Jump to content

How come the allies won?


Itael

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Jazz27,

simply take a look at a world-map, at the resources of the USA, the (former) British Empire, France and it's colonies, the USSR and the tiny Germany and at production numbers.

Then you'll definately not ask that question again. ;)

Even not the best army in the world could win against +90% of world's resources.

I think that the reason the Germans lost WWII were the decisions Hitler made. As far as taking on the whole world the Germans did that through Hitler and some bad circumstances. The US wasn't going to war with Germany anytime soon until Pearl Harbor so throw that part of the arguement out. The Germans whipped the French so fast they didn't have a chance to say " I surrender!" so out go the French the British were so weak they couldn't come off their island anywhere but on the edges of the German occupation areas. In their defense they were scattered all over the world and didn't have just the Germanst to worry about. The Germans didn't fully mobilize for war until late into the war. Had they mobilized they would have been able to produce sufficient arms to fight. They had almost the entire resource base of Europe long before the US entered into the war.

No, for my money, if Hitler had played his cards right he could have won. Period.

And there you have my $.02 worth.

Panther Commander

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by JonS:

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

In Italy the story was different due to terrain, the mountains and rivers there caused such bottlenecks for Allied advance that even the relatively low numbers of Germans could hold out against superior enemy forces ...

This is a bit of a mis-conception. By 1945 there were more Germans in Italy than there were Allies. Yet the Allies were still on the offensive in that theatre, and still defeated the Germans. How? Well, this ...</font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah - I still reckon the allies cheated - they had acces to the source code.

The Germans started the war playing a 5000pt mechanised game, whereas the allies thought it was a 2500 pt armour game plus a 2500 pt infantry game.

then the allies got the source code, and built themselves a 10,000 pt mechanised force (about 1942), and then decided they could do better and made it a 20,000 pt force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Jazz27,

simply take a look at a world-map, at the resources of the USA, the (former) British Empire, France and it's colonies, the USSR and the tiny Germany and at production numbers.

Then you'll definately not ask that question again. ;)

Even not the best army in the world could win against +90% of world's resources.

It wasn't quite as lopsided as that, especially once most of Ukraine and Russia went into the bag, with Romania's oil being firmly onside, Norwegian heavy water, etc. etc. Even as late as the end of 1940, the British Empire really had not been able to mobilize much, and much of what it did have was trashed on the Continent. The US had even less at that time, though conscription was just starting to go into effect. The USSR had demolished its own officer corps. The various militaries were sadly equipped at this time to do much.

I suppose you subscribe to the 1918 Stab In The Back theory too.

Panther Commander has it right - Hitler was an inveterate gambler who couldn't step away from the table.

[ December 17, 2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

It wasn't quite as lopsided as that, especially once most of Ukraine and Russia went into the bag,

1. do you know what Stalin did with the factories?

2. that Germany even got that far, was already miracle #2.

3. miracle #1 was already the defeat of France.

with Romania's oil being firmly onside,

So you do compare the romanian oil production with the one of the USSR (built up by the US, btw) and the US and the British?

You should know, that the Romanian oilfields Germany only gave the absolutley minimum, while the others, compared to Germany, could almost swim in oil and resources.

Norwegian heavy water,
Thousands of tanks or fighters can be built?

Even as late as the end of 1940, the British Empire really had not been able to mobilize much, and much of what it did have was trashed on the Continent.

You know they began war against Germany 39, right?

And they refused every german peace-offer, even jailed Rudolf Hess, because they didn't mobilize for war?

Following this argument i could even better say, Germany wasn't mobilized until early 1944 when Albert Speer increased military production around 500% - 1000%.

The US had even less at that time, though conscription was just starting to go into effect.

The US had what less than Germany? Oil? Iron? Copper? tongue.gif

The USSR had demolished its own officer corps. The various militaries were sadly equipped at this time to do much.

Like i.e. more T34 than all german crap tanks at the beginning of Barbarossa together?

Or the thousands of fighters?

What do you mean? Or that the USSR had not enough oil for the machines?

What do you want to say?

That Germany had enough resources?

