Performance of the British army in WW2 - how good?

[Jackson2626]

Germans in the West were treated very well, and I for one would not have authorized the bombing of civilian cities in Europe. I think it was something the US Air force wanted to avoid, and to intentionally harm civilians on the ground is wrong and cowardly.

In the Tunisia Campaign alone, over 300,000 troops were captured. That's just North Africa, and before the Western Front really kicked off. Capturing your opponent's troops is just as effective as killing or maiming them, and ask any high ranking officer, it is the preferred method.

 

[red_elk]

Really, but cause right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_II) clearly shows that Germany suffered well over 5,000,0000 casualties on the Western Front.

The figure of 5 millions seems to include several millions of people disarmed after German surrender in 1945.
May be you just started learning WW2 history or something - the scale of battles and casualties on Eastern and Western front were uncomparable.

Just two infographics to give a general idea about the difference:

 

[Jackson2626]

In the Tunisia

The figure of 5 millions seems to include several millions of people disarmed after German surrender in 1945.
May be you just started learning WW2 history or something - the scale of battles and casualties on Eastern and Western front were uncomparable.

Just two infographics to give a general idea about the difference:

I provided you with a substantial source about how many Germany troops were in American custody at the War's end. It's not sinking in for you that millions of valuable troops were captured on the Western Front, not to mention the valuable mobile units Germany used on the Western Front and were lost. The War in the East was a War that included civilians as much as it did soldiers, and not to discredit Stalingrad, but that battle was lost for Germany due to a lack of experience of Romanian troops.

How were these troops disarmed before they surrendered? Explain that one.

Russia lost a War to Japan in 1905, and that was a one on one fight. You really think the USSR stood a chance defeating Germany on its own?

 

[innonimatu]

Not true at all. When you factor in the amount of troops captured, then Germany suffered a similar amount of casualties on both fronts.

If you go by that metric the USSR took out Japan in WW2 just because it crushed the Kwantung Army. When Japan was already in a hopeless situation, its army demoralized. It hastened the end but it wasn't what brought it about. The western front in WW2 was kind of the same thing.

Patton liked very much to boast, but he didn't had the supply lines to race to Berlin unless the germans totally collapsed. Which they did after the soviets launched their assault on Berlin.

 

[red_elk]

How were these troops disarmed before they surrendered? Explain that one.

They were disarmed after Germany surrendered - it is explained in the wiki article you gave me link to.

Russia lost a War to Japan in 1905

It has about as much to do with WW2 as US losing Vietnam war.

Edit:

You really think the USSR stood a chance defeating Germany on its own?

In 1944, definitely yes, USSR was capable to finish off Germany on its own. Regardless if Western front was opened or not.

 

[Jackson2626]

If you go by that metric the USSR took out Japan in WW2 just because it crushed the Kwantung Army. When Japan was already in a hopeless situation, its army demoralized. It hastened the end but it wasn't what brought it about. The western front in WW2 was kind of the same thing.

Patton liked very much to boast, but he didn't had the supply lines to race to Berlin unless the germans totally collapsed. Which they did after the soviets launched their assault on Berlin.

As we were planning to invade mainland Japan, with their Navy and Air Power obliterated, the Philippines in American hands, Australia was safe and Okinawa was secured. The Communists wanted to grab up as much land as possible.

It's safe to say the had there been no Western Front, the USSR would have been up against millions of more troops that included SS, Paratroopers and assorted armored divisions.

If you go by that metric the USSR took out Japan in WW2 just because it crushed the Kwantung Army. When Japan was already in a hopeless situation, its army demoralized. It hastened the end but it wasn't what brought it about. The western front in WW2 was kind of the same thing.

Patton liked very much to boast, but he didn't had the supply lines to race to Berlin unless the germans totally collapsed. Which they did after the soviets launched their assault on Berlin.

Do you know where the Elbe River is? That's where the Western Allies stopped. You had to separate Wars going on. No offense, but Allied concerns didn't just pertain to forcing the Axis to capitulate, they were also concerned with the prospect of these Axis countries after the War, falling to Communism. If that happened, what was the point of the Allies fighting the War in the first place?

