&n/ noun
- dis·sem·i·na·tor /-'se-m&-"nA-t&r/ noun



JJKettunen -> Some comments (4/16/2002 3:59:51 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
GERMANS WERE BETTER IN 1939-41 THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES LOOKING TO GO TO WAR. Using this as proof that they have some inherent better ability is silly. You can only compare the other countries after they have had the time to change their thinking. Then you will notice they fought just as well. I still am not saying the Germans were not good soldiers. If I haul off and punch a child in the nose and knock him out I might have a really good punch but I can't compare fighting ability intill he grows up and I still kick his butt.[/QUOTE]

Very nicely put, BUT you donīt seem to realize that the war between the western allied (France, Great Britain) and Germany started in September 1939, not in May 1940. France and Great Britain had plenty of time to deal with Germany before they were hit too hard. Those two countries with their two armies were certainly not the children easily punched. Soviet Union was, as a society, the most prepared for a total war, although her final rehearsal was a real bummer (Winter War) and Stalin didnīt expect Hitler to strike first.


[QUOTE]No comparison can be drawn from examining battles/campaigns where a mobile force defeated an infantry/less mobile force. This is why I say many off the early German victories can led to the wrong conclusion. (that they were innately better) Parity existed on the Russian front in 1943 So only the period of parity can be used to compare. (which is what we are doing in essence, comparing performance)[/QUOTE]

So letīs compare losses in a battle, were both sides had mobile troops, but the defender had the numerical advantage:

----Zetterling and Frankson. Kursk 1943, p 102, 107-109-------------

First the extent of the battle of Prokhorovka must be defined. Our definition is that the clash started on 12 July and ended on 16 July. It involved II SS-Panzer Corps and III Panzer Corps on the German side, while the Red Army had three armies involved in the fighting (69th Army, 5th Guards Tank Army and 5th Guards Army).
...
If the strength for 12 July is used, it can be concluded that the [III Panzer Corps] probably had no more than 135 tanks and assault guns available for the Prokhorovka battle. ...[O]n the evening before 12 July the II SS-Panzer Corps had 294 tanks and assault guns operational of which 15 were Tigers (no Panthers or Ferdinands, not even in workshops).
...
It seems that against the German III Panzer Corps, at least 150 Soviet tanks were newly committed on 12 July, while at least 450 tanks were hurled against II SS-Panzer Corps. Also a further 100 joined in against the II SS-Panzer Corps on 13 July, on the northern side of the Psel. As we have written earlier the 2nd Tank Corps and 2nd Guards Tank Corps had 187 tanks together and, if we assume that at least 120 belonged to 2nd Guards Tank Corps (80 versus II SS and 40 versus III Panzer), these figures will be obtained.
...
Depending on how one prefers to define the battle at Prokhorovka, it involved from 294 German (II SS-Panzer Corps) and 616 Soviet AFV (those engaging II SS-Panzer Corps) up to a maximum of 429 German and 870 Soviet AFV.
...
Tank losses have often been described as equally severe for both sides but this does not match the reality. The German losses in destroyed tanks were very small compared to the losses suffered by the Red Army. The II SS-Panzer Corps lost 36 tanks and assault guns between 5 and 23 July of which at least 19 were destroyed before Prokhorovka. Accordingly, the II SS-Panzer Corps cannot have lost more than 17 during Prokhorovka.
The III Panzer Corps, which had less armour than II SS-Panzer Corps, seems to have had higher losses. During the period from 11 to 20 July, it lost 37 tanks and assault guns, but not all units of the corps took part in the Prokhorovka battle.
Rotmistrov's 5th Guards Tank Army reported that it had lost 222 T-34, 89 T-70, 12 Churchill and 11 assault guns up to 16 July. These were total write-offs. This gives a total of 334 destroyed Soviet tanks and assault guns, which can be compared to, at most, 54 German tanks and assault guns destroyed. This means the Soviet tank losses were at least six times higher. In fact, since more German units are included in this calculation than actually took part in the Prokhorovka battle, while not all Soviet units are included, the real ratio was even higher.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Which side here showed better tactical ability, I may ask? And tactical skill is what I have been talking about, not the operational or strategical achievements of any side.

