Allied Incompetence lost France

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

  1. Gooseman

    Gooseman Senior Member

    We have drifted a tad away from the original post.

    Various units would have been able to be shifted elsewhere,less requirement for the bomber Flotte's and their escorts, this means they are available elsewhere along with the munitions and fuel etc. Even after D-Day Germany still kept large forces in Norway etc where they were effectively useless for the majority of the war. With no threat they could have been thinned out and used elsewhere.

    In the Defence of Germany over a million 'men' (originally Luftwaffe but gradually supplemented by home defence and HJ personnel from 1942 onwards) were used in the anti air units and a Luftwaffe study claimed it took 3308 88mm rounds to bring down one bomber. 9000 (read of claims of 15000) heavy AA guns and around 30000 light AA guns were used in the flak units. The material diverted to building the flak defences and rebuilding the bomb damage could also have been used elsewhere.

    All of this does not mean that Germany would have won but are things that should be considered when people comment that the USSR defeated Germany alone and that the Britain had no real bearing on the outcome. Likewise that the bomber offensive by the Allies was a complete waste of time as it had no military effect.

    Norway, like many of the other occupied territories, had mainly third class occupational forces. In Holland there were usually one or two divisions, mostly recuperating. First class divisions were not stationed in occupied territories in the West until well into the war.

    Likewise, when the material and fuel efforts that the Allies put into the bizarre air-campaign would have employed elsewhere, they could have made a difference earlier. The British designed air-campaign was quite pointless and useless. The advanced American air-campaign was much more to the point, clearly targetted on the German logistics and fuel capacity. It was the latter that saw effects that contributed to the Allied victory.

    I have not read anyone pointing out that the USSR defeated Hitler alone. It goes without saying that the USSR efforts were considerably more substantial in the defeat of Germany, whereas the Americans defeated Japan without any Russian assistance. Also the American logistic efforts in the USSR were of vital importance, particularly in the first two years of the Russian campaign.

    Indeed, Britain had little weight in the final outcome of the war. I know they'd like to think otherwise, but in fact, more than 65 years after the event, I would say that the British could scale back a notch or two on their WWII boasting. So, hit me ;)
     
  2. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    Indeed, Britain had little weight in the final outcome of the war. I know they'd like to think otherwise, but in fact, more than 65 years after the event, I would say that the British could scale back a notch or two on their WWII boasting. So, hit me ;)

    We don't boast. Wij zijn geen luidruchtige hollanders !

    Understatement is more our thing.;)
     
  3. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Various units would have been able to be shifted elsewhere,less requirement for the bomber Flotte's and their escorts, this means they are available elsewhere along with the munitions and fuel etc.

    Which happened historically to an extent from 1941 on.

    Even after D-Day Germany still kept large forces in Norway etc where they were effectively useless for the majority of the war. With no threat they could have been thinned out and used elsewhere.


    No threat??? :huh: Maybe not from the British...

    Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  4. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Gosseman, you write a lot of contentious stuff in a four paragraph post but I'm not going to make a laundry list of my counter-arguments: I'll let others tear you to pieces :D

    My point will be with your statements:

    1) "It goes without saying that the USSR efforts were considerably more substantial in the defeat of Germany, whereas the Americans defeated Japan without any Russian assistance."

    2) "Also the American logistic efforts in the USSR were of vital importance, particularly in the first two years of the Russian campaign. "

    ---

    1) Of course no one will remember the Soviet contribution in the battles of Midway, Guadalcanal, the Marianas, etc,etc. There wasn't any, evidently. But at least a passing mention should be made of the Manchurian Operation, which ran for 3 weeks in Aug'45 and caused 83,000 dead and 640,000 POWs. It might be argued that the theatre was peripheral, but it did smash the only intact Japanese army that was left. At the very least these would not reinforce Japan if invasion was carried out.

    2) The American logistic efforts in the USSR were of vital importance, particularly in the the last three years of the Russian campaign, not the first two. Supply figures for the first period were very small as compared to those coming later when the cornucopia was in full swing. According to up here for instance, on trucks:

    41 - 400 ; 42 - 32,500; 43 - 95,100; 44 - 139,600; 45 - 45,000

    But check the website, it's crammed with statistics besides being extremely rich graphically.
     
  5. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery

    is this becoming a stealthy what if thread?
     