One thing you fail to realize about what I have been saying is the importance of particular units in Warfare. What is the point of having a numerical advantage if the troops you have either cannot fight well, or refuse to fight? I would rather have one division of well trained, battle hardened troops, than 3 divisions of less experienced troops. Yes, there were upper echelon Axis units fighting in the East, but there were also many more that fought in the West. Take a look at the German units that were, or almost were entirely trapped in the Falaise Pocket.

 

[Ajidica]

and not to discredit Stalingrad, but that battle was lost for Germany due to a lack of experience of Romanian troops.

I'm pretty sure that the Nazis lost at Stalingrad for reasons completely unrelated to the potential quality of Romanian troops. The crippling supply shortage and obscene distances involved should have been enough to killed the Nazi advance before it started.

You really think the USSR stood a chance defeating Germany on its own?

Yes.
Everything that could have gone right for the Nazis in 1941 went right for them, and they still failed in their goals. It would have taken a lot longer and been a lot bloodier, but unless the Nazis radically changed their wars plans, it would still have resulted in an eventual Soviet victory.

As we were planning to invade mainland Japan, with their Navy and Air Power obliterated, the Philippines in American hands, Australia was safe and Okinawa was secured. The Communists wanted to grab up as much land as possible.

FWIW it wasn't land Stalin was after, but concessions from the UK/US. The more places Stalin had a foot in the door for negotiation the more places he could force the US/UK to acknowledge his wishes and more leverage he had. That was one of the major problems Stalin and the Soviet Union had during Munich and the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Remember that Stalin had offered to protect Czechoslovakia from the Nazis if Britain and France had agreed to it. Without any leverage, Stalin couldn't persuade France and the UK to go along with it. Events would prove Britain and France missed their last, best opportunity to slap down Mr. Hitler. A full Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia would have been a pretty close run thing -Czechoslovakia had inherited most of the Austro-Hungarian industrial base- and maintained the singly largest arms factory in Europe (Skoda Works) and had extensive reserves of raw materials. No occupation of Czechoslovakia, no Nazi panzers racing through the Ardennes.

It's safe to say the had there been no Western Front, the USSR would have been up against millions of more troops that included SS, Paratroopers and assorted armored divisions.

War isn't a civ game where you can stack unlimited number of troops on a single square. Every additional German soldier in Russia needs to have his equipment and food shipped thousands of miles into basically untamed wilderness. The Soviet road network was poorer than some African colonies and the Soviets did a very good job at wrecking their railway equipment forcing the Nazis to confront the break-of-gauge between German and Russian railways. The already crippling supply shortages that stalled the Nazi advance would only have been worse if they decided to bring over even more troops from the west.

falling to Communism. If that happened, what was the point of the Allies fighting the War in the first place?

To stop the Nazis? The Nazis had a plan that envisioned an apocalyptic clash of civilizations leaving the victor standing over slave races in a burned out world - and implemented a plan to starve well over thirty million to death in order to create a pure Aryan reich. The Soviets, for all of their many, many, problems, and the paranoia of Stalin, quite simply didn't have that plan.

 

[Jackson2626]

I'm pretty sure that the Nazis lost at Stalingrad for reasons completely unrelated to the potential quality of Romanian troops. The crippling supply shortage and obscene distances involved should have been enough to killed the Nazi advance before it started.


Yes.
Everything that could have gone right for the Nazis in 1941 went right for them, and they still failed in their goals. It would have taken a lot longer and been a lot bloodier, but unless the Nazis radically changed their wars plans, it would still have resulted in an eventual Soviet victory.


FWIW it wasn't land Stalin was after, but concessions from the UK/US. The more places Stalin had a foot in the door for negotiation the more places he could force the US/UK to acknowledge his wishes and more leverage he had. That was one of the major problems Stalin and the Soviet Union had during Munich and the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Remember that Stalin had offered to protect Czechoslovakia from the Nazis if Britain and France had agreed to it. Without any leverage, Stalin couldn't persuade France and the UK to go along with it. Events would prove Britain and France missed their last, best opportunity to slap down Mr. Hitler. A full Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia would have been a pretty close run thing -Czechoslovakia had inherited most of the Austro-Hungarian industrial base- and maintained the singly largest arms factory in Europe (Skoda Works) and had extensive reserves of raw materials. No occupation of Czechoslovakia, no Nazi panzers racing through the Ardennes.


