Allied Incompetence lost France

Discussion in '1940' started by Bayman, Jul 4, 2011.

  1. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    Germany's Poor Economy Lost Them The War

    Germany lost the second world war because the Allies were able to out produce them in the making of arms. Britain and the United States were able to produce huge numbers and far more aircraft. The false conclusion has been that Hitler's gamble in invading the USSR was the key behind Germany's defeat. That was sealed before Germany declared war.

    Germany Had Spectacular Gains But Nothing Conclusive

    Germany had lost the war before it invaded the USSR with its success up to 1941 being more down to luck. They had spectacular gains but nothing conclusive. Britain alone had a chance over time of developing a very large military force. Previously it was thought that Britain and France failed to re-arm in time to fight Hitler effectively. By 1940 Britain and France had armies that were superior in both numbers and equipment, with more and better tanks. France had armoured tank units. The allied navies were vastly superior to Germany's and their air forces at least equal. When France fell, although Britain lost 1/3 of its field army, the RAF was equivalent to Germany's in numbers and quality with the Royal Navy vastly superior to the German and Italians. Notably, the British were able to out produce the Germans in aircraft even prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Never mind the 50,000 planes a year the USA were busy constructing and announced in May 1940 - they eventually made 86,000 a year. The Germans were running at about 17,000 per year of mainly pre-war designs.

    Allied Incompetence Lost France to the Germans

    The success of the German army in 1940 was due to the allied command failing to respond to the German strategy - allied incompetence. If the allies had been a bit more aggressive, and savy, they could have fought out at least a draw with Germany who not had the resources to fight anything more than a short war. The elevating of blitzkrieg was an invention of allied generals as an excuse for their appalling defeat to a smaller force, rather than a logical analysis of the failure. The French never even fully committed their air force to the struggle with much of it destroyed on the ground or captured. If the French air force had been concentrated on the German lines entering France and Belgium, the German advance would have collapsed. The German line relied on speed with a continuous unbroken chain of supply along the line. Drivers were on "speed" to keep them awake. The German fast strike blitzkrieg attack was a last minute plan as the one they were to go with got into allied hands, which was not so daring. If the older, less daring, plan had been executed, the war would have been very different. Blitzkreig was a one time plan. It only worked once.

    The Conquered Countries Were a Liability

    Despite Germany having access to the industrial plant of Northern Italy, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands they were not able to match either the Soviets or the British in war production. The success of the Royal Navy European blockade was much underrated. The French production of planes which went to Germany was minuscule. France had supplies of bauxite but was not able to produce in numbers. Before WW2, France imported coal from Britain for its electricity production. The British blockade meant the main source of coal became Germany - Germany had to export valuable raw materials and fuel to keep the conquered countries moving. Germany did not increase its production sufficiently to the UKs to overcome the short fall.

    The amount of food produced in Europe fell. Pre WW2 the production of meat and dairy products in countries such as Denmark had been dependent on the import of grain and animal feed from South America. The Royal Navy blockade prevented anything entering Europe via the North Sea, Atlantic coast and the Med. That was not available and the amount of food available for the dairy industry collapsed as did food production. European food production had been based on the use of chemical fertilizer. Huge volumes of the chemicals used for fertilizer production was diverted to the making of explosives in Germany. French workers were moved onto subsistence rations with no power available and the country had been dependant on motorized transportation. France's oil imports came from abroad and were cut off.

    At the outbreak of the war in 1939 the only available oil came from Romania or from low production, expensive synthetic oil made in Germany. This was barely enough for the needs of the German armed forces. There was not enough to keep the Italian Navy operational. France reverted to a pre-motorised transport economy.

    Hitler Thought He Needed the Resouces of The East

    This was the dire economic background that gave rise to Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union to confront the coming air war with 50,000 plane per year from the USA alone and the UK was also out producing Germany in aircraft. The Germans thought USSR had the natural resources that would enable European industry to compete with the UK and USA. Hitler knew that he could never develop the naval might to conquer Britain simply by the occupation of Western Europe. Apart from a small pendulum desert war, Britain could not get at Hitler - only by air. The large mustering of UK forces, Hitler knew would be unleashed on him when ready.

    Germany Got Japan in The War to Divert British Resources

    Germany gave assurance to the Japanese that Germany would declare war on the USA if they attacked the British in the Far East. Hitler wanted the UK occupied elsewhere to keep them and large parts of their resources away from him. Hitler's gamble was that by the time the USA was ready for a European war the USSR would be taken and the resources of the east used to counter the UK and USA. As German forces started to roll towards the USSR, German industry was already directed towards aircraft production to counter the massive air fleets being built by the UK & USA.

