American views of the British effort in D-Day and WW2 in general.

[Zelig]

Rofl. What did you expect them to say?

I bet you believed everything the german propaganda office put out, didnt you?

You may want to check up on what the "Enemy Oil Committee" was.

 

[aelf]

Again, we didnt bomb the tank factories....but rather the oil fields, fuel refineries and ball bearing plants, and the rail from those. No need to bomb all of the production if you can concentrate on the one part that makes it all work.

Are you really as privy to the policy of that time as you make yourself sound to be? Source?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Where would have German production been without the attacks on say, ball bearing plants and fuel refineries? Not to mention railways?

Where would the Western Allies have been if 3/4 of the German Armed Forces weren't in the East getting the snot beat out of them by the Soviets? You know that D-Day was after Operation Bagration, right? A full 1/3 of the German army in the East ceased to exist in a month's time. The Germans were finished before we even invaded.

Sure, our bombing helped in both destroying factories and also diverting production to things like air defense and night fighters, but those things hardly tipped the balance. The biggest thing they accomplished was killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Do you honestly think the Russians would have been as successful as they were without all the rest of that happening behind the scenes?

As successful? No. Successful? Absolutely. The only industrial economy bigger than the US was the Soviet Union's, and the German advance had all but stalled out by the time the US entered the theater. Some could even say almost before the US entered the war; on December 15, after the failure to take Tula, the final pincer thrust in the Battle of Moscow, Guderian wrote in his journal that "we have lost the war." That the only thing the Germans did after 1941 in the East was a giant over-extension SE is testament to this. David Glantz describes the event even before Moscow as like "punch-drunk boxers, staying precariously on their feet but rapidly losing the power to hurt each other."

 

[MobBoss]

Where would the Western Allies have been if 3/4 of the German Armed Forces weren't in the East getting the snot beat out of them by the Soviets?

Already answered this.

 

[Flying Pig]

I believe he was counting the six beach heads, and then inadvertently illustrated the point of the thread by forgetting the Canadian beach at Juno.

Maybe he was referring to number of men though... damn, I need to review this stuff.

Canada was British at the time (technically, since they had the same monarch). I thought there were 5 beaches (Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword) and the British took 2, the canadians 1 and the US 2?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Canada was British at the time (technically, since they had the same monarch). I thought there were 5 beaches (Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword) and the British took 2, the canadians 1 and the US 2?

Ya, I checked that too. I have no idea what 3/5 means then. Canada has the monarchy now, it doesn't mean we are British. It is a convenient way to ignore Canadian contributions. Canada was what, a third of the Royal Canadian Polish French British and Miscellaneous Air Force? I kid.

I do understand that the British did a lot in the war. My objection to this thread was the notion that the British are especially minimized by American history. American pop culture isn't great for that, but the British are basically the only other Allied country that does get its full share of credit for the war.

EDIT: I checked the beaches that is.

 

[Flying Pig]

If Canada is British, then we had 2+1 out of 5, or 3/5.

 

[negZero]

Your post makes no sense.

1.) The fact that the Battle of Britain was over is irrelevant, the relevant point was that all the war material used to prosecute that was gone. If you think that the German's have severl thousand more aircraft would not have helped hasten the initial advance you are just being naive.

No because as said dozen of times in this thread, the German army outran there air support.

The fact is that further concentrated air power could have saved the German's weeks, allowing them to capture Moscow prior to the first major winter storm of that season.

Hitler not thinking he's a general and knows more about military matters then anyone else could've saved weeks.

Hell, at the very least Leningrad was always in bombing range, do you think a couple thousand bombers would not have helped to bash it into submission?

Go head bomb a Russian city during WW2, you find they still fight you for it.

Do you not think having that major northern port open for logistics support in the North would not have changed the game a bit?

You do realize that the Germans captured several Baltic ports on the way to Leningrad?

2.) So what if the Germans "already knew" about the North African and Western Europe fronts? Of course they did, thats how then knew to DIVERT forces there!

