Performance of the British army in WW2 - how good?

[red_elk]

I am trying to compare its importance as Germany lost millions on the Western Front, and sometimes hundreds of thousands at a time.

Well, since 80% of German losses were in the Eastern front, your conclusion should to be different.

You are very dense and obtuse and fail to see logic.

And you are ignorant about basic WW2 facts, which people suppose to learn at school.

 

[Jackson2626]

Even North Africa on its own was important/

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

What do you mean 20,000? The Axis suffered over 300,000 casualties in Tunisia.
Numbers are really not the key point here. What's more important are the content of those numbers. What units were they? To defeat an Army you must always defeat the cream of the Army.
I am sick of people who espouse this nonsense and exaggerate the Eastern Front to the point where they are trying to discredit the West. Its amazing that you cannot understand how losing your best formations in War are irreplaceable.

 

[Jackson2626]

Well, since 80% of German losses were in the Eastern front, your conclusion should to be different.


And you are ignorant about basic WW2 facts, which people suppose to learn at school.

No they didn't suffer 80% of their casualties in the East. I have already provided a link that dismisses that myth

 

[innonimatu]

The only logic I can make of your posts is that you have an ideological agenda that requires Germany to have lost to the western allies, and only those, and are willing to twist and make up past events to claim it was so.

How fast a front changed depended to a large degree on terrain. Italy was easier to defend that the open spaces of eastern Europe, or the coastal strip of north Africa from El Alamein to Tunisia. Most of the losses Germany took were on the eastern front. And captured prisoners after it surrendered obviously do not count. If you want to claim otherwise then provide the numbers and the sources where you got them. I'm willing to revise my position of I'm shown facts that challenge it.

The truth is that Germany spent the vast majority of its materiel on the eastern front, even more that the number of its soldiers, and it seems to me that the troops fighting there perforce became their best troops because they were the ones that had to continually fight after 1941. Other people may disagree with this, but I'd like to hear why they would believe that the troops in the east were somehow "second rate".

You just keep making wild claims and failing to provide any evidence or even justification. When pressed you pull out facts (those 300 000 include italians, do they not?) that contradict your prior claims.

 

[Jackson2626]

The only logic I can make of your posts is that you have an ideological agenda that requires Germany to have lost to the (western) allies, and only the allies, and are willing to twist and make up past events to claim it was so.

How fast a front changed depended to a large degree on terrain. Italy was easier to defend that the open spaces of eastern Europe, or the coastal strip of north Africa from El Alamein to Tunisia. Most of the losses Germany took were on the eastern front. And captured prisoners after it surrendered obviously do not count. If you want to claim otherwise then provide the numbers and the sources where you got them. I'm willing to revise my position of I'm shown facts that challenge it.

The truth is that Germany spent the vast majority of its materiel on the eastern front, even more that the number of its soldiers, and it seems to me that the troops fighting there perforce became their best troops because they were the ones that had to continually fight after 1941. Other people may disagree with this, but I'd like to hear why they would believe that the troops in the east were somehow "second rate".

You just keep making wild claims and failing to provide any evidence or even justification. hen pressed you pull out facts (those 300 000 include italians, do they not?) that contradict your prior claims.

You just don't like what I am saying so you are trying to manipulate my argument, an argument that I have supported. You on the other hand have provided nothing, and most of your posts are irrelevant and do not pertain to what I am actually saying.

Do you not see how it would annoy people when the Soviets try to claim all the credit when they know in their hearts that they wouldn't have had a snow ball's chance in hell to invade Germany like they did without the Western Allies?

Should I spell it out for you..... To control Europe, the Mediterranean is absolutely essential to hold on to, and if I have to explain why, then I feel sorry for you. You dismiss everything before June 6 as being secondary and minor, when in reality they were crushing blows for Germany's aspirations.

 

[red_elk]

No they didn't suffer 80% of their casualties in the East.

Let me simply quote what David Glantz has to say on the matter:

"Relative Contributions to Victory:
On the 50th anniversary of the Normandy invasion of 1944, a U.S. news magazine featured a cover photo of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was labeled as the man who defeated Hitler. If any one man deserved that label, it was not Eisenhower but Zhukov, Vasilevsky, or possibly Stalin himself. More generally, the Red Army and the Soviet citizenry of many nationalities bore the lion’s share of the struggle against Germany from 1941 to 1945."

http://sti.clemson.edu/publications...-sti-publications-by-subject-area/158-history

I have already provided a link that dismisses that myth

So far, you haven't provided any link at all, which would dismiss anything of what I said.

 

[Jackson2626]

Let me simply quote what David Glantz has to say on the matter:

"Relative Contributions to Victory:
On the 50th anniversary of the Normandy invasion of 1944, a U.S. news magazine featured a cover photo of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was labeled as the man who defeated Hitler. If any one man deserved that label, it was not Eisenhower but Zhukov, Vasilevsky, or possibly Stalin himself. More generally, the Red Army and the Soviet citizenry of many nationalities bore the lion’s share of the struggle against Germany from 1941 to 1945."

http://sti.clemson.edu/publications...-sti-publications-by-subject-area/158-history

A random quote from a man with obvious bias. I am overwhelmed.....