With your statment about the 1 million of hair-dressers tongue.gif you prooved, you have not very much knowledge, how german life was organized, to feed the soldiers on the front.

Dorosh, i suggest you to inform yourself a bit more, how much the German army suffered from resources - reading some authentic OKW reports should open the eyes - and how much that affected during the whole war strategical and operational decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anybody mention the A-Bomb

is that not the ultimate "gamey" move??

I know the ETO never got that far (it was over "too soon"). I don't disagree with ALL the other factors that folks here have mentioned.

BUT did anyone say that Hilter was a DOLT as a military strategic leader??

Like how crazy and megalomanic do you have to be to voluntarily decide it would be a "good thing" to open a 2nd front against a nation as HUGE and resource rich and long and deep (as in about 500 million football fields long/deep) as Russia?

So for me there are a few key factors

1) The Allies had the A-bomb first

2) The Ultra Secret let Allies read the Axis mail and secrets (How gamey is THAT!! ;):D )

3) Hilter was a dolt and and chose to invade Russia for What good reason :confused: ???

Hell the question should be:

"How could the Allies Lose??"

(Not to mention the USA when they got into it brought with them overwhelming numerical superiority in every single logistical item/thing/person in the military that counts!)

your comments?

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Mike:

Nah - I still reckon the allies cheated - they had acces to the source code.

The Germans started the war playing a 5000pt mechanised game, whereas the allies thought it was a 2500 pt armour game plus a 2500 pt infantry game.

then the allies got the source code, and built themselves a 10,000 pt mechanised force (about 1942), and then decided they could do better and made it a 20,000 pt force.

smile.gif

:D

Yeah, Something like that..

and,

Then the USA said HEY everybody we have the A-Bomb!

and by then it was over.

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by chris talpas:

Another critical factor was ULTRA. The British were able to sink much of Rommel's supplies as they crossed the Med leaving him chronically short of materiel.

Reading Rommel's mail allowed an adjustment in strategy. Not that different from peeking at your opponent's move prior to plotting your own.

Chris

BTS please patch or do somfink! :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again...

Looks like the subject got mixed up and became two fronts...

1)How come the allies really won the war (historically)

2)How can you actually win in the "limited" scope of Combat Mission playing the allies.

I still can't seem to beat any of the open desert scenarios (Not Italy) , the brits always use underpowered guns and armor..

Jazz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on this tends to run roughly along the lines of Nazi Germany saddling itself with a two front war from Barbarossa onward as mistake #1. By starting a war with Britain and failing to finish it one way or another and THEN attacking Russia it pretty much guaranteed that it would never win the war (At this point I am only saying 'not win' rather than 'would lose').

When Japan attacked America and Hitler declared war on the USA (Pretty much off his own bat and with little or no consultation with anyone saner than himself) Germany went from "Stuck in a war it could not win" to "doomed to defeat".

200+ million industrialised, democratic and free people in a country blessed with epic natural resources and without a nutcase like Stalin in charge of them are going to pretty much be assured of walking over a country the size of Germany (even with her 'allies'), especially when there's an unsinkable aircraft carrier the size of the UK within 21 miles of occupied Europe.

One of the big "what ifs" that MIGHT have made a difference to the ultimate outcome would have been KO'ing Russia before Dec 7 1941. A few less ballsups by Germany and a few more on the part of the Soviets and it MIGHT have happened but even with Russia out of the war, it's likely that with American support the UK could have held out (ULTRA, ASDIC and massive US ship production would still have made a difference to the battle of the atlantic).

So, for Germany to actually have won, they would have had to either not go to war with Britain in 1939 (or find a route to peace in 1940) OR KO'd Russia in 1941 AND not declared war on America.

However as someone once said, "For the Nazi's to have not acted as they did... they would have not been Nazi's" - They lost the war because of the same flaws that made them think of starting it :)

Germany had some very very nice toys but they were SO playing the wrong game with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The resources the Germans did have were horribly mismanaged. A million German women in 1943 were employed as hairdressers instead of in industry. Hermann Goering asked if they wanted guns or butter, then gave the people both.