Western Front was only had a garrison force to prevent a D-Day invasion. Again the Russians were willing to fight sieges in there city and didn't care how many people died.

The fact is that a half dozen more corps would have made a huge difference. For instance it would have meant that the march on Moscow would not have had to be delayed whal Kiev was captured.

The delay came because of Leningrad and Kiev, so there still be a delay

Canada was British at the time (technically, since they had the same monarch). I thought there were 5 beaches (Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword) and the British took 2, the canadians 1 and the US 2?

Canada joined the war by the own choosing and the Canadian head of state does as the Prime Minister say not what the Queen/King says

 

[Zelig]

If Canada is British

We already figured out they weren't.

Claiming that Canadians burned down the whitehouse in 1812 is a bit of a stretch, claiming they weren't British by 1944, not so much.

 

[Flying Pig]

Same monarch, but I take your point. OK, we shared the actual work, but did it far better.

 

[Patroklos]

No because as said dozen of times in this thread, the German army outran there air support.

Irrelevant. This may have been true when they were approaching Moscow, but not when they were reducing places like Minsk and Kiev. Those efforts held up the advance wor weeks, something that could have been greatly allieviated by a few thousand more airframes.

And it doesn't even have to be airframes. How much rolling stock, fuel, munitions, food, trucks, etc. had to be used to prosecute the BoB and then stay there to maintain the forces?

Hitler not thinking he's a general and knows more about military matters then anyone else could've saved weeks.

Irrelevant.

Go head bomb a Russian city during WW2, you find they still fight you for it.

Don't be obtuse, any idiot can see that having that much concentrated force in addition to what was historically there would change things dramatically.

You do realize that the Germans captured several Baltic ports on the way to Leningrad?

Irrelevant, none were as developed or close to the front as Leningrad. Not to mention not having besiege Leningrad would have freed up the better part of an Army.

Western Front was only had a garrison force to prevent a D-Day invasion. Again the Russians were willing to fight sieges in there city and didn't care how many people died.

Yeah, because another 30 divisions sure wouldn't have made a difference to close run affairs like Kursk

The delay came because of Leningrad and Kiev, so there still be a delay

So quite logically the delay would be quite a bit less if one or both could be pursued at the same time the extra corps rolled on to Moscow. Or maybe the extra corps allow Leningrad and Kiev to fall/fall faster than they did. Regardless, their inclusion is obviously a game changer.

 

[negZero]

Irrelevant. This may have been true when they were approaching Moscow

How is it irrelevant in anyone way? Battle of Moscow was of the more important battles during the Eastern front. Or are you just trying to prove my point?

but not when they were reducing places like Minsk and Kiev. Those efforts held up the advance wor weeks, something that could have been greatly allieviated by a few thousand more airframes.

Minsk was bombed on day 1 and captured 4 days later, so that didn't hold up anything. Am going to say this one more time THE RUSSIANS WOULD FIGHT FOR THE RUINS OF THEIR BOMBED CITIES.

And it doesn't even have to be airframes. How much rolling stock, fuel, munitions, food, trucks, etc. had to be used to prosecute the BoB and then stay there to maintain the forces?

Which wasn't a problem for the Germans till Eastern Front turned against them.

Irrelevant.

Because delaying attacks and changing sound plans to be bat . .. .. .. . crazy plans makes no difference in war.

Don't be obtuse, any idiot can see that having that much concentrated force in addition to what was historically there would change things dramatically.

Problem is the German army wasn't equipped for winter or street fighting

Irrelevant, none were as developed or close to the front as Leningrad. Not to mention not having besiege Leningrad would have freed up the better part of an Army.

Make am your mind. First you say the need Leningrad to bring supplies, then you say not to siege Leningrad. Which one is it?

Yeah, because another 30 divisions sure wouldn't have made a difference to close run affairs like Kursk

Kursk happen after the Eastern Front started going to the Russians way

So quite logically the delay would be quite a bit less if one or both could be pursued at the same time the extra corps rolled on to Moscow. Or maybe the extra corps allow Leningrad and Kiev to fall/fall faster than they did. Regardless, their inclusion is obviously a game changer.

