That's new to me.
But the Germans overwhelmed France quickly.... Why would the Generals advised Hitler not to invade France since most of the French equipments are from World War 1?
Why did Germany lose WW2?
That's new to me.
But the Germans overwhelmed France quickly.... Why would the Generals advised Hitler not to invade France since most of the French equipments are from World War 1?
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Sorry I have missed this post for so long but if people are going to use the Lotzen Decision as reason for defeat then surely you would have to go back even further to the need to bail out the Italians in Greece and Albania, that set operation Barbarossa back 6 weeks and cost valuable men and material.
Doppleganger
Active member
Not so much the men and material but the time, though I also think now that the Lotzen Decision was perhaps the correct one. What wasn't correct was the thinking that both Kiev and Moscow could be captured in the same campaign. The other thing to realize also is that it wasn't lack of men or materials that really defeated the Wehrmacht at Moscow but rather the lack of a robust enough logistical infrastructure, which would have existed whether Barbarossa had started 6 weeks early or not.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
True and this was one of the things I have read a lot lately, in almost all campaigns throughout the war the Germans struggled logistically.
There have been references to this break down in several books I have read lately and some cite things such as having to choose whether to send reinforcements, food, ammunition, medical supplies or winter equipment to troops at the front while they had all that was required in the rear supply areas they did not have the ability to get it all to front in sufficient time and quantity for it to be of use.
I have found this quite odd given that through out the war the Germans were particularly adept at shifting whole tank divisions around to meet a threat or exploit a breakthrough and yet for some reason they couldnt sort out supply?
There have been references to this break down in several books I have read lately and some cite things such as having to choose whether to send reinforcements, food, ammunition, medical supplies or winter equipment to troops at the front while they had all that was required in the rear supply areas they did not have the ability to get it all to front in sufficient time and quantity for it to be of use.
I have found this quite odd given that through out the war the Germans were particularly adept at shifting whole tank divisions around to meet a threat or exploit a breakthrough and yet for some reason they couldnt sort out supply?
Last edited:
Doppleganger
Active member
Simple. They both underestimated the harshness of the Russian countryside (in Barbarossa) and they focused too much on the operational level and not enough on the grand strategic level. It took them a long time to gear up their industry in line with the demands of their armed forces.
Remember too that the German Army in Russia was the first army in the world to employ machines on such a large scale. They did not adequately grow their logistical infrastructure in line with their increase in tanks and troops. They relied too heavily on horses (over 600,000, most of which died in the first year in Russia) and captured softskinned vehicles that proved an absolute nightmare to keep in service due to the huge numbers of different parts that were required to be sourced/made. They also vastly overestimated the effectiveness of air supply.
AikiRooster
Tube Monkey USMC
About two hours ago, saw an interesting thing (Military Channel) on how our folks used some German WWII tactics in the initial invasion of Iraq. Very interesting and it was also interesting how we suffered some of the exact same drawbacks as the Germans who used the strategy. I would assume this was kind of a boo boo by Tommy Franks that he may have assumed we might have been able to avoid with the advanced technology.
same huh? Same problems huh? Imagine that.
Boo boo by Tommy Franks LMAO, man can I use that?
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
So how much of an effect did the breaking of German Air, Naval and Army codes play?
I have been very skeptical of German military intelligence during WW2, it seems to be completely off the mark in determining the enemy strengths and weaknesses and it flatly refused to believe that its codes had been broken for at least the last 3 years of the war.
I have been very skeptical of German military intelligence during WW2, it seems to be completely off the mark in determining the enemy strengths and weaknesses and it flatly refused to believe that its codes had been broken for at least the last 3 years of the war.
Doppleganger
Active member
If you consider how faulty the intelligence for Barbarossa was, a huge effect. The Germans had no right to be as successful as they were but the use of innovative tactics combined with aggressive commanders like Guderian; and the appalling unreadiness of the Red Army somewhat saved them from embarrassment.
Later on in the war, when Germany basically had no chance to win, the fact that Allied planners knew almost all of the German operational plans helped to shorten the war.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Maybe I should rephrase the question, how much worse could things have been if not for successful Allied intelligence?
For example how would the battle of the Atlantic gone had the allies not been able to direct convoys around uboat traps and direct warhips and aircraft onto uboats directly, what about Operation Lüttich could it have been successful had ultra not known about it from the beginning?
For example how would the battle of the Atlantic gone had the allies not been able to direct convoys around uboat traps and direct warhips and aircraft onto uboats directly, what about Operation Lüttich could it have been successful had ultra not known about it from the beginning?
perseus
Active member
Operation Lüttich was thought to be suicidal irrespective of intelligence. Intelligence was probably more critical to the battle of the Atlantic in the early stages, prior to short wave radar and carrier escorts which would have turned the balance anyway. It is thought that intelligence shortened rather than determined the outcome of the war. Perhaps it was more beneficial to the allies since Stalin was always sceptical of second hand intelligence anyway. Not having the required intelligence may have resulted in a communist mainland Europe after the war.
AikiRooster
Tube Monkey USMC
I think the Germans had plenty of good folks but I am not sure if I'd agree with the man for man part. I kind of feel and felt the Japanese had that one wrapped up.
The Germans were far more professional than anyone else (if you leave Hitler out).
Englander2
Active member
If we check the result of the last free election before Hitler took power, it can be seen, that two thirds of the electorate voted against him. To win a war, you need at least the support of the people in your own army. This did not exist although many a good man died in the belief that he was fighting for for his family and country. Whether Germany really started the war is a question which I find has not been answered. There are too many so-called facts which have never been proved, but are accepted because otherwise we would have to rewrite history.
LeEnfield
Active member
Better soldiers.....Well to start with as they had quite of bit of experience from the civil war in Spain. War is the greatest teacher of all, you should always be learning new tactics and bringing on new weapons, your troops become battle harden which give them the edge over green troops. When WW2 started the Germans had more men under arms and better equipped do to their guns before butter policy, and there factories geared up to a higher level for producing military gear, so they started with a bigger advantage. It took the Allies a while to get into gear and start out producing the Axis and getting enough well trained men into the field. When you start at a low level you fighting hard just to keep up with your losses before you can start to out build your enemy
Doppleganger
Active member
The Germans had more experience but they neither had more men under arms nor where their factories geared up to a higher level. The Germans did not move to a war footing until fully 3 years of war had passed.
The reason why the Germans were so successful initially?
Training, tactics, personal initiative at every level of the German Army and the element of surprise.
It took until the 1980s before the US Army, for example, actually began to catch up with the doctrine of the Germany Army of 1939.
ObjSRgtLw
Active member
Oh come on! You know better than that, do you want to tell me that Hitler didin't want a war? In my eyes there is no doubt that the germans started it.