[QUOTE]
and again the West Front was not 6 months it was 4 total 2 once the offensive began. The same as the Germans.[/QUOTE]

What!!! Western allied had months of trench warfare on the beaches of Normandy before the offensive began? Come on!

[QUOTE]
One of my favorite examples German fans will use is Kharkov in Mar 43 but then they ignore the fact the same army fighting on the same ground 2 months later was defeated.[/QUOTE]

To put it simple: 6th Army and parts of the 4th Panzer Army were ordered to capture the city of Stalingrad no matter what happened at their flanks. Hitler "stole" their mobility and Paulus didnīt want to disobey.

When Manstein led German troops near Kharkov he had all the mobility possible, because the confusing situation checked almost any possibilities to give direct orders from German High Command. And when such an order came (hold Kharkov at all costs) it wasnīt obeyed.

And the 6th Armyīs resitance, when Soviets started operation Ring against it on 10 January 1943 was, when considering its physical and material weakness, astonishing. The Don Front lost 26,000 men and over half of its tank force during the first three days. That tells you something about landserīs fighting ability.

[QUOTE]
Do you believe that if the German Army in 1941 attacked a Russian Army of 1943 skill (but with the same 41 equpment and numbers) the Germans would have reproduced those results?[/QUOTE]

With better German High Command, yes.



JJKettunen -> Re: Leadership (4/16/2002 5:36:47 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
Hitler and his generals knew there would be a war in Europe long before it began. It began when they decided. The other nations right up through 38 had thought they had avoided war. The Western Nations most notably France sought to avoid war at any cost. They refrained from preparing so not to provoke the Germans.
Given they first had to fight just to survive, the speed that Germany dispite all the time to prepre lost is remarkable. WW2 really begins on Dec7 1941. I use this date because that is when the series of German isolated campaigns became a General War.
You could even say it was the day Germany lost the war. Why Hitler declared war on the US is a mystery to me.
42 the year it took the allies to build their army while fighting holding actions ( The Soviets had to build a new army to replace the one lost in 41 while still fighting the defensive battle)
43 the year they began to mount offensive operations (mid year after mid 43 the allies are always on the offensive) so really 43 is when the Allies get to where the Germans began-ready to conduct offensive operations. Only Germany has not spent the last 10 years trying to avoid war. She is armed and mobilized. She has allies (so she is not isolated like Poland or Norway or Yugoslavia or Denmark
44 the year the German army was forced (with a few exceptional failures) to the defensive
45 the conquest of Germany

really pretty fast for countries that intill 1939 had no plan/means to defeat a nation the size of Germany.[/QUOTE]

Iīm afraid thereīs a lot of naivety in those arguments. Every national army makes all the kind of plans all the time, even for the situations, which would sound unimaginable for greater public.

France and Great Britain had their plans to support Scandinavia and Poland; Poland had mainly defensive plans against any attack; Soviets planned invasion of Finland (and even tried it twice), invasion of Poland (took the eastern part of it after German invasion), and according to latest historical research plans against almost every nation in Europe, especially Germany (in 1941 Soviet Army was positioned in a way that it could be quickly organized to attack, not in a way of deep defence).

[QUOTE]
Even German officers who fought in both WWI and WW2 offered the opinion the army (soldiers) was better trained and disiplined in the first war then the second.
read Manstien 'Lost Victories' Rommel repeatly stated this, Rundstedt when trying to explain why on differant occasions a German Army Group would Collapse. I would say German Units fought 20%-50% above what their numbers would suggest due to this advantage. The Hitler meddled argument has a degree of merit in pointing to why they lost. Countered somewhat by it was he that saw to its being used in the first place. I would say that the real argument would be which country had the most desperate army. There you only have 4 real candidates Germany/Soviets/Japan/Finland[/QUOTE]

I own copy of "Lost Victories". Could you please tell me the pages or chapters from where I can find this interesting information? Nevertheless, it is true that large part of the German Army was very quicklly mobilized (and you said it was so ready earlier!) and the quality of troops were very mixed. But after the campaigns of Poland and France, German landsers were the top dogs, so to speak.

What is your definition of desperate army? Fought well but lost? Why Soviets are included then? How about ocassional desperation of western armies? It may be my badd enklish, but I do not understand what you mean.