War isn't a civ game where you can stack unlimited number of troops on a single square. Every additional German soldier in Russia needs to have his equipment and food shipped thousands of miles into basically untamed wilderness. The Soviet road network was poorer than some African colonies and the Soviets did a very good job at wrecking their railway equipment forcing the Nazis to confront the break-of-gauge between German and Russian railways. The already crippling supply shortages that stalled the Nazi advance would only have been worse if they decided to bring over even more troops from the west.
.


To stop the Nazis? The Nazis had a plan that envisioned an apocalyptic clash of civilizations leaving the victor standing over slave races in a burned out world - and implemented a plan to starve well over thirty million to death in order to create a pure Aryan reich. The Soviets, for all of their many, many, problems, and the paranoia of Stalin, quite simply didn't have that plan.

So I am not trying to overtly destroy the reputation of the Red Army, but Germany absolutely spanked Russia in WWl, very handily I might add at Tannenburg, and that was in East Prussia. What about Finland in 1940 where the Finns slaughtered them with a far smaller force, which caused the USSR to completely retreat from Lapland. Truth is is that the Red Army was very dysfunctional, under equipped and poorly trained.

Have a look at the quality of the Romanian Army http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/romanias-disaster-at-stalingrad/. Even the Germans at Stalingrad said the Romanians were totally useless.

I do not agree that the USSR would have had a chance to beat Germany alone. I don't believe they had even a remote chance and to say they did really defies logic and history.

Really, the War in the East wasn't just Germany's War, as I've stated it was a multinational contingent. The War in the West resembled more of a professional War with higher quality combatants and a far better understanding of modern tactics and strategies. France and Italy were very much worth defending as they were centerpieces of Hitler's empire. France and Italy were also of very high priority to the Allies, fighting on ancient ground where many important battles were waged throughout Europe's history.

 

[Ajidica]

So I am not trying to overtly destroy the reputation of the Red Army, but Germany absolutely spanked Russia in WWl, very handily I might add at Tannenburg, and that was in East Prussia. What about Finland in 1940 where the Finns slaughtered them with a far smaller force, which caused the USSR to completely retreat from Lapland. Truth is is that the Red Army was very dysfunctional, under equipped and poorly trained.

Not sure what the effectiveness of the Tsarist military has to do with the performance of the Red Army in the Second World War.
That the Red Army was a hot mess in 1939/40/41 is not contested by anyone, and lends credence to the argument that the Soviet Union could have defeated Nazi Germany on its own. If at the high water mark of Nazi military prowess they couldn't defeat an army best described as a hot mess, what makes you think that they would be able to do so down the line as Nazi supply problems continued to compound themselves?

Have a look at the quality of the Romanian Army http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/romanias-disaster-at-stalingrad/. Even the Germans at Stalingrad said the Romanians were totally useless.

The quality (or lack thereof) of Romanian troops in the Eastern Front wouldn't make my Top 10 list on why the Nazis failed in their invasion of the Soviet Union and their defeat at Stalingrad. I'm not even sure they would make it into the Top 20. By the time the Romanian troops started to matter, the Nazis had already lost the war and were in a long, slow, defeat. Anything the Nazis tried to do was limited by their increasingly precarious supply and logistics situation. I'm not generally a fan of the "just read a book" style of posting, but I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with the disastrous state of the Nazi wartime economy and supply situation. (Adam Tooze The Wages of Destruction is a good place to start.)

I do not agree that the USSR would have had a chance to beat Germany alone. I don't believe they had even a remote chance and to say they did really defies logic and history.

Care to elaborate?
Germany, going into rearmament, was not a wealthy country. In today's terms, they would be roughly equivalent to Iran or South Africa, quality of life was roughly half that of the US and had a GDP per capita of less than Denmark, France, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Britain, Canada, and the US. Total national income was roughly equivalent to the Soviet Union depending on how you count. Once Germany began losing access to international markets in the mid 1930s their entire economy was basically forced to start cannibalizing itself. By themselves, the Soviets or United Kingdom could have beat the Nazis simply by waiting for the Nazis to reach the point they did historically, where they were forced to use seed crops for food. Once that happened, it was all over for the Nazis. The involvement of the United States and the Soviet Union simply ensured that the war ended sooner than it otherwise would have, and without leaving Europe a burned wreck.

