Why the Allies won

[JerseyJohn]

Well, you covered both sides of the aruement in that first post.

In the second you revealed something the Canadians have been denying for decades.

[Baron]

One of the funniest things I remember about my last tour in Iraq was passing one of my units convoys going South right out of Baghdad. We were in what we called "Indian Country" because convoys were often hit in the area, you’ve probably heard of the airport road - the most hit road in Iraq, and we were passing it going north while our sister platoon was going South.

Anyway the gunner of this truck had to take a dump and there he was his ass hanging off the side of the catwalk letting it fly at about 50 mph right in the middle of Indian Country! Man did we laugh! I also remember his action pretty much summed up what we felt about the place...

Below is an exerpt from Military.Com about a unit I served with for 4 years. I was activated after being home for 4 months to take care of this units families and their issues while they deployed in OIF 3. The article does not tell the soldiers side of the story. I was in a similar ambush while on my tour and I can tell you you feel horrible about what happened to the people we were protecting. While recovering their bodies all I could think about was their families at home and what would become of them.It also shows how little the civilian knew about military procedures and how little the press investigates stories before they run with them. It makes me want to puke! No lack of conflicting emotions in war. Yes it is hell!

Civilian Says Guardsmen Fled Convoy

Associated Press | September 29, 2006

RICHMOND, Va. - A Virginia National Guard unit came under scrutiny after a video seemed to show troops abandoning a civilian truck convoy during an attack by Iraqi insurgents, resulting in the killings of three unarmed drivers.

The video, obtained by ABC News, shows a military personnel carrier racing away after insurgents open fire and disable four Halliburton trucks last September near Balad, Iraq.

"I do not know who the driver was of that Humvee, but he abandoned us," civilian driver Preston Wheeler of Mena, Ark., who taped the footage, told ABC News.

Wheeler said almost 40 minutes passed before U.S. troops returned.

Military officials said Thursday that there was an immediate investigation, which found that no personnel had abandoned the convoy and they responded properly.

"They fought back bravely while waiting for reinforcements and attending to the casualties," Lt. Col. Michelle Martin-Hing, a spokeswoman for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, told The Associated Press in an e-mail.

In fact, Martin-Hing said, investigators recommended that one Soldier and one civilian be nominated for awards for the actions during the Sept. 20, 2005, incident.

Virginia Guard officials confirmed Thursday that its 1173rd Transportation Company was on active federal status at the time. Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Chester Carter III referred all questions to the Tampa, Fla.-based U.S. Central Command, home of key command centers in the U.S. war on terrorism.

Wheeler said that while the troops were absent, he crouched down in his truck and watched two truck drivers being shot at point-blank range.

"They just killed 'em. They just killed him. Oh my God," Wheeler said in the video.

Wheeler can be heard on the tape pleading for help on his radio: "Please help me ... I'm fixin' to get killed. I have no gun back here. I am by myself!"

Those killed in the attack were Keven Dagit, 42, of Jefferson, Iowa; Sascha Grenner-Case, age unavailable, of Sierra Vista, Ariz.; and Christopher Lem, 40, of Lyndon Station, Wis., said Cathy Mann, a Halliburton spokeswoman. They were killed while delivering the mail, according to a news release from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The military investigation found that "individuals at the front of the convoy reacted as they were taught by pushing forward and getting out of the kill zone of the ambush," Martin-Hing wrote.

"What is not visible in the video being shown is that they collected the casualties they could reach and laid down suppressive fire with their weapons to help get those vehicles that could move from the front of the convoy out of the kill zone," she wrote.

The troops then set up security, called for support and medical evacuations and directed the movements of other gun trucks farther back in the convoy, she said.

In a news release, KBR, Halliburton's engineering and construction subsidiary, did not address the details of the incident but said the military has "command and control" over its convoys in Iraq and is "required to provide security."

[Gorgin]

JJR

I have the same reaction to American beer !!

[jon_j_rambo]

We do have some good micros.

[JerseyJohn]

Baron,

Great post, thanks not only for the quoted article but also for giving your insights. Great story about that guy in your unit and an excellent point about the press distorting things even when that isn't their intention.

It reminds me of Heraldo Rivera's gaff of talking on the air about an attack to be launched shortly by the unit he was travelling with in Afghanistan.

The hit and run and ambush tactics being used today by the Iraqiis sound very similar to the tactics they used 2,000 years ago, against Rome.

[Major Spinello]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

We do have some good micros.

Very true!

[ChrisND]

Baron,

I remember that road. I used to patrol down it. When we would get hit we'd just go across the median and drive on the wrong side of the highway. Now THAT is a rush!

[Guest Mike]

Aha - I knew there had to be a way to get Yanks to drive on the left like real people yet - we'll wind back the revolution yet!!

