Performance of the British army in WW2 - how good?

[Gen.Mannerheim]

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.)

The Axis was monstrously unable to properly fight a prolonged campaign in the Mediterranean. The Germans has just short of zero naval presence in the area. While the Italian navy was a significant force, they were mainly designed to compete with the French and sunk most of the r&d into odd advancements (like extremely high muzzle velocity for their main guns) and not the more practical areas (like night fighting). As a result, the Regia Marina had a poor record against the Royal Navy. Thus any campaign in North Africa would see large amounts of arms and material never make it to their intended ports, and leaving the Axis on a poor footing.

Finally it was a success

Was it though? Besides partially knocking Italy out of the Axis Powers and taking Rome, the Italian Campaign didn't accomplish its goal of hastening the end of the war. The allies didn't even break into Northern Italy until early 1945. It bogged down large numbers of Allied troops, many of which were siphoned off to other fronts in mid-late 1944.

I think the criticism that's usually made against Montgomery was on a personal level among other commanders in the field.

Montgomery is right alongside MacArthur in being some of the worst commanders in terms of understanding/willing to work in an Alliance/Coalition system. Both were quick to claim subordinate successes as their own while also quickly shifting blame for setbacks on allied forces. While MacArthur should have been shot for treason (his high level of esteem still held in American culture is frustrating), Monty was just openly disobedient to his superiors. Monty thought his plans were superior simply because they were his plans. This is confirmed from memoirs from his subordinates. For example, even if one believes that the Germans were on their last legs in late 44, it takes an arrogant commander to launch an airborne attack in less than a week of planning when you don't even have the required number of transports.

 

[Jackson2626]

After Germany's collapse in Normandy, they were still able to regroup by autumn, and Allies faced a new obstacle. The Siegfried Line needed to be cracked, which was partially the reason for Market Garden. Market Garden was an attempt to quickly gain access to the Northern plains of Germany where there were no geographic barriers.

Something needs to be said about this. The 3rd Reich was very eclectic. There were many Germans and Axis soldiers who participated in the actual fighting and there were those that never fired a shot in the actual War . The ones that I respect were those who fought an actual opponent, not those who spent the entire war picking on civilians and fighting partisans. Needless to say the ones that I have no respect for are the ones who never actually fought an army, and then just surrendered when the War was over. It's also important to note that the cowards who spent their time dealing with civilians and then just surrendering, were the ones who tarnished the reputation of those who actually did fight. Not only tarnishing their names, but creating an entire culture and writing the history of the War later on.

If you want the true reality of the War, you'd have to talk to some old men who were actually on the front lines.

 

[Ajidica]

The Axis was monstrously unable to properly fight a prolonged campaign in the Mediterranean. The Germans has just short of zero naval presence in the area. While the Italian navy was a significant force, they were mainly designed to compete with the French and sunk most of the r&d into odd advancements (like extremely high muzzle velocity for their main guns) and not the more practical areas (like night fighting). As a result, the Regia Marina had a poor record against the Royal Navy. Thus any campaign in North Africa would see large amounts of arms and material never make it to their intended ports, and leaving the Axis on a poor footing.

Huh, I was under the impression that the Regia Marina was actually quite decent but the combination of an irrational fear of the Royal Navy and their desire to preserve their fleet as a "fleet in being" seriously hamstrung their naval operations.
(Weren't more Italian capital ships sunk after they surrendered than when they were at war with the Allies?)

 

[r16]

Rome being sunk by a guided German bomb because there were no Allied aircover because it wasn't politically expedient and am pretty sure Washington and London wanted a "less" Italian post war presence , obviously oblivious to Russian "potential" . ı could say Taranto attack knocked out more Italian battleships out of the war even if they just settled on the seabed in harbour .

partisans are worthy and even more dangerous opponents ; say when compared to average cannon fodder Red Army recruit . Say a 15 years old in 1944 , drafted for rolling fuel barrels to the next village and then given a rifle and a bayonet and a week's of basic and sent forward as cannon fodder .

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Huh, I was under the impression that the Regia Marina was actually quite decent but the combination of an irrational fear of the Royal Navy and their desire to preserve their fleet as a "fleet in being" seriously hamstrung their naval operations.
(Weren't more Italian capital ships sunk after they surrendered than when they were at war with the Allies?)