Charles2222 -> (4/16/2002 6:45:13 AM)

Mogami:
quote:

Prior to May 10 1941 the Germans moved their forces to the West
are you still with me?


No. May 1941, what was that preparation for? Oh, I see you start getting snippy and make a typo, as you meant '40.

quote:

Cherburg (the PORT!!!!)(on the Cotentin Pen) was not captured till June 29th.


Plain as day Mogami, you said they were building up and not attacking for 2 months, so only the so-called 4 months afterwards count. I didn't say they took squat. If they were mediocre enough to take Cherbourg on the 30th, so what? Your assertion that they didn't attack for 2 months is completely and utterly without foundation. The attack in that direction was started on the 10th. Four days, not 2 months after the 6th. Even so, if taking Cherbourg means their attack started then, as seems to be what you're saying now, that's not even a month from the 6th!

quote:

The offensive begins on July 24th 1944 since this is the offensive meant to destroy the enemy and recapture occupied territory (the one on par with the German 1940 offensive) that is where I start my clock. You can start your clock where ever you want. And I promise in the future to not post anything concerning your posts so please stay out of mine I can't stand the over 'analysis.


For your information this was Mikimoto's thread. Author your own and then get snippy. As well, I say the attack in Belgium and Luxembourg as such, weren't the real German attack, they "weren't meant to take France", so I guess that shaves maybe a week off the battle for France, right? It's really weak to say the Allies came into Northern France just kind of bumming around, as you seem to think, and all that buildup in England, and the feint of pretending Patton has an army about to attack Calais, and all those artifical harbors just so 5 divisions could kick around. Your idea of kicking around and not having plans was tried at Dieppe, with predictable disaster; they were taking no chances in Normandy. Taking German-occupied France was as necessary and just as much of the offensive if just Sgt. Schultz were defending Cherbourg or Caen. The aim of the Normandy invasion was the liberation of German-occupied territory, and just as it took the Germans attacking in southern France in '40, the Allies had more Germans to attack than just those lined up real nice and neat to stop a thrust to Berlin.

Even in your now condensed two months, that turns out to be less than a month, Cherbourg most definitely isn't the only thing being attacked; hardly the actions of someone waiting for Cherbourg to be captured. See that on the maps called "7th Armoured Division at Villers-Bocage: June 11-15, 1944" and "Operation Epsom: June 24 - July 1, 1944". Surely, if nothing else, you at least have to throw that 2 month idea down the toilet and call it one month instead. So, Allies take 5 months which are really 6, and the Germans took 5-6 weeks.

quote:

I am pretty sure you meant a different word (which I havn't a clue)


Take the second definition "disperse throughout", now look up disperse:

Main Entry: dis·perse
Pronunciation: di-'sp&rs
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): dis·persed; dis·pers·ing
Etymology: Middle English dysparsen, from Middle French disperser, from Latin dispersus, past participle of dispergere to scatter, from dis- + spargere to scatter -- more at SPARK
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 a : to cause to break up b : to cause to become spread widely c : to cause to evaporate or vanish
2 : to spread or distribute from a fixed or constant source: as a archaic : DISSEMINATE b : to subject (as light) to dispersion c : to distribute (as fine particles) more or less evenly throughout a medium
intransitive senses
1 : to break up in random fashion
2 a : to become dispersed b : DISSIPATE, VANISH
synonym see SCATTER
- dis·persed·ly /-'sp&r-s&d-lE, -'sp&rst-lE/ adverb
- dis·pers·er noun
- dis·pers·ible /-'sp&r-s&-b&l/ adjective

Take definition 1a or 1c on this one. Basically I'm saying I'm trying to make a common misconception vanish or break up.