    Eliminate The Eastern Populations

    In Hitler's mind, the conquest of the USSR was a key step, and quite rational at how the war was viewed at the time. None of the German general staff thought that the USSR could stand up to an invasion of over 3 million men. The Germans never fully assessed the Soviet capability. However the Soviets did resists and were better able to marshal their resources, military and civilian, to outlast the Germans. Many German generals assessed and concluded there would no gain in taking the USSR as there was little surplus in the large population. So, the decision to eliminate most of the population was taken.
     
  2. Mike L

    Mike L Very Senior Member

    Bayman,
    Very interesting post including many sweeping statements, some of which I generally agree with, some I don't.
    Can I ask where you obtained the article or information?
     
  3. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    Bayman,
    Very interesting post including many sweeping statements, some of which I generally agree with, some I don't.
    Can I ask where you obtained the article or information?

    I wrote it from various sources. The economic, production was mainly from The Wages of Destruction - The Making and Breaking of the NAZI Economy.
     
  4. Mike L

    Mike L Very Senior Member

    Ah, economic warfare not my strong point!
    BTW weren't virtually all aircraft in production in 1940 'pre-war' designs? (Spitfire 1936?).
     
  5. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    Ah, economic warfare not my strong point!
    BTW weren't virtually all aircraft in production in 1940 'pre-war' designs? (Spitfire 1936?).

    Yes, but there was a lead time of 18 months. The UK and US were developing new designs, P-38, the British with the Mustang, Mosquito, etc. The Germans knew newer more advanced designs would come through and existing planes improved. The Spitfire was vastly improved during WW2, as it could take the modifications and still be front line until the very end.

    In May 1940 the USA pledged 50,000 planes per year alone. The UK production on top of that. Hitler knew that these planes would be coming in force from mid 1941 onwards and aimed towards Germany, with or without US pilots.
     
  6. Mike L

    Mike L Very Senior Member

    What about Me109 and FW190? both gave Spits and Hurris a hard time.
    And the 'superweapons' such as Me262 and 163?
    I know production was decimate by Alied bombing etc but to blame pre-war designs is surely an item of debate (and isn't what a forum such as this is about?).
     
  7. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    What about Me109 and FW190? both gave Spits and Hurris a hard time.
    And the 'superweapons' such as Me262 and 163?
    I know production was decimate by Alied bombing etc but to blame pre-war designs is surely an item of debate (and isn't what a forum such as this is about?).

    The Me109 was outdated by 1940. Only the FW-190 was introduced during WW2 and a good fighter, although it initially had problems and a lousy air cooled engine.

    The German jets were not that good. The 262, was a poor plane. The engine was a poor design that lasted a few hours and it fell out the sky a lot. Having promise is not enough. It had no impact on the outcome of the war. It was not the most advanced design. The only thing that differentiated the 262 from other planes was its jet engine. This was a poor design. On one engine the 262 was impossible to land. If one engine conked you were dead. The British or US would never take into front line service such a poor plane during WW2.

    Look at German planes in WW2, they were mainly old design all through, although improved. They never had the resources to develop enough newer and better planes. This is a WW2 forum, so all is open to debate - all.
     
  8. Mike L

    Mike L Very Senior Member

    In general I agree, look forward to further posts from you.
    If you haven't already I suggest you check PMs.

    Mike
     
  9. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    The Me109 was outdated by 1940. Only the FW-190 was introduced during WW2...


    And what about the Bf109 E thru K???

    On one engine the 262 was impossible to land.

    :huh: What's your source for that???

    If one engine conked you were dead.

    Or that??? It was actually quite "easy" to retrim a 262 - which admittedly flew a tad "crabbed" on one engine - and fly on one engine; let's face it - it HAD to be...due to the engine failure rate.

    Look at German planes in WW2, they were mainly old design all through, although improved.


    And the Spitfire wasn't?
     
  10. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    France reverted to a pre-motorised transport economy.


    That's a bit of a generalisation; there were many and various alternatives for private use - wood gas, producer gas...
     
  11. Mike L

    Mike L Very Senior Member

    As I mentioned - many points for debate - and you will find some very well informed debaters here mate!
     
  12. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    And what about the Bf109 E thru K???

    :huh: What's your source for that???

    Or that??? It was actually quite "easy" to retrim a 262 - which admittedly flew a tad "crabbed" on one engine - and fly on one engine; let's face it - it HAD to be...due to the engine failure rate.

    And the Spitfire wasn't?

    The point was I making was quite simple and clear. This not a Spit vs 109 contest. The 109 was improved because they did not have the resources to replace it, and then relegate it to lesser duties as the Brits did with the Hurricane. It was hopelessly outdated by 1944. It was poor plane to fly and you needed to be a midget to fit in. The only reason it performed reasonably well later in WW2 was that the German pilots were well trained in it, making it punch above its weight.