[Honch]

Back on topic, the only reason the Allies won the War (by 1945) was that the Red Army defeated the Wermacht. Simple. Nowhere else were they defeated on this scale, not in the Battle of Britain, not in the War of the Atlantic, not even in North Africa or Italy.

I am not saying that Germany would have won but they would have had a few extra years to consolidate and research their own bomb before the Yanks moved in.

[Wicky]

JJ Remembered I'd read this 'what if'- found it again:

http://homepage.mac.com/sjbradshaw/baxterium/firstmoon.html

In 1942, after the dubious conclusion to Britain's European war, the King had made his famous BBC broadcast in which he had called for the 'national genius' for high engineering to be assembled 'to place an Englishman on the moon by the end of this decade'. This great feat would be a monument to the recovery of Britain's spirit. And such a recovery was needed. Even though the European war might have become a disastrous, unwinnable conflict - certainly if the rumours about immense 'atomic bomb' explosions in the depths of Kazakhstan were true - there had been no particular honour in Prime Minister Halifax's compromises with the Reich, made with the grinning Germanophile Edward VIII at his side

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks Wicky. Excellent!

I've saved the link and will read the whole story later today. Skimmed through it just now and at first didn't consider it very feasible till I saw that the UK had acquired Korolev and his assistants. That would definitely have made a difference.

Didn't read far enough along to see why Edward was the king instead of George; I'd imagine he never abdicated in this scenario. That description of him and Halifax dealing with Hitler's bunch sounds perfect.

The way it's done has the feel of an early 1950s space movie; very appropriate. :cool:

-- Terrific alternate WWII premise.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Honch:

Back on topic, the only reason the Allies won the War (by 1945) was that the Red Army defeated the Wermacht. Simple. Nowhere else were they defeated on this scale, not in the Battle of Britain, not in the War of the Atlantic, not even in North Africa or Italy.

I am not saying that Germany would have won but they would have had a few extra years to consolidate and research their own bomb before the Yanks moved in.

They might not have been defeated on that scale, but they did loose the Battle of Britain, The war in the Atlantic, North Africa and Italy.

I don't care how anyone tries to spin it, Germany was being outproduced by everyone and they had less manpower.

The only thing that made them look fearsome is the allies initial ineptitude at doing nothing in preparing themselves. Even so it took the Allies about 1 year and they were outproducing Germany in EVERY area.

[JerseyJohn]

You're right as usual, Blashy, they didn't impress anyone with that pussy push in the Ardennes 1944.

Honch, Blashy, it's too bad you guys weren't running things back in 42, you could have told Hitler and Tojo that they were doomed and no doubt they'd have come to their senses.

Spin -- God, how lame. We're talking about a six year war that cost something like 50,000,000 lives and you two are trying to ruduce it to production figures.

-- And what about the side issues, suppose Hitler hadn't DoW'd the USA? Suppose none of that fine production never came about or figured into the struggle?

-- -- As for Germany losing as soon as it crossed into Soviet Territory, that somehow explains why Stalin was begging for direct material assistance and screaming for a second front in 1942!

[SeaMonkey]

Now simmer there old buddy, not good for us to get our blood pressure up.

No matter what anyone says, no one, well there's always some that are completely removed from reality, can deny the Germans put together one almighty military machine.

The ineptitude was neutralized as both sides graced themselves liberally with its essence as we all point out.

Funny how hindsight makes all us morons look like geniuses.

[JerseyJohn]

And thank you, SeaMonkey, Old Buddy.

Geniuses are just morons with an obscenely higher ability than other people. The weird part is, that isn't really a bad generalization -- Bobby Fischer, Beethoven, Mozart et al. If we like them we call them, eccentrics.

Anyway, I was thinking about those earlier remarks.

Let's see, that would mean the United States won in Vietnam -- no, wait, we never got their because the French would have won earlier using the same premise.

-- The Mongols never established their empire under Ghengis Khan, don't even consider it, a small population of filthy illiterate semi-nomadics toppling giant China and ravaging their way all the way to Persia, Poland and India -- Using our bean counting reasoning that ragtag outfit wouldn't even get past the Great Wall.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

You're right as usual, Blashy, they didn't impress anyone with that pussy push in the Ardennes 1944.

Honch, Blashy, it's too bad you guys weren't running things back in 42, you could have told Hitler and Tojo that they were doomed and no doubt they'd have come to their senses.

Spin -- God, how lame. We're talking about a six year war that cost something like 50,000,000 lives and you two are trying to ruduce it to production figures.

-- And what about the side issues, suppose Hitler hadn't DoW'd the USA? Suppose none of that fine production never came about or figured into the struggle?

-- -- As for Germany losing as soon as it crossed into Soviet Territory, that somehow explains why Stalin was begging for direct material assistance and screaming for a second front in 1942!