    Drew5233 likes this.
  6. Gooseman

    Gooseman Senior Member

    1) Of course no one will remember the Soviet contribution in the battles of Midway, Guadalcanal, the Marianas, etc,etc. There wasn't any, evidently. But at least a passing mention should be made of the Manchurian Operation, which ran for 3 weeks in Aug'45 and caused 83,000 dead and 640,000 POWs. It might be argued that the theatre was peripheral, but it did smash the only intact Japanese army that was left. At the very least these would not reinforce Japan if invasion was carried out.

    2) The American logistic efforts in the USSR were of vital importance, particularly in the the last three years of the Russian campaign, not the first two. Supply figures for the first period were very small as compared to those coming later when the cornucopia was in full swing. According to up here for instance, on trucks:

    41 - 400 ; 42 - 32,500; 43 - 95,100; 44 - 139,600; 45 - 45,000

    But check the website, it's crammed with statistics besides being extremely rich graphically.

    Point 1: I can only weigh this as a teaser. Most amusing, but quite irrelevant, and I sort of rekon that was the intention too ;)

    Point 2: shows you're missing the point. In the first stage of the Russian campaign the American supplies were essential, whereas during the second stage the USSR industry had grown into a massive production machine where the American supplies were a helpfull top-up. Besides, the USSR campaign lasted four years and not five. I talk of the period 1942/1943. And I am pretty sure I am right ;)

    @Payne. You wouldn't hear me boasting about a single Dutch effort. The Dutch had nothing important to add, except perhaps for the bauxite resources in Surinam, that contributed to about 50% of the USAAF airframe production. But as a matter of fact that could hardly be seen as a Dutch effort.
     
  7. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    What lost us France was our leaders.They still had the WW1 attitude to war. Consequently our arms reflected that outlook. The troops fought valiantly, but the modern Blitzkrieg played havoc with the old fashioned ideas of our MPs, and our military leaders....
    Even then it took a long time for that experience to sink in. Both here, and in the USA.
    Sapper
     
  8. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Point 1: I was quite serious. The reasons forcing the surrender of Japan included the Bomb (x2) and the smashing of the Kwantung army. This has been discussed in this forum already in another place.

    Pont 2: I'm ot missing the point, you are. "In the first stage of the Russian campaign the American supplies were (cross)essential(/cross) still to arrive". Stop pontificating and look at the figures I gave, of which the raw truck numbers are an indicator only. You have more figures also chronically arranged here.

    US Lend-Lease started to be felt in effective numbers in the Summer '43 offensives, beginning with Ops. Rumiantsev and Kutuzov, that is starting with the Kursk counter-offensives.

    Besides, the USSR campaign lasted four years and not five
    ???

    A sterile splitting hairs exercise. 1/2 '41 + '42 + '43 + '44 + 1/3 '45 makes 4 years minus a trifle. What's the point?


    And I am pretty sure I am right :wink:
    Hubris before Nemesis.
     
  9. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    is this becoming a stealthy what if thread?


    Good point. It certainly wants booting off 1940. This used to be the only safe haven from all that talk of the US and Lend-Lease.

    If we want to discuss who won the war rather than the specifics of the 1940 campaigns, could we kindly find a more appropriate location ?
     
  10. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    Good point. It certainly wants booting off 1940. This used to be the only safe haven from all that talk of the US and Lend-Lease.

    If we want to discuss who won the war rather than the specifics of the 1940 campaigns, could we kindly find a more appropriate location ?

    Bayman hasn't logged in since the fifth of this month. Maybe he realised that there are in fact members on here who have a great knowledge.
    End up in the Barracks at this rate. ;)
     
  11. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Is this in the 1940 section?? My apologies for the threadjacking, I came here through the portal and did not notice what section it was! :blush:

    Maybe a Mod would like to split this thread.
     
  12. Gooseman

    Gooseman Senior Member

    Point 1: I was quite serious. The reasons forcing the surrender of Japan included the Bomb (x2) and the smashing of the Kwantung army. This has been discussed in this forum already in another place.

    Pont 2: I'm ot missing the point, you are. "In the first stage of the Russian campaign the American supplies were (cross)essential(/cross) still to arrive". Stop pontificating and look at the figures I gave, of which the raw truck numbers are an indicator only. You have more figures also chronically arranged here.


    That your first point was quite serious after all, is quite worring then. That last Russian offensive was nothing more than the odd Russian attempt to claim one or two acres. It takes quite some imagination to add that as a contribution the the war on Japan. I personally think you're splitting hairs.