The Italian Navy did an admirable job during WWII given the task that they were given. The did have some successes, particularly in creating a corridor of control in the central Mediterranean and forcing the British into the Egyptian ports for a time (where the Italians inflicted some serious damage). However, the Italians had problems which almost guaranteed them failure in any long term war.

1) The Italians had 6 battleships, 19 cruisers, and 120+ other ships. This was enough to contend for control of the Mediterranean, but not enough to hold it. Many of the Italian successes early in the war were possible at least in part to the smaller British naval presence in the area. With the British successfully bottling up the German surface fleet, the amount of pressure the Brits and Americans would bring into the Mediterranean was only going to rise. Even if the Axis had achieved control of the Vichy fleet, its likely they wouldn't have made that much of a difference in the long term.
2) Italian technology and design was deeply flawed: As stated earlier, the Italians focused many of their R&D efforts on things like gun projectile velocity and engine power. Their ships didn't have things like radar! British ships would often attack at night, because the Italians literally couldn't see them until they were right on top of them. Italian ships, particularly the newer ones, were often very light in the armor department thus making them easy to knock off if the Brits could land any hits. Also, the Italians couldn't hit targets they couldn't see, a task the British and Germans (and others) had accomplished by the time of Jutland.
3) Lack of a Naval Air Arm: The Axis navies were entirely reliant on land-based air support. In a confined area like the Mediterranean this wouldn't seem like a big deal. However, when you realize that the land-based fighters are also responsible for their own/Army operations, its easy to see how the Axis air forces would quickly become overstretched. Add this to the fact that the Axis failed to take Malta, thus granting the Allies essentially a island aircraft carrier right in the middle of their lines of communication with North Africa. Furthermore, Allied naval air power gave them greater flexibility, as seen by the British attack on the fleet in Taranto in 1940.
4) British Ultra code breaking meant that from the start, the Brits could see just about every Axis fleet movement and convoy path, down to the point that they knew what convoys were carrying and when they would be leaving/arriving.
5) Probably most important: The Italians had a crippling shortage of fuel. The Italians didn't have the fuel reserves nor production to allow them to launch many serious fleet actions. What many post-war commentators though was Italian gun-shyness or an attempt to keep a "fleet in being" (both of which are partially the case) many modern studies have show in many cases the Italians just couldn't keep their fleet in action at one time.

 

[Silurian]

After Germany's collapse in Normandy, they were still able to regroup by autumn, and Allies faced a new obstacle. The Siegfried Line needed to be cracked, which was partially the reason for Market Garden. Market Garden was an attempt to quickly gain access to the Northern plains of Germany where there were no geographic barriers.

Something needs to be said about this. The 3rd Reich was very eclectic. There were many Germans and Axis soldiers who participated in the actual fighting and there were those that never fired a shot in the actual War . The ones that I respect were those who fought an actual opponent, not those who spent the entire war picking on civilians and fighting partisans. Needless to say the ones that I have no respect for are the ones who never actually fought an army, and then just surrendered when the War was over. It's also important to note that the cowards who spent their time dealing with civilians and then just surrendering, were the ones who tarnished the reputation of those who actually did fight. Not only tarnishing their names, but creating an entire culture and writing the history of the War later on.

If you want the true reality of the War, you'd have to talk to some old men who were actually on the front lines.

Many troops do not fire their weapons at the enemy.
This is mostly because they do not get near the enemy because they are involved in support roles logistics, medical, construction, HQ etc or are being used as a reserve.

I assume that you are aware that most US troops did not actually fight the Iraqi army before its surrender as they were also in support roles etc. And after that there was just partisans. There was no army in Afghanistan.

 

[Jackson2626]

Rome being sunk by a guided German bomb because there were no Allied aircover because it wasn't politically expedient and am pretty sure Washington and London wanted a "less" Italian post war presence , obviously oblivious to Russian "potential" . ı could say Taranto attack knocked out more Italian battleships out of the war even if they just settled on the seabed in harbour .

partisans are worthy and even more dangerous opponents ; say when compared to average cannon fodder Red Army recruit . Say a 15 years old in 1944 , drafted for rolling fuel barrels to the next village and then given a rifle and a bayonet and a week's of basic and sent forward as cannon fodder .

Many troops do not fire their weapons at the enemy.
This is mostly because they do not get near the enemy because they are involved in support roles logistics, medical, construction, HQ etc or are being used as a reserve.