JJ, the title topic is "Why the Allies Won" .

And the simple basics are better production and more manpower.

EVEN if Germany had made none of Hitler's idiotic errors, the outcome would have been the same.

I just make that statement because you'll always have someone coming along saying "how Germany could have won" and that's just an impossibility in OUR historical context.

[Liam]

Blashy, Hitler was a Gambler. Yes, usually against a player that is Bigger and Better than you are, a Gambler should lose. Most of the time!

However his gambles paid off until 1942 and then Stalingrad evaporated the German Army and game over... Doesn't mean he couldn't have Gambled and won, just means he lost. The Allies Gambled, but the thing is they had more to throw away and they did until 1942 and turned the tide with their superior resources as you say by 1943 and that was "End Game." Kursk was a Gamble, an arrogant manuever. Hitler only believed in one way, inflexability made him a poor commander and that was a blunder beyond all blunders

As far as Numbers meaning Final Victory it reminds me of a Europa Unversalis Game I have played recently. Jersey John mentions it also:

My Matured Germania in Central Europe, Layed Dorment for 300 Years, building itself a tiny little Empire. By the 1700 by attempting to keep the Peace in Eastern Europe and for wanting to expand into France, lost it's Allies and was facing a 5 to 1 Disadvantage on all Fronts. It compensated with Great BlitzkriegLike Tactics. It stormed it's enemies, winning NUMEROUS victories. Though several Million soldiers vs my tiny force of 500 thousand is no competition.. You're right their might, that of Russia, France, England, Spain, Ottomans... They ruled out. My only ally was Milan in the end though I managed to defeat every single one of this Fellows 5 to 2 really I did it again and again, though their superior Navy and Numbers picked away at me. I lost my Scandanavian Territories.. In the end, Game over, I still didn't lose... I was still storming the Low Countries, and I forever changed the course of History... My Nation Was Never Unconditionally surrendered after 6 or 7 World Wars

Relatively to history, A small well lead force, With Focused FirePower is as Powerful as a Massive ill prepared Force. 1 man can defeat 5 or in this case more like 7 or 8... if he fights smart, if he chooses his battleground, if he uses the right weapons and tactics...

Military Victory and Winning Wars is not only about production my friend. Ultimately it's about who has the Winning Strategy and who Employs it to Utter Effectiveness. I have Found many many times, anyone can win with determination against someone who is a little lazy and undetermined

[Retributar]

Yes Liam !...i am of your thinking on this!. Numbers are important, but not the final say!. Even Napoleone Bonaparte once said!,...'Morale is as to Number's as Three is to One!'.

Napoleone never worried himself to great distress about 'Numbers' and neither did 'Alexander the Great',...nor 'Julius Caesar'!.

Number's and quantity are not alway's everything!.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy,

Naturally, if all things were equal and one side had much more manpower and production, that side would almost certainly have to win.

But not only were all things not equal, very few things were.

Anyway, I have no idea where your starting point is in all of this. What I've been going from is that Hitler's key mistakes are

(1) Not finding a way of ending the war with Britain before starting one with the USSR.

(2) Not fighting the USSR without any other fronts.

(3) Declaring war on the United States under any circumstances, but most of all in doing it while he was still fighting both the UK and USSR.

From there I keep getting things thrown at me from you and others that Germany had to lose the war. Period.

We aren't on the same wavelength. I'm trying to trace it back to a point where Germany wouldn't have lost the war and what's thrown at me is just the historical situation from when they'd already lost it.

As for the other remarks regarding his having lost it in the USSR. Sure, that's what happened, but it was neither inevitable nor even likely. Additionally, the historical situation has a lot of variables and I'm really not talking about that.

What I've been discussing is what might have happened if Germany:

(1) Held off on Barbarossa till it had either made peace with Britain, or reduced it to ineffectiveness through a massive U-boat campaign.

or

(2) Not declared war on the United States while fighting both the UK and USSR.

But instead of getting answers to those things it's just the same track about what happened historically and, worse, that it was inevitable because of the US and USSR production capacity.

Thank you, I know what happened historically. It's the what ifs that we're talking about -- or at least what I'm talking about -- in this topic.

Liam,

Sounds like it was a great game and yes, I agree, that's pretty much what we've been talking about, how not even massively overwhelming disadvantages assures defeat because the situation might prevent most of it from ever being bought to bear.

Retributar,

Alexander in his campaigns against the Persians and Caesar in his Gallic War reduced the effect of superior numbers to insignificance. In theoretical terms neither of them had any chance to win, yet both of them achieved absolute victory.

Additionally, Caesar's treatment of the Gauls at times rivaled the nazis in both cruelty and ruthlessness, so it wasn't as though he'd set out to win over the conquered population. So he won against overwhelming odds as well as being deep within a hostile population that hated, but also feared, both him and his army.