    Many new Allied designs came out during WW2. Meteor jet, Mosquito, P-38, Mustang, Typhoon, Tempest, B-29, Lancaster, Corsair, etc, etc. Planes superior to anything Germany was producing. The list goes on and on.
     
  13. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    The German fast strike blitzkrieg attack was a last minute plan as the one they were to go with got into allied hands, which was not so daring. If the older, less daring, plan had been executed, the war would have been very different. Blitzkreig was a one time plan. It only worked once.


    "Blitzkrieg" was a tactic - not a "plan". And it worked far more than once; it worked in Poland and France, it worked in the USSR through the Summer and Autumn of 1941, it worked in Belgium...
     
  14. Mike L

    Mike L Very Senior Member

    I wonder how many new German aicraft designs were unable to be put into manufacture and operational service due to Allied interruption of fuel, materials and manufacturing facilities?
    BTW Bayman you are allowed to concede a point occasionally and continue a discussion. We are more of an information exchange than a debating society!
    Lighten up a bit mate, you will find it much more fun here if you do.
     
    Owen likes this.
  15. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    That's a bit of a generalisation; there were many and various alternatives for private use - wood gas, producer gas...

    France extensively used motorized transport to transport dairy produce from the country to the towns. They had no petrol and many vehicles taken by the Germans. The Germans also took many railway trucks and locos for their war effort. The result was that milk was poured away as there was no way to take the produce into the towns. France reverted to horse and carts.
     
  16. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    "Blitzkrieg" was a tactic - not a "plan". And it worked far more than once; it worked in Poland and France, it worked in the USSR through the Summer and Autumn of 1941, it worked in Belgium...

    Blitzkrieg was not used in Poland. Close Stuka air support was (air artillery), which is only a part of it. They tried to use it in the USSR but failed.

    It is a conveyor belt that needs to keep moving. The belt can't be that long, and the enemy pinned against a wall - the English Channel in France. There was no such wall in the USSR and the Soviets would retreat and regroup and attack again. The conveyor was too long and would break down. In Belgium and France the good roads assisted the Blitzkrieg belt. This was not the case in the semi-track USSR and Poland. It was a non-repeatable one time "tactic" (you are right, a tactic).
     
  17. Mike L

    Mike L Very Senior Member

    Ah, at last an admission!
    Try to adopt a less aggressive attitude please, it will reward you with very well informed responses.
     
  18. Bayman

    Bayman Member

    I wonder how many new German aicraft designs were unable to be put into manufacture and operational service due to Allied interruption of fuel, materials and manufacturing facilities?


    They couldn't even design and R&D a heavy bomber. They tried a quantum leap in technology with a few jets and V rockets, thinking they would win the war, such were their fantasies. Which were all too late, inappropriate and not fully R&D'd. The cost of one V2 was the same as a heavy bomber (which they never made), which was reusable and can be used against military targets. The V2 could only hit a city and lost after launch. The V1 and V2 was a total waste of resources and time achieving nothing strategically. Hitting civilians in a political target city (London) was not going to stop the allied military machine.

    BTW Bayman you are allowed to concede a point occasionally and continue a discussion. We are more of an information exchange than a debating society!
    Lighten up a bit mate, you will find it much more fun here if you do.

    :)
     
  19. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Blitzkrieg was not used in Poland. Close Stuka air support was (air artillery), which is only a part of it. They tried to use it in the USSR but failed.

    It is a conveyor belt that needs to keep moving. The belt can't be that long, and the enemy pinned against a wall - the English Channel in France. There was no such wall in the USSR and the Soviets would retreat and regroup and attack again. The conveyor was too long and would break down. In Belgium and France the good roads assisted the Blitzkrieg belt.


    It most definitely was. What WE call "blitzkrieg" is about hurling your available armoured/motorised forces against one point in an enemy's front line, breaking through and encircling (using that dedicated mobility) those enemy forces, breaking them up into uncorordinated groups that can be mopped up by your slower, more "conventional" artillery-back infantry forces.

    Poland was where it was used in its most obvious; France we see as a drive to the Channel....but to again cut the Allied forces in Belgium off from the French forces south of the salient - as in to encircle them, parcel them off...just with one side being the sea.

    They couldn't even design and R&D a heavy bomber.


    They did both; the He177 had problems, yes....but they carried out BOTH those steps AND put it into service.

    Hitting civilians in a political target city (London) was not going to stop the allied military machine.


    Strangely enough - given the efforts they put into defending against them and countering the threat...the British government of the day may not have thought the same as you regarding the threat to civilian morale! :huh: See Peter Laurie's Beneath The City Streets.
     
  20. Mike L

    Mike L Very Senior Member

    Told you you would be in for a debate!
     

Share This Page