"The High Water Mark" for the Germans?

[Hans]

Who has a war gamer hasn't been seduced by a run of lucky rolls that you try one more.......

Hitler was looking for a seven and got snake eyes.

[Hans]

One more thought

What was the high tide for the Cold war? For the Russkies.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Hans:

Who has a war gamer hasn't been seduced by a run of lucky rolls that you try one more.......

Hitler was looking for a seven and got snake eyes.

It wasn't so much about luck but intelligence. That was the greatest weakness of Germany: it was stumbling around like a blind cyclops. Hitler thought he could expand to east without hindrance; well, France and Britain declared war. Hitler thought Britain would sue for peace once France had fallen and the war would be over in short order; he was also confident that Soviet Union would fall down like a decayed hut; he thought USA was decadent and powerless; but, alas! Eventually, it was Germany that was divided into British, American, Soviet and French occupation zones.

Maybe bad luck in the sense that the German high command couldn't get all the information they would have liked to have. But it was more just inconsiderateness. Like continuously driving into crossroads at top speed: one day you'll crash. At that point it's trifling to blame it on luck.

My advice to all aspiring expansionist dictators lurking in this board is: get your facts right, and if the odds are overwhelming, don't attack.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hans:

Who has a war gamer hasn't been seduced by a run of lucky rolls that you try one more.......

Hitler was looking for a seven and got snake eyes.

It wasn't so much about luck but intelligence. That was the greatest weakness of Germany: it was stumbling around like a blind cyclops. Hitler thought he could expand to east without hindrance; well, France and Britain declared war. Hitler thought Britain would sue for peace once France had fallen and the war would be over in short order; he was also confident that Soviet Union would fall down like a decayed hut; he thought USA was decadent and powerless; but, alas! Eventually, it was Germany that was divided into British, American, Soviet and French occupation zones.

Maybe bad luck in the sense that the German high command couldn't get all the information they would have liked to have. But it was more just inconsiderateness. Like continuously driving into crossroads at top speed: one day you'll crash. At that point it's trifling to blame it on luck.

My advice to all aspiring expansionist dictators lurking in this board is: get your facts right, and if the odds are overwhelming, don't attack. </font>

[Kevin Kinscherf]

I would have to say 3 Sept. 1942:

The Germans held the most ground at that point.

- Battle of Alam el Halfa ended in North Africa

and they could push no farther into the Middle East

- In southern Russia, on 3 Sept Paulus's

XIV Panzer Corps linked up with Hoth's tanks

to form a pocket just outside Stalingrad.

They had not attacked the faithful city yet.

- Kevin

PS I have been reading and re-reading Glantz and House's section on July 12, 1943 (Prokhorovka).

This merits consideration too. But given the Confederates never penetrated farther into the Union than at Gettysburg, I think Sept 3, 1942 is closer to that situation than Kursk.

[Kevin Kinscherf]

I would have to say 3 Sept. 1942:

The Germans held the most ground at that point.

- Battle of Alam el Halfa ended in North Africa

and they could push no farther into the Middle East

- In southern Russia, on 3 Sept Paulus's

XIV Panzer Corps linked up with Hoth's tanks

to form a pocket just outside Stalingrad.

They had not attacked the faithful city yet.

- Kevin

PS I have been reading and re-reading Glantz and House's section on July 12, 1943 (Prokhorovka).

This merits consideration too. But given the Confederates never penetrated farther into the Union than at Gettysburg, I think Sept 3, 1942 is closer to that situation than Kursk.

[Richie]

Everyone seems to assume the high tide was against the Soviet Union. I agree that if it happened then it was in 1941 at the gates of Moscow, but the real seeds were sewn when Hitler scrapped Operation Sealion. The Brits were the constant thorn in Hitlers side and the job was never complete, never more so than when he declared war on the USA.

If you're going to start a job you want to finish it and make sure it's done... one step at a time.

[ May 31, 2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Richie ]

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Richie:

If you're going to start a job you want to finish it and make sure it's done... one step at a time.

Never could understand how Hitler --- who was forever harangueing his generals about not getting involved in a 2-front war --- goes and invades the USSR before England is taken down. And then declares war on the USA! Hello! Wake-up call for Mr. Hitler! Now he has a 3-front war (if you count the Med as third) on his hands.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Richie:

If you're going to start a job you want to finish it and make sure it's done... one step at a time.

Never could understand how Hitler --- who was forever harangueing his generals about not getting involved in a 2-front war --- goes and invades the USSR before England is taken down. And then declares war on the USA! Hello! Wake-up call for Mr. Hitler! Now he has a 3-front war (if you count the Med as third) on his hands. </font>

[Ant]

I agree the declaration of war on the US was not bright, though by that point, it probably didn't matter.