Really, the War in the East wasn't just Germany's War, as I've stated it was a multinational contingent.

And? The Korean War involved Ethiopian troops. Doesn't mean that the failures of the UN forces in Korea was down to the poor quality of the Ethiopian troops.

The War in the West resembled more of a professional War with higher quality combatants and a far better understanding of modern tactics and strategies.

Yeahno. Once the Red Army recovered from their "hot mess" period, they were far better than Nazis who placed an over reliance on concentrated armored thrusts and never really learned how to deal with their crippling supply shortage. A cursory look at the battle of Kursk starts to feel like you are trapped in a revolving door of "Nazi armored thrust pushed back Soviet lines, but a lack of resources prevented troops from moving in to support, forcing Nazi lines back".
If you want to talk about individual commanders, Blaskowitz is in the running for top wartime commander -the guy executed a retreat by going behind Patton- but unfortunately he didn't live long enough after the war to write self-serving memoirs like Guderian.

 

[Jackson2626]

Not sure what the effectiveness of the Tsarist military has to do with the performance of the Red Army in the Second World War.
That the Red Army was a hot mess in 1939/40/41 is not contested by anyone, and lends credence to the argument that the Soviet Union could have defeated Nazi Germany on its own. If at the high water mark of Nazi military prowess they couldn't defeat an army best described as a hot mess, what makes you think that they would be able to do so down the line as Nazi supply problems continued to compound themselves?


The quality (or lack thereof) of Romanian troops in the Eastern Front wouldn't make my Top 10 list on why the Nazis failed in their invasion of the Soviet Union and their defeat at Stalingrad. I'm not even sure they would make it into the Top 20. By the time the Romanian troops started to matter, the Nazis had already lost the war and were in a long, slow, defeat. Anything the Nazis tried to do was limited by their increasingly precarious supply and logistics situation. I'm not generally a fan of the "just read a book" style of posting, but I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with the disastrous state of the Nazi wartime economy and supply situation. (Adam Tooze The Wages of Destruction is a good place to start.)


Care to elaborate?
Germany, going into rearmament, was not a wealthy country. In today's terms, they would be roughly equivalent to Iran or South Africa, quality of life was roughly half that of the US and had a GDP per capita of less than Denmark, France, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Britain, Canada, and the US. Total national income was roughly equivalent to the Soviet Union depending on how you count. Once Germany began losing access to international markets in the mid 1930s their entire economy was basically forced to start cannibalizing itself. By themselves, the Soviets or United Kingdom could have beat the Nazis simply by waiting for the Nazis to reach the point they did historically, where they were forced to use seed crops for food. Once that happened, it was all over for the Nazis. The involvement of the United States and the Soviet Union simply ensured that the war ended sooner than it otherwise would have, and without leaving Europe a burned wreck.


And? The Korean War involved Ethiopian troops. Doesn't mean that the failures of the UN forces in Korea was down to the poor quality of the Ethiopian troops.

Yeahno. Once the Red Army recovered from their "hot mess" period, they were far better than Nazis who placed an over reliance on concentrated armored thrusts and never really learned how to deal with their crippling supply shortage. A cursory look at the battle of Kursk starts to feel like you are trapped in a revolving door of "Nazi armored thrust pushed back Soviet lines, but a lack of resources prevented troops from moving in to support, forcing Nazi lines back".
If you want to talk about individual commanders, Blaskowitz is in the running for top wartime commander -the guy executed a retreat by going behind Patton- but unfortunately he didn't live long enough after the war to write self-serving memoirs like Guderian.

That's a lot of text without any substance. I will say it again, the Red Army was dysfunctional, under supplied and poorly trained. I will also restate that Germany's flank was exposed and the 6th Army was surrounded at Stalingrad because of Romanian troops not being able to defend the Axis right flank. You are not really trying to understand anything that I've said. If Germany had all of its MOBILE ARMORED UNITS available on the Eastern Front it changes the entire dynamic. Did you even look at the article that I showed you which lends weight to the reality that most of the Axis troops in the East would be described as not even 2nd rate?