Why do you ignore every point that I make? If you want to challenge my argument, then tell me why the Mediterranean is not vital, and tell me why Germany didn't need to desperately hold Italy

 

[red_elk]

A random quote from a man with obvious bias. I am overwhelmed.....

Well, that's just another indication of your level of competence.

Why do you ignore every point that I make?

I only ignore attempts to move the goalposts. A few substantial points which you made, I have disproven.

 

[Jackson2626]

AHA,,,,. That's game-set-match right there. You have ran out of material and you cannot overcome my argument about geography. You lose, thanks for playing, sucker

 

[red_elk]

You have ran out of material and you cannot overcome my argument about geography.

There is nothing to "overcome". You are trying to make me prove things which I never claimed.

You lose, thanks for playing, sucker

You could just say you are 15 or so years old, would be a lot easier for everybody.

 

[Ajidica]

I will say it again, the Red Army was dysfunctional, under supplied and poorly trained.

At the start of the war, sure. The Red Army was a hot mess still suffering from officer purges and outdated equipment. By the end of the war, the Red Army was very, very, very good.

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.

Why were their flanks exposed? Lack of troops and resources. That they were forced to rely on increasingly unreliable troops to defend the flanks -despite knowing full well Soviet Deep Battle doctrine loved them some grand flanking maneuvers- just shows how over-extended the Nazis were when they tried to lunge for Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad.

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.

Again, real life warfare isn't a civ game. You can't just stack an arbitrarily large number of units in an area with no logistical issues. Armored units require an obscene amount of logistical support. Every additional soldier needs to be fed and equipped. Every additional vehicle needs gas, replacement parts, and replacement vehicles. Additional resources need to be set aside for non-combat repair formations. Almost all of this had to be carried thousands of miles by truck across the rutted cart tracks which were passed for Russia in roads. The different Russian railway gauge and partisan activity hampered Nazi efforts to use the Russian railway network to move troops and supplies. All of this placed additional limitations on an already overstretched Nazi logistical operation.

It wasn't that there wasn't enough people to defend Berlin, its that the German high command could not muster enough quality soldiers.

Yeah, their bodies were scattered across the Ukrainian plains.

Should I spell it out for you..... To control Europe, the Mediterranean is absolutely essential to hold on to, and if I have to explain why, then I feel sorry for you.

Explain it to me like I'm 12. What were the Nazi's long-term goals in getting involved in propping up the Italian's North Africa debacle? They were able to force the British Commonwealth to avoid the Suez and send supplies around the Cape of Good Hope. While that was an inconvenience to the British, was hardly the end of the world for them and something they would already be doing until they controlled Sicily and the boot of Italy. The Nazis were occasionally able to attempt to threaten the Suez Canal, but due to supply problems never really were able to do so seriously. The Nazi's half-assed some attempts to start an Arab uprising, but those never really got off the ground.
All that getting involved in North Africa really did was put the already precarious Nazi logistic and supply abilities under additional stress. If controlling the Mediterranean was as important as you say, the Nazis made horrendous blunders by deciding to invade the Soviet Union. (Never mind that the Nazis were on the verge of bankruptcy to the Soviet Union and in desperation was selling them battleships and fully formed industrial plants capable of making synthetic rubber.)

 

[red_elk]

If controlling the Mediterranean was as important as you say, the Nazis made horrendous blunders by deciding to invade the Soviet Union. (Never mind that the Nazis were on the verge of bankruptcy to the Soviet Union and in desperation was selling them battleships and fully formed industrial plants capable of making synthetic rubber.)

From what I read, Germany was even exporting machinery essential for T-34 production to USSR. Probably without knowing, because they were unaware of its combat effectiveness back then.
The war could have been much easier if USSR got another year to prepare - but fall of France made it impossible and costed probably additional millions of Soviet citizens lives.

 

[Ajidica]

Eh, it was a chicken-and-the-egg thing. The Soviets couldn't have gotten important machinery from the Nazis without giving the Nazis the raw materials needed for their invasion of France and the Low Countries (and their subsequent stepped up re-armament plans).

 

[red_elk]

Right.
Stalin most likely expected Germans to get bogged down in France, hopefully in long WW1-style campaign. So that USSR could open the second front later in much more advantageous position than it was in 1941.

 

[Jackson2626]

At the start of the war, sure. The Red Army was a hot mess still suffering from officer purges and outdated equipment. By the end of the war, the Red Army was very, very, very good.

Why were their flanks exposed? Lack of troops and resources. That they were forced to rely on increasingly unreliable troops to defend the flanks -despite knowing full well Soviet Deep Battle doctrine loved them some grand flanking maneuvers- just shows how over-extended the Nazis were when they tried to lunge for Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad.


Again, real life warfare isn't a civ game. You can't just stack an arbitrarily large number of units in an area with no logistical issues. Armored units require an obscene amount of logistical support. Every additional soldier needs to be fed and equipped. Every additional vehicle needs gas, replacement parts, and replacement vehicles. Additional resources need to be set aside for non-combat repair formations. Almost all of this had to be carried thousands of miles by truck across the rutted cart tracks which were passed for Russia in roads. The different Russian railway gauge and partisan activity hampered Nazi efforts to use the Russian railway network to move troops and supplies. All of this placed additional limitations on an already overstretched Nazi logistical operation.