I assume that you are aware that most US troops did not actually fight the Iraqi army before its surrender as they were also in support roles etc. And after that there was just partisans. There was no army in Afghanistan.

I believe I illustrated that in my argument quite well. The fact that Germany lived and died by the success or failure of its more effective divisions. Particularly mobile armored divisions which Germany needed to launch offensives, and their paratrooper formations which were their best troops to throw off an invasion from the sea. The fact that Germany had most of their better divisions on the Western Front was no accident. There were many examples in the West, like the Falaise Pocket, which demonstrated absolutely brilliant battlefield command, for the US Army maneuvered and had a better understanding of strategy than any other participant in the War.

Many of the Axis units that were based around logistics, medical and construction were static divisions, only designed to occupy. I would also surmise that they were likely conscripts recruited from German campaigns in the East. In the East, half the time you had no idea who was fighting who, and many countries in the Eastern block may have favored a Nazi Government over a Soviet one. The fact is is that Germany was fighting battles in the East, thousands of miles away from supplies and the home front. There is no way Germany was going to bring their full force to bear for battles in the outer recesses of the European continent.

Germany had far more to lose than what they had to gain in the East. What is so imperative about driving deeper into Soviet territory? Where were they going to go, Siberia? Or were there other Axis command structures in the East besides Germans? I think you'll find the answer to that question is YES.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

You do realize that the Germans were constantly moving units between fronts as the needs to the campaign dictated right? Many of the troops on the Atlantic wall for example were third rate conscripts. There are a few amusing tales of Allied interpreters being completely confused by the fact that their "German" prisoners were speaking Ukrainian.

The Germans themselves considered themselves to be fighting two different wars. A political campaign against the Western Powers and a war for civilization itself against the Communists. That's why the German higher command constantly held out hopes that they could reach a compromise with the Allies and then somehow together they would fight the Soviets.

 

[Jackson2626]

You do realize that the Germans were constantly moving units between fronts as the needs to the campaign dictated right? Many of the troops on the Atlantic wall for example were third rate conscripts. There are a few amusing tales of Allied interpreters being completely confused by the fact that their "German" prisoners were speaking Ukrainian.

The Germans themselves considered themselves to be fighting two different wars. A political campaign against the Western Powers and a war for civilization itself against the Communists. That's why the German higher command constantly held out hopes that they could reach a compromise with the Allies and then somehow together they would fight the Soviets.

Regardless, the Nazi Government which took over Germany I might add, wanted continental dominion in Europe. This whole idea that has been circulated by primarily the likes of RT News, for the last few years, about how Hitler's main goal was to "destroy Communism." Despite the fact that the Nazi Government shared many crucial concepts with Communism, even at the most fundamental levels of government. You never hear about Hitler's main goal being about preserving his <snip> empire, or why Hitler would in anyway consider the East more important than the West.... It's just nonsense, stupid, <snip>... doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's also very insulting for those of us who have a better grasp on what was really going on.

Moderator Action: Welcome to CFC! Please familiarize yourself with our Inappropriate Language rules. You can see find them in the link below. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ajidica]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. You saying Hitler didn't have a massive hate-boner for the Soviets? I think the only thing Hitler hated more than the Jews were Communists.
Remember, we are talking about a guy and political party who saw nothing wrong with ordering the death of well over thirty millions civilians because of some weird race theories. Any flirtation they had with rational thought was purely accidental.

 

[Jackson2626]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. You saying Hitler didn't have a massive hate-boner for the Soviets? I think the only thing Hitler hated more than the Jews were Communists.
Remember, we are talking about a guy and political party who saw nothing wrong with ordering the death of well over thirty millions civilians because of some weird race theories. Any flirtation they had with rational thought was purely accidental.

Ok, maybe I will make headway here..... What is more valuable real estate, Minsk/Kiev or Rome/Paris?

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Ok, maybe I will make headway here..... What is more valuable real estate, Minsk/Kiev or Rome/Paris?

If you ask the Nazis themselves, they would most certainly say Kiev and Minsk. Do you understand the concept of lebensraum or the superstate that Hitler intended to build in the East? It fit far easier into the Nazi's racial theories to take the far superior land and resources from the "subhumans" in the East than the historically cultured and heavily developed West. Germany was already running uncomfortably low of resources in 1939.