It cerainly wasn't bright when you view it with hindsight, but it did actually seem like a good idea at the time. In 1941 the U-boat campaign was having a lot of success against Britain's supplies but was still being undermined by ships carrying (sometimes by means of convenience) the US flag. The US was seen as preventing the U-boat war from being a total success. The declaration of war against the US was widely seen as a good thing by many U-boat commanders because it now gave them free reign to sink anything in the North atlantic. The Germans (mistakingly) thought that the US would be too preoccupied with Japan to send any significant military forces to the UK, and anyway, even if they tried, those forces had to come accross the atlantic and past the U-boats; which the Germans thought would be quite capable of stopping most of it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Michael Emrys, I don't think I have ever really appreciated the advances made in the south in 1942. Wasn't the idea that from there they could eventually turn towards Moscow? In 1941 they at least reached Moscow, in 1942 all they got was a scorched section of the west bank of Volga and the foot of Caucasus. Trying to head right to the mountains was IMO another screwup, there you just give all the defensive benefits to your opponent. Not to mention that Stalingrad affair...

Well, the idea in striking south was to capture the oil in the Caucasus/Caspian region. This might just have been possible to pull off if Hitler had focussed on carrying out the original plan. Instead, he got obsessed with Stalingrad and allowed it to bleed off resources from the main objective. As a result, the German army ended up being weak everywhere with the result we are all familiar with.

Loss of the oil would have severely hampered the Soviet economy with results that are hard to predict precisely. They had other sources of petroleum products, including Lend-Lease, but the bulk of it was coming from the Caucasus/Caspian.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Britain's wealth didn't lie in the British Isles - it lay in her overseas possessions.

[snip]

Actual invasion would have just guaranteed Canada, India, South Africa etc. supply whoever was left to fight Hitler with arms, and Hitler knew this would mean Russia.

I can't help but feel that this statement is a little misleading. Granted a large portion of the Commonwealth's wealth lay outside the British Isles, but it was mostly in the form of food and other raw or semi-finished materials. The great bulk of British industry and the trained manpower to operate it lay concentrated in the UK. It's capture would have entailed the loss of the great bulk of war production. Although some production outside the UK did occur, primarily in Canada, Australia, and India, and grew during the course of the war, all those combined never came close to matching what was being turned out at home.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Bulk of war production? 60 percent of all Bren Guns were made by Inglis in Canada. That's the most famous example I can think of. So as far as "matching what was done at home" by the "bulk" of Commonwealth industry, in this example at least, you're extremely wide of the mark.

Lee Enfields and Stens were made in Canada also, though in what proportion I don't know. The only submachines gun in British service up to 1942 were US manufactured. Canada in fact shipped over thousands of P17 rifles early in the war to make up the shortfall in British war production.

Battle Dress uniforms were made not only in the UK but also in the US (it was called War Aid clothing), as well as certain items of web equipment.

Sherman tanks were made exclusively in the US, along with the Jeep, the famous halftrack series, and other items found in quantity in British armoured divisions. Universal Carriers were made in Canada also, in addition to Valentines and Rams, etc.

I don't have the figures, but while you are right that the UK did put out a large proportion of the Commonwealth's war industry, the Commonwealth was not simply the bread basket. Lots of corvettes came out of Canadian shipyards, too.

That's not counting the others in the Commonwealth.

[ June 01, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

....Well, the idea in striking south was to capture the oil in the Caucasus/Caspian region. This might just have been possible to pull off if Hitler had focussed on carrying out the original plan. Instead, he got obsessed with Stalingrad and allowed it to bleed off resources from the main objective.....

I've heard this often, but if 6th Army had continued to the Caspian, rather than detouring into the streets of Stalingrad, wouldn't they have been even more overextended and at least equally exposed? Wouldn't a Soviet flank attack have still cut them off?

As far as the high water mark, I think that phrase applies to the greatest extent of land occupied, which I guess is Fall 1942. But in terms of having an actual chance to win the war, it would have to be outside Moscow in Fall '41. At that point, Germany still had a real chance to knock out the USSR (or most people on both sides thought they did), and Pearl Harbor hadn't happened. Once Hitler declared war on the US (which he didn't have to do, BTW....the US _might_ have stayed out of Europe if he hadn't declared first), he had finally, certainly bitten off more than he could chew. Not that the US was all-powerful, but Britain and Russia were already overloading the camel's back, and the US coming in was the last straw.