For what it's worth Mogami, you fault lies with hearing something which many (not all people or most) would consider biased opinion (Germans pound-for-pound the best) and attack it with equal extreme. To basically say a 6 month, or even 4 month attack, is faster than a 5-6 week one, shows just how extreme you got in places.



john g -> Re: Leadership (4/16/2002 7:15:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]WW2 really begins on Dec7 1941. I use this date because that is when the series of German isolated campaigns became a General War.
You could even say it was the day Germany lost the war. Why Hitler declared war on the US is a mystery to me.
[/B][/QUOTE]

R.H.S. Stolfi has a different date for the day the Germans lost WWII. In his book it is the diversion of Army Group Center from its attack towards Moscow, he believes if the Germans had captured Moscow by late August 41 they would have won the war in Europe, he gives 13 August as the date the Germans lost their focus (due to Hitler's meddling) and failed to follow thru with their original plan to destroy the Soviet Union in a lightning campaign. All their failures in the years to come stem from the diversion from Moscow. Had the Germans not been tied down in the Soviet Union, they perhaps could have cemented their hold on the rest of Europe, moved into India, knocked the UK out of the war etc.
thanks, John.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (4/16/2002 7:49:25 AM)

Four pages of responses ouch!

Sorry in advance, just throw cabbages if I say something dumb.

I don't think the Finns are over modelled. The duration of their participation has nothing to do with the people being modelled.

Finns are Finns.

Some of the nations that participated during the war years were substantially diffferent from others. Not all were uniformly great or uniformly bad.
But some qualities are hard to ignore.

If anyone doesnt know the word "Sissu" look it up (I hope I spelled it correctly). It sums up the Finns perhaps well enough for my needs. They were great soldiers.

Just like the word "volunteer" sums up Canada well. Hey we went "looking" to fight. Canadians during the war were no ones second rate troops.

"Disciplined" seems fair for Britain.
"Fanatical" does it for me for Japan.
"Brutal" works well for Russia.
"Flexible" is my word for Germany.
"Industry" is how I have to see the US.

Sorry if I refuse to attach a word to each and every country that participated (maybe someone can assist in that).

I hope my thoughts are not completely out of sync with where this thread has been going. I apologise for neglecting to read the thread through.



GUTB -> (4/16/2002 7:51:49 AM)

The standard German appologist lines continues to march to the same tune: It was Hitler's fault.

"If Hitler hadn't had meddled in this or that important operation, why, we would have...!"

Of course, they take the credit for the early success - successes that were made possible ONLY because of Hitler's starting wars at JUST the right time. If Hitler had just waiting ONE MORE YEAR, the Grand Alliance would be set up and prepared much better. With such preperations in place, France probably does not fall - or if it does, it would much tougher than it was in real life. In a year, the Soviets would have completed the re-orginization of the Red Army, finished their fortifications, gave their men time to train and prepare, put thousands of more T-34s and KVs into production, and the A-34 would have entered production (this is a T-34 but with much better mechanics and crew ergonomics that got but on the shelf indefinately because of war). The Germans would have smashed to smithers against this anvil.

So, the one great, visionary, brilliant move of the war was that Hitler started it execatly when he did. Blaming Hitler for the loss of the East is ridiculous because the USSR was a superpower, and Germany was a middle power. It doesn't matter if Hitler meddled or not, they were still going to lose. And it ignores the outrageous meddling of Stalin that caused terrible setbacks for the Red Army.



JJKettunen -> (4/16/2002 9:08:08 AM)

I have always wondered, why is it so hard for some people to accept the fact, that Hitlerīs meddling with operative decision making caused major catastrophes for the German Army. Stalin did the same thing for the Red Army, but as you said GUTB, Soviet Union was a superpower, and in fact the only country which could survive after such catastrophes. Germany couldnīt and didnīt.

[QUOTE]
If Hitler had just waiting ONE MORE YEAR, the Grand Alliance would be set up and prepared much better. [/QUOTE]

What Grand Alliance, if I may ask? There was no such a thing, until Hitler made some "brilliant" moves: Attacking Soviets and then 6 months later declaring war on USA. It meant that Churchillīs dream of Grand Alliance against Germany became reality.



Charles2222 -> (4/16/2002 9:21:54 AM)

Les the Sarge 9-1: Hey maybe you could market those words in flashcard form and make millions. You could call it "The Words From the Past". You could show all those blowhards that used two words to describe a nation, as being hopelessly verbose.:D



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (4/16/2002 11:16:04 AM)

Not sure how to respond to that one Charles heheh:)

But fortunately I know you as a Matrix veteran......

Think I will just wait out the supression fire heheeh:D



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.172363