Nazi Germany didn't need factories in the West as badly as it needed the farmland, oil, coal, tungsten, etc. which were all found in the East.

Also, Rome was considered Allied territory anyway, but that's neither here nor there...

 

[Jackson2626]

If you ask the Nazis themselves, they would most certainly say Kiev and Minsk. Do you understand the concept of lebensraum or the superstate that Hitler intended to build in the East? It fit far easier into the Nazi's racial theories to take the far superior land and resources from the "subhumans" in the East than the historically cultured and heavily developed West. Germany was already running uncomfortably low of resources in 1939.

Nazi Germany didn't need factories in the West as badly as it needed the farmland, oil, coal, tungsten, etc. which were all found in the East.

Also, Rome was considered Allied territory anyway, but that's neither here nor there...

Do you really believe what you are saying?

If you ask the Nazis themselves, they would most certainly say Kiev and Minsk. Do you understand the concept of lebensraum or the superstate that Hitler intended to build in the East? It fit far easier into the Nazi's racial theories to take the far superior land and resources from the "subhumans" in the East than the historically cultured and heavily developed West. Germany was already running uncomfortably low of resources in 1939.

Nazi Germany didn't need factories in the West as badly as it needed the farmland, oil, coal, tungsten, etc. which were all found in the East.

Also, Rome was considered Allied territory anyway, but that's neither here nor there...

Are you saying there weren't oil refineries in Germany, Austria and France. Probably the most industrialized part of Germany was the Ruhr.

 

[Ajidica]

Are you saying there weren't oil refineries in Germany, Austria and France. Probably the most industrialized part of Germany was the Ruhr.

Oil refineries don't make oil spring magically into existence. The Royal Navy had a stranglehold over shipping imports and the only "domestic" sources of oil was the pittance they could squeeze out of Romania. The little oil that was able to get into Germany through Spain, Turkey, and Sweden was sold to them at so-called 'smuggler prices' and was draining the Nazi foreign currency reserve at a frightening pace. If the Nazi's wanted their economy to survive much beyond 1942, they had to pillage what they could from the Soviet Union.

Again, I'm not a fan of the "read a book" school of posting, but I highly recommend you read The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze.
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
The book goes into excellent detail on the perpetual resource shortages faced by the Nazis and their disastrous economic situation which was kept alive by pillaging conquered countries bare and cannibalizing their own economy.

 

[Jackson2626]

Oil refineries don't make oil spring magically into existence. The Royal Navy had a stranglehold over shipping imports and the only "domestic" sources of oil was the pittance they could squeeze out of Romania. The little oil that was able to get into Germany through Spain, Turkey, and Sweden was sold to them at so-called 'smuggler prices' and was draining the Nazi foreign currency reserve at a frightening pace. If the Nazi's wanted their economy to survive much beyond 1942, they had to pillage what they could from the Soviet Union.

Again, I'm not a fan of the "read a book" school of posting, but I highly recommend you read The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze.
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
The book goes into excellent detail on the perpetual resource shortages faced by the Nazis and their disastrous economic situation which was kept alive by pillaging conquered countries bare and cannibalizing their own economy.

Pillage

Oil refineries don't make oil spring magically into existence. The Royal Navy had a stranglehold over shipping imports and the only "domestic" sources of oil was the pittance they could squeeze out of Romania. The little oil that was able to get into Germany through Spain, Turkey, and Sweden was sold to them at so-called 'smuggler prices' and was draining the Nazi foreign currency reserve at a frightening pace. If the Nazi's wanted their economy to survive much beyond 1942, they had to pillage what they could from the Soviet Union.

Again, I'm not a fan of the "read a book" school of posting, but I highly recommend you read The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze.
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
The book goes into excellent detail on the perpetual resource shortages faced by the Nazis and their disastrous economic situation which was kept alive by pillaging conquered countries bare and cannibalizing their own economy.

Why do you start your post sounding like you are winning this argument? You are not in front, even at all. I guess it's possible to be so far behind that you think you're winning.

 

[red_elk]

What is more valuable real estate, Minsk/Kiev or Rome/Paris?

The most valuable one was taken by the Soviets in April 1945.