[Sirocco]

I would define the high water mark for the Germans as the point at which their offensive capability peaked and started to decline, and to me that would be late 1942.

[Richie]

Indeed then Adolf Hitler was a fool. The German army took Paris and the French sued for peace. If he wanted the English to sue for peace then he needed to take London. He failed to take Moscow and then it all turned bad. If you strike, you should strike for the head, reguardless of what Hitler thought the English would not be intimidated to sue for peace. Yes you can bludgeon your enemies but the best result lies in the decapitation of the governing body. If Hitler failed to realise that Operation Sealion was essential then the tide was only ever going to go out.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I would define the high water mark for the Germans as the point at which their offensive capability peaked and started to decline, and to me that would be late 1942.

But their productive capacity didn't peak until 1944....

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Richie:

Indeed then Adolf Hitler was a fool. The German army took Paris and the French sued for peace. If he wanted the English to sue for peace then he needed to take London. He failed to take Moscow and then it all turned bad. If you strike, you should strike for the head, reguardless of what Hitler thought the English would not be intimidated to sue for peace. Yes you can bludgeon your enemies but the best result lies in the decapitation of the governing body. If Hitler failed to realise that Operation Sealion was essential then the tide was only ever going to go out.

How would he have captured Ottawa, then?

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

60 percent of all Bren Guns were made by Inglis in Canada.

According to:

British Small Arms of WW2

Ian Skennerton

1 853 67 0014

"R.S.A.F. Enfield was the principal manufacturer of the Bren LMG...

Mk I & Mk II series Bren

R.S.A.F. Enfield 214,008

Monotype Group 83,438

Inglis (Canada) 122,000

Mk III series Bren

R.S.A.F. Enfield 39,625

Inglis (Canada) 3,000

Total British production of Bren LMG 337,071"

[ June 01, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Sirocco ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

60 percent of all Bren Guns were made by Inglis in Canada.

According to:

British Small Arms of WW2

Ian Skennerton

1 853 67 0014

"R.S.A.F. Enfield was the principal manufacturer of the Bren LMG...

Mk I & Mk II series Bren

R.S.A.F. Enfield 214,008

Monotype Group 83,438

Inglis (Canada) 122,000

Mk III series Bren

R.S.A.F. Enfield 39,625

Inglis (Canada) 3,000

Total British production of Bren LMG 337,071" </font>

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

I would define the high water mark for the Germans as the point at which their offensive capability peaked and started to decline, and to me that would be late 1942.

But their productive capacity didn't peak until 1944.... </font>

[Mikelas]

Altho I understand the context of your question, I would suggest that the high water mark for the Germans was actually much earlier than previous posts, I would offer that it was indeed the day before Adolph Hitler took power!

Altho some of his initial decisions looked positive at the time, his input on so many military matters.....from the lack of Me262 development to starting an unnecessary 2 front war to his infamous "hold to the last man" orders doomed the German ambitions from the start.

It was only a matter of time before their defeat.

Mike

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

60 percent of all Bren Guns were made by Inglis in Canada.

According to:

British Small Arms of WW2

Ian Skennerton

1 853 67 0014

"R.S.A.F. Enfield was the principal manufacturer of the Bren LMG...

Mk I & Mk II series Bren

R.S.A.F. Enfield 214,008

Monotype Group 83,438

Inglis (Canada) 122,000

Mk III series Bren

R.S.A.F. Enfield 39,625

Inglis (Canada) 3,000

Total British production of Bren LMG 337,071" </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mikelas:

...from the lack of Me262 development...

I would submit that the Me-262 could not have been developed a great deal faster than it was, despite the number of writers who have faithfully repeated Galland on this issue. The big bottleneck for the 262 was the Junkers Jumo engines, and they proved nearly intractable. They never became very good engines, in fact.

My guess as to where Hitler & Co. really blew it on jet aircraft was an earlier refusal to develop a prototype from Heinkel.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Michael Dorosh,

In the first place, we were discussing the proportion of Commonwealth production located in the UK, so US production is irrelevant. Raising that issue is a red herring.

While I am aware of the production of small arms, most types of ammunition, some vehicles, aircraft, and perhaps most importantly ASW shipping in Canada, I repeat that the great bulk of the most important arms were produced in the UK. These include among others, non-US AFVs (and yes, I know some were produced in Canada, Australia, and even late in the war India), most artillery, most trucks (including the unhappy Bedford), most aircraft, especially fighting types, most warships (those larger than destroyers either exclusively in the UK or nearly so), most merchant shipping, etc., etc. To deny this is merely silly, and surprising in one who is normally better informed.

Good luck with the books.

Michael