Well, i don't know much but people seem to forget that Germany also used thousands of forced labourers of occupied countries to work in their industries, ask the French, Dutch, Belgians, etc..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jazz27:

I still can't seem to beat any of the open desert scenarios (Not Italy) , the brits always use underpowered guns and armor..

Jazz

Could you explain more precisely what you have and what your enemy has in one of these situations so that we could look at the particular con's and pro's of each side?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Quintusarrius:

When Japan attacked America and Hitler declared war on the USA (Pretty much off his own bat and with little or no consultation with anyone saner than himself) Germany went from "Stuck in a war it could not win" to "doomed to defeat".

In my opinion this didn't happen simply with Hitler going berserk. Rather the actions of Hitler in Europe caused Japan and USA to join the war, whether that was intentional or not. Japan wouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor and invaded Hong Kong, Philippines and Malaya if it didn't know one thing: that European empires had become weak, that the British couldn't commit all their forces to Asia when their homeland was being bombed, and France had capitulated already. Meanwhile the Soviets were busy with Germany. This was Japan's greatest opportunity, and it couldn't have happened without the disruption in Europe caused by Germany.

USA on the other hand was already acting as "an arsenal of democracy", to use the phrase. Hitler certainly didn't appreciate Lend-Lease help that Brits received, and probably didn't see any difference between that and actually being in war with USA. Of course his own actions, like fire bombing London, had greatly helped Roosevelt administration in persuading the public to approve favouring the Brits. Meanwhile he might have hoped either that the Japanese would invade the Soviet Far East and that way help German war efforts, or if he knew about the agreement between Soviets and Japanese, then at least that it would cause Soviets to be doubtful about the Japanese and leave a division or two to guard that direction.

My point is that it was well before December 7th that Germany was on a course to war with USA. And even if Germany didn't give a declaration of war, it is unlikely that USA would have stood out of the conflict in Europe much longer, because it was now an ally for the Commonwealth, meanwhile Germany through its puppet Vichy government was offering help to the Japanese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the battlefield, but British armour is well set up for using refused flank tactics. The heavy armoured 'I' tanks sit on one flank, tanking fire from anything up to (and in some cases including) 50mmL60.

Meanwhile, cruisers race up the other flank to catch the Germans in a crossfire. Works best if there is cover for the cruisers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The resources the Germans did have were horribly mismanaged. A million German women in 1943 were employed as hairdressers instead of in industry. Hermann Goering asked if they wanted guns or butter, then gave the people both.

Well, i don't know much but people seem to forget that Germany also used thousands of forced labourers of occupied countries to work in their industries, ask the French, Dutch, Belgians, etc.. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Models of efficiency, every one of them. Read about SS Knight's Cross winner Remy Schrynen sometime - during one of his exploits, he assaulted enemy tanks at close range with hand held anti-tank weapons only to find that each of them failed due to being sabotaged in the factory. Not saying this was widespread, but the necessity for slave labour in the first place indicates an insufficient work force pool.

How many millions of slave labourers worked on the Atlantic Wall for how many millions of manhours? The Atlantic Wall was effective at stopping the Allies for something like six hours, less in other places.

How many thousands of labourers and man-hours went into building the Siegfried Line, which was also similarly useless?

How many slave labourers worked in factories producing such necessities as breast eagles and collar tabs for uniforms? The SS had quite a deal, some of their uniform items were make by concentration camp inmates.

Yes, foreign labour was an obvious augmentation, but they weren't as large a boon to German war production as might be suggested by their mere numbers. They, too, were mismanaged.

well my points is that they attempted to, albeit ineffectively, increase production and that didn't just sit there doing nothing, besides when you are working in factory, concentration,... camp guarded by EVIL :mad: SS soldiers, you work hard very hard...

But on the whole you are right of course slave labourers isn't the same as "real" labourers. Although on a completely different note, slave's did build pyramids...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

Although on a completely different note, slave's did build pyramids...

Are you sure? Because I thought it was more of a matter of tax services to the king. Or maybe the difference wasn't so big in that society, I've just heard from somewhere that they weren't slaves, there just wouldn't have been enough slaves to build the biggest of them. Any Egyptology Grogs here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

Although on a completely different note, slave's did build pyramids...