    On the second point we should perhaps agree to disagree. Russian industrial output figure clearly show that their indigenous industry started to show massive outputs as off the last quarter of 1942. Ten-folds or more of 1940. Obviously the American deliveries were still very useful as off 1944, but at that point in time American material deliveries were no longer essential. Apparently your analysis is only based on American deliveries. That is one side of the story. I was stating that the American deliveries as off 1944 were no longer essential and I cannot see any reason why I should go along with your quite single-pointed reply.
     
  13. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

  14. Jedburgh22

    Jedburgh22 Very Senior Member

    The Russian output figures throughout WWII are highly suspect - an example of this would be electrical production in Ukraine and Western Russia which there German's discovered was about 1/3 of claimed output figures. Also Russian industry relied an the Allies for vital raw materials for their war industry as well as machine tools from the USA.
    Post war output was severly diminished for years after WWII as the economy was kept on a war footing without much production of consumer items.
    In vast tracts of the Ukraine and Bylorussia a revolt carried on into the mid 1950s against Soviet rule.
    Some of the devastation caused by both German and Russian scorched earth policies over the WWII battlegrounds was still widely evident in the 1970-80s.

    The one thing that amazes me with the eastern front is that German racial policies alienated people who hated the Soviets.
     
  15. Peccavi

    Peccavi Senior Member

    But as a matter of fact that could hardly be seen as a Dutch effort.


    Gooseman, you do the Dutch Government and Royal Family a disfavour.

    Consider this idea; if Indonesia had been run by a Vichy type Dutch Government then the Japanese would have got all the oil they needed. Then they would have completed the conquest of China without needing to attack the USA and Indochina - hence no American soldiers in Europe or anywhere else and only the UK and USSR versus Germany!

    Probably totally irrelevant but then so have most of the postings on this thread - cheers!
     
  16. Peccavi

    Peccavi Senior Member

    I have adapted the table (source Harrison - Why didn't Russia collapse in 1941) below to show the approx economic strengths of the combatants.

    Lots of adjustments should be made:

    Czechoslovakia and Poland should be added to Germany in 1938/9 and a proportion of the Commonwealth should be added to the UK plus Belgium in 1940. In addition the help received from the USA should also be considered as should deliveries from USSR (very considerable) in 1939/40 etc etc

    However to my mind the combatants look fairly equally matched economically in 1939/May 1940. I think you should also bear in mind the type of GDP - eg Germany was (and still is) the World Leader in chemical technology (very important in both world wars - synthetic high grade fuel for the Luftwaffe and synthetic rubber etc), had excellent engineering and first class metal production.

    Most recent wars have been won by the side with the highest GDP provided it can withstand the initial onslaught.

    All the combatants initially were poor, until the weak commanders had been dropped and improved tactics and equipment developed. Germany therefore had the advantage over Britain and France in 1940, since she had already had a couple of dry runs in Spain and Poland (plus at least marching into Austria and Czechoslovakia.

    Military incompetence was surely the immediate reason for the fall of France but the economic advantage of the Allies is not overwhelming even if France and its Allies had fought a more intelligent War.

    The USSR had to hang on in 1942 and Germany had to finish the War in 1942 before the strength of the USA tipped the balance seriously in the Allies favour.



    [​IMG]
     
  17. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    My first thought on the initial posting was that Bayman has entered just to stir things up with some ludicrous statements which he fails to confirm - then disappear - and that seemingly is what he has done to be replaced by another and the debate has gone circular.......

    Can't agree that the British High Command was all bad- but they had been in a hinterland of advanced military thinking and defence cuts - but we did have such men as Dill - Alanbrooke -Adam -Alexander - Montgomery - Anderson - Leese - McCreery - O'Conner - Wavell - Auchinlek - Ritchie - Dempsey - Murray - Eveleigh Keithley - Rennie - Renton - Graham - Norrie - Gott - and many other Future Corps and Divisional Commanders on the way up - and face it - those were the men who won the later battles ...
    Cheers
     
  18. Peccavi

    Peccavi Senior Member

    Hi Tom
    I agree the Thread is off track - but I thought the main thrust was the Economic argument.

    I agree that the British high Command was not so bad but whilst there were good Generals but there were also ones like Barker and Irwin. A lot of the Colonels and Lft Colonels were plainly too old and were replaced after Dunkirk.
     

Share This Page