Leningrad would never fall for: A. Major city for the Russian war effort, B. They could send supplies and more men. Kiev only fell after encircling, bombing it to the ground and attacking the army east of it, but at the end of it taught Russian generals how to avoid German encirclement.

 

[Patroklos]

How is it irrelevant in anyone way? Battle of Moscow was of the more important battles during the Eastern front. Or are you just trying to prove my point?

Large portions of Operation Barbarossa occured well within the range of Polish airfields and the airfields inside Russia that were captured before they could be properly sabatoged. The winter is what really stopped the German advance, if the initial phases of the campaign progresses faster which adding thousands of CAS and bomber aircraft support obviously would have accomplished, the Germans reach Moscow weeks earlier.

Not only that, but the German uints are not nearly as wittled down by that point either.

Minsk was bombed on day 1 and captured 4 days later, so that didn't hold up anything. Am going to say this one more time THE RUSSIANS WOULD FIGHT FOR THE RUINS OF THEIR BOMBED CITIES.

Perhaps this escaped your attention, but besides destroying buildings bombs have a habit of destroying soldiers/tanks/support echelons too. The fact that Russians fight for cities is irrelevant, they were going to do that regardless. The difference is are they better at doing that before or after being mauled by air support? The answer is obvious.

Which wasn't a problem for the Germans till Eastern Front turned against them.

Utterly false. Regardless, all that support constitutes the Germans being in a better position to prosecute the initial invasion AND resist the Russian winter counter offensive. This simple logic is intuitive to most people, I am not sure why you can't grasp it.

Because delaying attacks and changing sound plans to be bat . .. .. .. . crazy plans makes no difference in war.

Its irrelevant because that is independent of the Wehrmacht have the BoB resources at its disposal. That was going to happen anyway, we are examining what would have been different.

Even with Hitler's meddling the Germans still managed to reach the outskirts of Moscow, if the German's had had access to that extra support and units the outcome is obvious.

Problem is the German army wasn't equipped for winter or street fighting

Street fighting? Like the Russians were any better equipped of that

And the Germans had no problem taking Russian cities in Barbarossa, they took hundreds of them. The problem was there were so many to take that they didn't have the forces to get them fast enough to reach Moscow before the winder. Three more corps (a mere six divisions, there was far more than that twiddling their thumbs in the west) would have been enough to continue the drive on Moscow while Kiev and Leningrad were reduced.

Make am your mind. First you say the need Leningrad to bring supplies, then you say not to siege Leningrad. Which one is it?

If you have taken Leningrad, you no longer have to besiege it. See how that works?

Kursk happen after the Eastern Front started going to the Russians way

Yeah, and having their army gutted at Kursk as opposed to what did happen wouldn't have changed that at all, right?

Leningrad would never fall for: A. Major city for the Russian war effort, B. They could send supplies and more men. Kiev only fell after encircling, bombing it to the ground and attacking the army east of it, but at the end of it taught Russian generals how to avoid German encirclement.

Its quite obvious you have no idea about how the invasion was prosecuted. Was Minsk not a major Russian city? Kiev? Kharkov? Smolensk? Sevastopol? Odessa? The Russians were successful in defending some major cities, many times they were not. The idea that just because they were important they would not "allow" them to fall is ridiculous. That’s exactly the kind of "Fortress" mentality that led Hitler to waste countless units on lost causes. It also illustrates your video game understanding of strategy.

 

[Flying Pig]

Did the Russkies have any professionals at that time? They seem to have taken appalling casulty rates on reasonably simple objectives.

 

[Patroklos]

Despite popular versions of history, the purges didn't remove all talent from the Russian officer corps. More important than the actual officers removed was the disorganization throughout the forces it brought on and the stiffling of original thinking or the motivation to take responsibility for anything. Once the Russians got mauled enough to force them to snap out of it new leaders emerged.