Are you sure? Because I thought it was more of a matter of tax services to the king. Or maybe the difference wasn't so big in that society, I've just heard from somewhere that they weren't slaves, there just wouldn't have been enough slaves to build the biggest of them. Any Egyptology Grogs here? </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, they weren't slaves as in popular myth. Well probably a small portion were but the vast majority were doing their anual service. Once the crops had been sown the government levied the people for public works. There really was no need for massive slave labor when your average citizen felt he was doing his part to serve a living god.

Ok then quoting from my limited knowledge of ancient history, what about Rome, in it's glory days it employed many, many slaves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An observation. I rather suspect if the U.S. (Allies) had simply fielded a tank with a little more frontal armor and a longer gun tube then all the subsequent talk about unbeatable Germans would've evaporated. A lot of how the war is pictured is seen through the lens of an veterans recollections of an unnessarily high Sherman attrition rate. A lot of this has to do with Patton's stubborn (and wrong-headed) refusal to allow rushed production of the Pershing tank. Practically everything else in the war from transport to rifles to fighters had the Germans beat by a mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, Patton wasn't in charge of tank production. A fellow named McNair was. The Germans conquered most of Europe in inferior equipment, so I don't think thicker frontal plates were wholly responsible for their military reputation. Meanwhile the US lost fewer mediums than German AFVs they destroyed, despite the clear inferiority of the Sherman to the better German AFVs. Because overall odds matter, who is winning the campaign matters, and because the Germans threw away a lot of the good armor they had in the west in reckless counterattacks.

As for the original purpose of the question, which was not to recapipulate WW II but to ask for advice handling the desert era Brits in particular in CMAK, historically there are three distinct British (or commonwealth) systems it is worth distinguishing.

First there is the early armor system, based on fast tanks in numbers, with relatively little support from the other arms. This is probably what the fellow asking the question has seen most in scenarios. It was a system that both historically and in CMAK is only going to work well against the poorly equipped Italians. Against Germans with better tanks, and a force mix including superior towed guns, it doesn't really work.

In CM terms you'd represent this system by picking an armor force type, and spending half to nearly all your points on armor. Those armor points in turn would be spent buying platoons of the faster varieties of tanks - Crusaders, Stuarts aka Honeys, or the earlier Cruisers. You might suppliment these with modest numbers of CS howitzer tanks, light armor (typically scout cars with MGs) to spot, and perhaps a little infantry basically just as eyes that can hide in a few bits of available cover. You might have an FO or you might not.

You get a lot of middling capability AT guns and lots of MG firepower from the tanks. All of it ignores small arms and MG fire and for the most part arty fire. Now, if you face Italians you are going to smoke their armor, light or heavy, with all those tank AT guns. Their towed guns you will hit with CS tanks or an FO, or once close hose with large numbers of MGs. The Honeys are incidentally better at it than the other types.

But against Germans it won't work. Pz III Hs and Js will kill your thin tanks without dying in reply. The Germans have more guns able to kill these tank varieties at long range. You will have trouble getting them all, and some types you may not even fully ID (e.g. the 28mm squeeze bore). To fight the German armor you need to get to 500m or get on several sides of them to get flank shots. This isn't easy in wide open terrain.

The second commonwealth system I will call the New Zealand system. They didn't invent it, but they showed how it could work in the Crusader battles, driving up the coast and relieving the seige of Tobruk. It is a combined arms system rather than an armor heavy system, and uses the heavier infantry tank models. In CM terms, the combined arms point mix fits for this way of fighting. It can work against Italians or Germans, though it works best in conditions that aren't horrible for infantry and against something less than armor force type or pure armor.

Max out your armor points buying only Valentines. Then max out your support points buying 3 inch mortars (for the attack especially) and 25 pdrs for direct fire (defense especially, but 1-2 even attacking can help). Get just a few universal carriers (the full transport class 6, unarmed type) and trucks to reposition these - one each is typically enough, and on defense you can skip the truck(s). Buy as many Bren carriers as you have infantry platoons. On defense you can add a few foot Vickers teams.

Don't buy too much infantry - the allowed points there are way more than you want to spend on it. For the support category, get 1 FO on defense, or air support if attacking, cannon armed varieties with bombs (II C Hurricane, P-39 e.g.). Take 1-2 20mm AA yourself if you want to avoid enemy air strafing all day.