Yeah, their bodies were scattered across the Ukrainian plains.


Explain it to me like I'm 12. What were the Nazi's long-term goals in getting involved in propping up the Italian's North Africa debacle? They were able to force the British Commonwealth to avoid the Suez and send supplies around the Cape of Good Hope. While that was an inconvenience to the British, was hardly the end of the world for them and something they would already be doing until they controlled Sicily and the boot of Italy. The Nazis were occasionally able to attempt to threaten the Suez Canal, but due to supply problems never really were able to do so seriously. The Nazi's half-assed some attempts to start an Arab uprising, but those never really got off the ground.
All that getting involved in North Africa really did was put the already precarious Nazi logistic and supply abilities under additional stress. If controlling the Mediterranean was as important as you say, the Nazis made horrendous blunders by deciding to invade the Soviet Union. (Never mind that the Nazis were on the verge of bankruptcy to the Soviet Union and in desperation was selling them battleships and fully formed industrial plants capable of making synthetic rubber.)

Italy was an Axis country, there was no need to invade it and fight against resistance. Germany did however invade Greece before the Eastern Front opened up, and landed troops on the island of Crete(Paratroopers). And of course I think we have all heard of the Afrika Korps, motorized divisions led by Germany's premiere commander.

The Axis did exert large efforts in the Mediterranean before they launched the November 1941 invasion.

You realize that Italy is not exactly a big place, and the terrain does not allow for enormous scale battles because it is full of mountains and ridges. Still...... Over 1,000,000 Axis troops fought in Italy.

 

[Jackson2626]

Italy is always a campaign that is overlooked, and that is inexcusable. Italy was an absolutely grueling campaign, and very difficult to attack. Why do you think Ancient Rome was able to stay alive for so long, even with the amount of enemies they had? Well, its because Italy is a very difficult place to launch a military offensive. Italy does not have much ground that is flat, and with the amount of high ground in Italy, it is very easy to establish interlocking fields of machine gun fire, and forward observers can find high ground to use artillery. Italy was like one big fortress.

 

[Ajidica]

Italy was an Axis country, there was no need to invade it and fight against resistance.

Until Italy decided they had enough, ousted Mussolini, and surrendered to the Allies prompting the Nazi's to set up a puppet state.

And of course I think we have all heard of the Afrika Korps, motorized divisions led by Germany's premiere commander.

Rommel is a good commander only if you ignore he had no idea how to handle logistics. For all of his great tactical mastery, every one of his offensives in North Africa ended with exhausted and over stretched supply lines unable to resist a British counterattack. For all the flack Montgomery gets -not entirely undeserved- he understood far better than Rommel that desert warfare requires a robust logistic network.

 

[Jackson2626]

Until Italy decided they had enough, ousted Mussolini, and surrendered to the Allies prompting the Nazi's to set up a puppet state.


Rommel is a good commander only if you ignore he had no idea how to handle logistics. For all of his great tactical mastery, every one of his offensives in North Africa ended with exhausted and over stretched supply lines unable to resist a British counterattack. For all the flack Montgomery gets -not entirely undeserved- he understood far better than Rommel that desert warfare requires a robust logistic network.

When Italy capitulated, Germany sent more troops into the Mediterranean

I am just trying to make it perfectly clear that the West was an enormous effort. We sent our 1st-4th Infantry Divisions, Paratroopers, Rangers and other well trained, well equipped Divisions.

We sent many top tier troop into Italy and it was hell, that's how difficult of a campaign it was. Finally it was a success, but look at the time between the initial invasion to the time where Rome was finally abandoned by the last Axis units.

 

[MilesGregarius]

Rommel is a good commander only if you ignore he had no idea how to handle logistics. For all of his great tactical mastery, every one of his offensives in North Africa ended with exhausted and over stretched supply lines unable to resist a British counterattack. For all the flack Montgomery gets -not entirely undeserved- he understood far better than Rommel that desert warfare requires a robust logistic network.

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980

 

[Jackson2626]

Until Italy decided they had enough, ousted Mussolini, and surrendered to the Allies prompting the Nazi's to set up a puppet state.


Rommel is a good commander only if you ignore he had no idea how to handle logistics. For all of his great tactical mastery, every one of his offensives in North Africa ended with exhausted and over stretched supply lines unable to resist a British counterattack. For all the flack Montgomery gets -not entirely undeserved- he understood far better than Rommel that desert warfare requires a robust logistic network.

I think the criticism that's usually made against Montgomery was on a personal level among other commanders in the field. Montgomery was known to be harshly critical in his own right, and generally minimized the accomplishments of units he didn't directly command. Neither him or Patton really liked each other personally, despite being able to coordinate efforts, there was definitely a difference in character. Well, actually what I said was an understatement. Montgomery practically denigrated most of the military leaders besides himself, regardless of nationality.