 

[Flying Pig]

I mean professional regiments, not just officers. They had Georgei Zhukov, which must say something.

 

[negZero]

Large portions of Operation Barbarossa occured well within the range of Polish airfields and the airfields inside Russia that were captured before they could be properly sabatoged.The winter is what really stopped the German advance, if the initial phases of the campaign progresses faster which adding thousands of CAS and bomber aircraft support obviously would have accomplished, the Germans reach Moscow weeks earlier.

THE FRONT HAD OUTRAN THE AIR POWER.

Not only that, but the German uints are not nearly as wittled down by that point either.

So was the Russian forces heck more so but they still turned the tidal

Perhaps this escaped your attention, but besides destroying buildings bombs have a habit of destroying soldiers/tanks/support echelons too. The fact that Russians fight for cities is irrelevant, they were going to do that regardless. The difference is are they better at doing that before or after being mauled by air support? The answer is obvious.

Bombs also have the habit of hitting friendlies too making them pretty useless when your in a street fight.

Utterly false.

Then why haven't I ever heard of German supply problems before the front turned against them?

Regardless, all that support constitutes the Germans being in a better position to prosecute the initial invasion

Which want off great and mostly likely couldn't be pulled off any better.

AND resist the Russian winter counter offensive. This simple logic is intuitive to most people, I am not sure why you can't grasp it.

Because the German army wasn't equipped to handle the harsh winter of '41.

Its irrelevant because that is independent of the Wehrmacht have the BoB resources at its disposal. That was going to happen anyway, we are examining what would have been different.

Which wasn't going to change much since the Battle of Britain cost them air power, which Germans outran during the invasion

Even with Hitler's meddling the Germans still managed to reach the outskirts of Moscow,

Look how that battle ended

if the German's had had access to that extra support and units the outcome is obvious.

Never heard of the Nazi weather control machine

Street fighting? Like the Russians were any better equipped of that

They won those battles so they must have had something the Germans.

And the Germans had no problem taking Russian cities in Barbarossa, they took hundreds of them. The problem was there were so many to take that they didn't have the forces to get them fast enough

Umm they did till they hit the key cities of Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow.

to reach Moscow before the winder. Three more corps (a mere six divisions, there was far more than that twiddling their thumbs in the west) would have been enough to continue the drive on Moscow while Kiev and Leningrad were reduced.

Which only get them in the city of Moscow not win the street that was going to follow.

If you have taken Leningrad, you no longer have to besiege it. See how that works?

And to take Leningrad you would need to fight for it and that would cause the Siege of Leningrad. See how that works?

Yeah, and having their army gutted at Kursk as opposed to what did happen wouldn't have changed that at all, right?

Kursk happen after the war turned against Germany, there army would be gutted eventually.

Its quite obvious you have no idea about how the invasion was prosecuted. Was Minsk not a major Russian city? Kiev? Kharkov? Smolensk? Sevastopol? Odessa?

First read what I said, second how many of those cities were main base for a group like the Soviet Baltic Fleet.

The Russians were successful in defending some major cities, many times they were not. The idea that just because they were important they would not "allow" them to fall is ridiculous.

Thats why Stalingrad, Moscow, and Leningrad never fell, even after they had become nothing but a ruins.

That’s exactly the kind of "Fortress" mentality that led Hitler to waste countless units on lost causes. It also illustrates your video game understanding of strategy.

To bad it worked for Stalin

 

[Flying Pig]

It worked at massive cost - the Grit school of war says defending is, in general, a bad idea. If the Reds had more elite troops and were able to make better attacks, then they should have, but they basically ended up shoving the enemy back with their weight.

 

[aelf]

Didn't George Marshall say that there's no problem that can't be solved if you throw enough meat at it? That's kind of ironic.

 

[Flying Pig]

So long as the meat can do the Fan Dance in 4 hours and is carrying automatics, I agree