Then the idea is the 3 inch mortars take out enemy guns. The 25 pdrs firing direct deal with any thick armor the enemy may have. If any of them survive that they can help in gun duels with HE, but that is gravy if it happens. Air will go after enemy armor first and guns second without any intervention from you.

Then you challenge them. That means infantry up and firing on defense, or advancing to the next cover on offense, while the Vals show themselves. Use the Bren carriers to keep the HQs safe from small arms, and do not risk them early on "scouting by death" missions. The Vals are thick enough that it takes a serious gun to knock one out. Serious guns give large muzzle signatures, so you spot them even at range. 3 inch mortars KO spotted guns in a minute flat. To keep the Vals alive in the meantime, use smoke and reverse into dust. You have plenty from your mortars, as well as the tanks' own, dust, etc.

In the Crusader era (late 41), no Axis AFV is going to kill a Val from the front without getting close - like 500m. At that range they can kill any of them, right back. The Vals have plenty of MG ammo to hose anything else.

Whatever messes with your infantry, the Vals mess with (while your infantry goes to ground and waits). Use one tank to support each advancing platoon. The Vals will also sweep away his light armor, preventing it from stopping your infantry. (On defense, ATRs and 20mm AA can stop light armor when you don't want to expose a Val).

Walk over him. KO every heavy weapon that fires with your overwatching mortars and 25 pdrs. When he is out of AT assets, bring the Brens out too and isolate bits of him with vehicle MGs. MGs and whatever overwatch HE ammo you have left and soften up the areas your infantry actually goes for.

This system works until the Germans get Pz IIIs with long 50s. Even Marders, which can kill Vals at range, don't really stop it because they are so thin the 2 pdr on the Vals can kill them back. Heavy ATGs and 88s can kill Vals at range, too, but you just trade a Val for them by KOing them with a 3 inch as revenge.

You do have to watch out for reverse slopes. The defenders can try to avoid your 3 inch and 25 pdr overwatch by setting up back behind those, waiting for your infantry and tanks to come past them. That is why you have a few universal carriers - to reposition your 3 inch mortars to just behind the last crest you've reached. Then an HQ peeks over and gets LOS beyond before you resume the advance.

As for tanks behind reverse slopes (since it is harder to truck up a 25 pdr, and it needs LOS anyway), the saving grace is your Vals are effective when the range is close. So if the tanks are right behind the crest, the Vals can deal with them on their own.

The last Brit system comes when better US mediums are available, and can work with either combined arms or armor force mixes. Simply put, you base the force around Shermans or Lees and their 75mms, which have the firepower to deal with German tanks at range, and especially in the case of the Sherman, armor to deal with their lesser varieties as well. If you include the mortar overwatch and infantry leading ideas of the NZ system, you can handle enemy defenses that include guns and/or deal with having only a combined arms level of armor yourself.

I hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by chris talpas:

Another critical factor was ULTRA. The British were able to sink much of Rommel's supplies as they crossed the Med leaving him chronically short of materiel.

Reading Rommel's mail allowed an adjustment in strategy. Not that different from peeking at your opponent's move prior to plotting your own.

Chris

I agree. They cracked the German code and could intercept important supplies. I think the Allies did this strategically so as not to tip off the Germans of their discovery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting book (NAYY) I picked up after seeing it mentioned on these boards some time ago. Definitely worth a read, though it's written from a decidedly strategic rather than tactical standpoint.

Table of contents:

1. Unpredictable Victory: Explaining World War II

2. Little Ships and Lonely Aircraft: The Battle for the Seas

3. Deep War: Stalingrad and Kursk

4. The Means to Victory: Bombers and Bombing

5. Along a Good Road: The Invasion of France

6. A Genius for Mass-production: Economies at War

7. A War of Engines: Technology and Military Power

8. Impossible Unity: Allies and Leaders in War

9. Evil Things, Excellent Things: The Moral Contest

10. Why the Allies Won

I liked it, though I am hardly a grog and enjoyed Beevor's books too. YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...