 

[Hrothbern]

Nazi Germany didn't need factories in the West as badly as it needed the farmland, oil, coal, tungsten, etc. which were all found in the East.

agree
So basic and so all important if you fight a war instead of a battle.
War is about long term war production and logistics. The battle the mere tidy up of the potential gathered. Newspapers and old fashion history books only looking at the military battles and heroes.

Just as simple example on that Tungsten.
If you did not have Tungsten in the WW2 period, you could not produce HSS tools for machining steel. HSS tools can be used at very high machining speeds compared to classic tool steels (without Tungsten), because they do not lose hardness and wear resistance up to high temperatures caused by high speed turning. Germany missing Tungsten was a small disaster for the metal industry: the war industry.
Germany found BTW a work around by inventing the new generation classic cold work steel 1.2379, where Tungsten is replaced by Molybdenum and you use very high carbon content, in the US more known as D2, typical used for high quality knives. And as of today still one of the most produced tool steels because simple, cheap and most cost effective.
But that work around, better than any other available, was still inferior to the WW2 era HSS with Tungsten.

 

[red_elk]

Farmland and coal were available in Ukraine. Oil was quite a bit farther away, but one of the reasons why Germans wanted to capture Stalingrad was the possibility to cut off Soviets from Baku oil. Their disaster was partially caused by the fact that they split their forces and tried to advance simultaneously on Stalingrad and Caucasus.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Do you really believe what you are saying?

Yes, because its what the German leaders at the time said. You seem to not understand how the value of something can be different when viewed by two different people. Sure Western Europe was highly developed and a great prize. The Nazis annexed anything that remotely had a connection to a "Germanic" past.

But that doesn't mean that was the final goal. The Nazis intended to create a Greater Germanic Reich that would be one of the superpowers of the world alongside British Empire, Japanese Empire, and the US. While Western states like Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg were to be annexed, the greatest area of expansion was to be in the East. The Germans (not just the Nazis tbh) viewed the East in similar ways as the Americans did the "Wild West"; a place for the nation's people to settle and civilize, its immense natural resources to be harnessed, and its native inhabitants were to be removed/civilized/enslaved depending on who was talking at the time.

Oh, and the East the home of the Communist movement. Hitler believed that Communism was a massive Jewish conspiracy, which is why the propagandists made use of the "bolshevik jew" character.

Are you saying there weren't oil refineries in Germany, Austria and France. Probably the most industrialized part of Germany was the Ruhr.

As Ajidica said, what is the worth of oil refineries if you don't have any oil to refine. Germany had to dump serious resources into synthetic oil production, but it was never enough. Also what does the industry in the Ruhr have to do with the current conversation? We're talking about which occupied territory the Nazis prioritized, and the Ruhr has been undisputed German territory for the entirety of the 20th century.

Farmland and coal were available in Ukraine. Oil was quite a bit farther away, but one of the reasons why Germans wanted to capture Stalingrad was the possibility to cut off Soviets from Baku oil. Their disaster was partially caused by the fact that they split their forces and tried to advance simultaneously on Stalingrad and Caucasus.

And even if the Germans had taken the Caucasus oil fields, it still would have all probably been for nought. The Germans wouldn't have been able to transport the oil by ship (the most common transport) because a) the British presence in the Mediterranean and Atlantic & b) the lack of transport ships. This meant that the only realistic way to get the all-important black goop back to Germany was going to be by rail. However, the Germans use of whatever remained of the captured Soviet rail system was already heavily overstretched, meaning that any oil the Germans would have pumped out of the Caucasian ground would have probably just sat in tanks right next to the well it came from.

 

[red_elk]

And even if the Germans had taken the Caucasus oil fields, it still would have all probably been for nought. The Germans wouldn't have been able to transport the oil by ship (the most common transport) because a) the British presence in the Mediterranean and Atlantic & b) the lack of transport ships. This meant that the only realistic way to get the all-important black goop back to Germany was going to be by rail. However, the Germans use of whatever remained of the captured Soviet rail system was already heavily overstretched, meaning that any oil the Germans would have pumped out of the Caucasian ground would have probably just sat in tanks right next to the well it came from.

You are right that the Germans would have troubles with transporting/using Azerbaijan oil. But another aspect is that they could prevent the Soviets from using that oil as well, which would be a serious problem. It was the primary source for the USSR - Western Siberian oil wasn't even discovered back then, if I remember correctly.