Ask a reliable source about the last days of the Third Reich. It wasn't that there wasn't enough people to defend Berlin, its that the German high command could not muster enough quality soldiers. Volkssturm were being used to defend the city center, and the Soviets had little to no effect from the air, but Germany could not take advantage because their air power had been neutralized by primarily the Western Allies.

 

[red_elk]

Did you even look at the article that I showed you which lends weight to the reality that most of the Axis troops in the East would be described as not even 2nd rate?

Why would they put their 2-nd grade troops to fight a battle of crucial importance? And where were their best troops in Summer 1942?

 

[Jackson2626]

Why would they put their 2-nd grade troops to fight a battle of crucial importance? And where were their best troops in Summer 1942?

Why would the Eastern Front be more important than the West? Losing Kiev sucks, losing Rome and Paris is catastrophic. See the difference?

 

[red_elk]

Why would the Eastern Front be more important than the West?

In 1942? Well, because pretty much all the fight was in the Eastern front at that time. D-Day happened 2 years later.

 

[Jackson2626]

In 1942? Well, because pretty much all the fight was in the Eastern front at that time. D-Day happened 2 years later.

Tunisia, Sicily, Italy. You think these were easy campaigns?

I would bet my left nut that the Soviets would fail an amphibious invasion of Italy. They would lack the organization and resources, and the terrain of Italy was ideal for holding ground.

 

[red_elk]

Tunisia, Sicily, Italy. You think these were easy campaigns?

You seriously claim that Tunisia was more important than Stalingrad and that Hitler sent his best troops there?

 

[Jackson2626]

You seriously claim that Tunisia was more important than Stalingrad and that Hitler sent his best troops there?

Now you are dissembling and trying to manipulate my argument. Why the hell would anyone need to explain to someone why these countries would be important to the Third Reich? If you are going to rule Europe, might it be important to control the Mediterranean?

 

[red_elk]

Why the hell would anyone need to explain to someone why these countries would be important to the Third Reich?

As important as the outcome of Stalingrad battle? I'm only asking whether you think Hitler sent his best troops to invade Africa, leaving 2-nd grade troops in Stalingrad.

 

[Jackson2626]

As important as the outcome of Stalingrad battle? I'm only asking whether you think Hitler sent his best troops to invade Africa, leaving 2-nd grade troops in Stalingrad.

So you just dismiss what I just said regardless of how pertinent it is. Yes I believe that Hitler sent his best formations into the Mediterranean. You yourself could easily find the order of battle.

Again, this is about capturing objectives and it's unbelievable that you cannot see the great importance of the campaigns I just mentioned. What did Germany really have to gain by holding countries like Belarus and the Ukraine, when compared to what they would lose if North Africa, Italy, France and the rest of Western Europe were lost?

 

[red_elk]

Again, this is about capturing objectives and it's unbelievable that you cannot see the great importance of the campaigns I just mentioned. What did Germany really have to gain by holding countries like Belarus and the Ukraine, when compared to what they would lose if North Africa, Italy, France and the rest of Western Europe were lost?

Again, in 1942 there were no fights in Italy, France and Western Europe. Only North African campaign, where German losses were 20,000 KIA in three years.
Not sure if this is trolling or you are seriously trying to compare its importance to the Eastern Front. May be Germans forgot there was nothing to gain for them, from holding Belarussia and Ukraine and continue sending millions of soldiers and losing them there...

 

[Jackson2626]

So you just dismiss what I just said regardless of how pertinent it is. Yes I believe that Hitler sent his best formations into the Mediterranean. You yourself could easily find the order of battle.

Again, this is about capturing objectives and it's unbelievable that you cannot see the great importance of the campaigns I just mentioned. What did Germany really have to gain by holding countries like Belarus and the Ukraine, when compared to what they would lose if North Africa, Italy, France and the rest of Western Europe were lost?

Even North Africa on its own was important/

Again, in 1942 there were no fights in Italy, France and Western Europe. Only North African campaign, where German losses were 20,000 KIA in three years.
Not sure if this is trolling or you are seriously trying to compare its importance to the Eastern Front, where Germany was sending and losing millions of soldiers. May be they forgot it was unimportant...

I am trying to compare its importance as Germany lost millions on the Western Front, and sometimes hundreds of thousands at a time. You are very dense and obtuse and fail to see logic