[BioWizard]

JerseyJohn, my history notions might be a little rusted here, but isn't the USA that declared war on Germany the same day it declared war on Japan right after Pearl Harbor?

[JerseyJohn]

Bio, no. In fact, in the World at War documentary Averill Harriman is on film talking about how distressed the D. C. inner circle was that they found themselves in the right war but against the wrong enemy. They were trying to find a way of also declaring war against Germany when it was announced that Hitler had solved their problem by declaring war on the United States. Harriman said there was a sigh of relief among FDRs advisors. The U. S. couldn't have declared war on Germany without congress approving it; and Congress would not have approved the DOW.

[BioWizard]

I stand corrected...

[Kuniworth]

Many people seem to think the war in the east was just about attrition. How wrong.

Russia bought time with sacrificing people = very true in 1941, partly 1942.

Russians learn to fight a modern war and therfore won = 1943 onwards.

To some of the guys: don't beleive everything you read in the comic books.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by BioWizard:

I stand corrected...

Since joining this place, my own views about WWII, especially in Europe, were completely revised. Part of it was from member posted info and a lot more was from reading things here and going to check it out in further detail.

Anyhow, it's a natural assumption that the United States went to war with all of the Axis simultaneously, but I think at the time that 3 way alliance was a lot more vague than we've since come to think of it. For one thing, Germany didn't tell Japan about its plans for invading the USSR and Japan didn't tell Germany about its own plans to attack the United States. Of course some people in Tokyo understood what Germany would do, and some of that even leaked to a Soviet spy prior to Barbarossa (Stalin didn't believe him). And some Germans understood what Japan would do, but for the most part the actions of each were never known to the other till they heard it on the news. What a way to run an alliance!

Kuni,

Great points and good to see you posting again.

[Liam]

Interesting Debates on the Subject of World War II. I also like the reference to historial warfare. It hasn't changed in some ways. American soldiers have a great advantage over their counterparts in all Theatres in The MidEast.

I brought up my points from a game that I had played. Very much a Napoleonic Warfare simulator by the late 1700s. We tend to boom our games to began that in the early 1700s.. in my particular game it was a Random Game, with Random Civs, but we had the same end result as history. 300 thousand men placed well in the right terrain were quite dangerous. If a Coalition Army placed poorly of 2 or 3 Xs that number attempts to manuever to intercept it has to deal with several factors. Arriving in a particular place at the same time! i.e. the Prussians and British at Waterloo. also the uncoordinated BEF and French in 1940... Take into account attrittion. Take into account their are two minds controlling two large armies, both that can beat by a superior leader so both will attempt to jump the foe together at the same time, both will have their own ideas. Flawed if they are not Perfect in execution on how, where, and in what way to do this... I actually taught my foes Warfare 101 by destroying 2 million French and British Troops, forcing twice that number probably to surrender. Rallying faster, reorganizing, and executing superb strategics in good terrain. No Laziness, very Energetic and very Aggressive!

SC2 is a bit of the same on a Strategic Level... You can make a smaller force properly placed in good terrain and in proper arrangement a deadly force. However, you sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture... One or two errors in SC2 can cost you a front even with a Greater Force, even on a Grand Strategic Level. You must be deployed Properly, you must place the right troops in the right place, and assign the right leaders to the right Theatres.. It's what makes certian players better than others... Also the mechanics of warfare in it

You see how morale, tactics and technology can influence an army. Especially a General. The men mentioned by Retributar are shining examples, both for their Nations and their Armies. Granted, looking down on 100,000 Barbarians with 10,000 men is a bit disheartening, it has a great Fright to it. Though Men who have served a Great General and Slaughtered such armies repeatedly will not scare so easy...

History shows that WW1, Germany did conquor Russia. Though more intelligently and against a less determined foe than WW2 Soviet Union. Seems to me the Soviets employed a strategy of never giving up, reorganizing constantly, pushing on every card they had available. Knew they couldn't fight the Germans head on...They learned before their resources were choked to death. The Germans were idealy suited to kill an army they could catch. Though on a Front as massive as the USSR it's not so simple... It is a complex game of cat and mouse. Though in the end the Germans were the mouse acting too much like the cat! Maybe they didn't realize this, I like the idea I have heard of a German Retreat from USSR, preserving their units for combat inside of Eastern Europe. Where they'd of had more support, Supply and strength...

P.S. As in our SC Games when you have the Stats, many guys on here post stats about WW2, books, documentaries, etc... they all do this... I have in most of my MP games a stats page, it's not always the country that produces the most MGs who wins. That much is true! There are many factors to a game and many more to life.

[ October 15, 2006, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]