US shortcommings and how did they win.

[Sublime]

Stellar - As far as continuing 'this' isnt that why we're here? to discuss..? All of this is complete conjecture anyway - these fantasy scenarios are all so debateable and unlikely because any whatif scenario gets extremely complicated once one major event gets changed. I'm not questioning the validity of your statement re: the U.S. production capability of 3 atomic bombs a month, but do you have a source? I find this very interesting and the only conversation with another grog about something like this took place a lonnggg time ago. As far as mass B-29 strikes against Germany, the B-29 would have been used quite a bit against Germany if the war had continued on even from Britain. It was the next generation bomber for the USAAF. I've debated bringing it up, but what exactly is the 'this' you refer to when you comment on "carrying this on further"..? Im probably mistaken but I just get a sense of hostility from you and I wonder what the reason is. Perhaps this could be settled by a qb.

Emrys - has Tooze written a book about it? It might be interesting to read, or at least skim =)

Also I remember someone posting about German guided weapons. Theres been some interesting stuff about a troopship exploding in the Atlantic, killing most of the troops. It was off the D-Day beaches I believe, though I forget its name. The Germans had some awesome guided weapons, a really interesting what-if is imagining lots of those being built and used - on the D-day beaches, against the Murmansk run, etc..

[JonS]

Emrys - has Tooze written a book about it? It might be interesting to read, or at least skim =)

No, he's written the book about it

Also I remember someone posting about German guided weapons. Theres been some interesting stuff about a troopship exploding in the Atlantic, killing most of the troops. It was off the D-Day beaches I believe, though I forget its name. The Germans had some awesome guided weapons, a really interesting what-if is imagining lots of those being built and used - on the D-day beaches, against the Murmansk run, etc.

Meh. German uber weapons almost invariably weren't that uber. Their guided bombs, for instance, were mildly successful off Salerno, but quickly countered and completely ineffective off Normandy. Also, operationally the Germans screwed the pooch with them, by concentrating on flashy battleships and cruisers rather than humdrum logistics ships (incidentally, the Japanese made exactly the same mistake in the Pacific with both their submarines and the kamakrazies. The Germans made the same mistake again with the V1 and V2 - targetting London rather than the south coast ports or the Normandy bridgehead)

AFAIK the US didn't lose a single soldier crossing the Atlantic. They did lose almost 1,000 just before D-Day during a landing exercise that combined poor convoy discipline and protection with a lucky break for the Germans, when they were able to infiltrate a convoy of LSTs with a couple of e-boats. Nothing too uber there, though. There was also an incident off Cherbourg much later in the year when a troopship - the Leopoldville - went down, also with the loss of about 1,000, but that was just a humdrum u-boat + torpedo encounter. Again, nothing uber.

[Michael Emrys]

Emrys - has Tooze written a book about it? It might be interesting to read, or at least skim =)

http://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317505918&sr=1-1

Worth a very careful reading.

Michael

[StellarRat]

I'm not questioning the validity of your statement re: the U.S. production capability of 3 atomic bombs a month, but do you have a source? I find this very interesting and the only conversation with another grog about something like this took place a lonnggg time ago.

"The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II, A Collection of Primary Sources," (PDF). National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162. George Washington University. August 13, 1945

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[Sublime]

I see it. Three for both those months. For the sake of argument - lets say that somehow those nuclear weapons going off didnt bring the Germans to the negotiation table - this is of course assuming Casablanca and unconditional surrender demands were not issued. If need be would the US have been able to pump out three a month indefinitely? Yes, I obviously know we ended up building thousands of the damn things, and most of them were of the stronger hydrogen bomb variety but I mean in the time frame of mid to late 40's?

To really debate this anyways, we'd need to kinda of clear out a scenario as it were. Is England in, occupied, or out? Russia? etc etc. Year?

[Michael Emrys]

If need be would the US have been able to pump out three a month indefinitely?

Presumably. IIRC, production ramped up to six a month before the middle of 1946 and continued to increase slowly after that.

Michael

[Magpie_Oz]

You go ahead and start without us. First we need to "console" all the women you left behind, and then we'll step in to pick up the pieces. Have fun.

Michael

So same as always then? Glad you can keep the women consoled it will have them prepared for when the real men come home.

[kwverdon]

Hmmmm. Nagasaki may not have been completely destroyed but most of its population (workers) were along with most of its infrastructure. I'm pretty much sure we could label it knocked out for the war. The same would have been true for the larger German cities. Though tougher built, the blast, fire and radiation would have taken them off the grid even though they may not have been completely leveled.

Kevin

[Zonks54]

I don't think it was so much the battles that won the war for the allies, but instead the fact that the Germans were fighting on too many fronts, The Americans came into the war when most of the nations at war were nearly broke, the American industrial capacity was way out in front of the Germans, so even if every German tank Destroyed 4 US tanks, it would still not be enough.

The US did not win the War, the Germans lost it, and If the Germans were not at war with Russia, the Allies would never have taken back France.

[StellarRat]

I see it. Three for both those months. For the sake of argument - lets say that somehow those nuclear weapons going off didnt bring the Germans to the negotiation table - this is of course assuming Casablanca and unconditional surrender demands were not issued. If need be would the US have been able to pump out three a month indefinitely? Yes, I obviously know we ended up building thousands of the damn things, and most of them were of the stronger hydrogen bomb variety but I mean in the time frame of mid to late 40's?

To really debate this anyways, we'd need to kinda of clear out a scenario as it were. Is England in, occupied, or out? Russia? etc etc. Year?

As far as the nukes go it doesn't make much difference. With the B-29 the A-Bomb could have been delivered from many locations other than England or Russia. Iceland, maybe Greenland and Africa, Malta, etc....you'd have to get out a map and see. Also assume that if need be it could be a one way mission so double the range.

[Vark]

Surely destroying the Nazi leadership would have been a better target, in your hypothetical scenario. Secondly, the Germans would not be aware of the lack of nukes, first Berlin, then, then....pick a target, highly symbolic for the Nazi cause. Then leaflet the remaining cities saying, this is just a piece of paper it could so easily have been a nuclear bomb. I doubt the Nazi grasp on the German psyche was so over-whelming, given the quite sizeable anti-nazi elements already in the armed forces and population in general, that it could prevent a revolt against the war. Imagine frontline troops hearing about the city-destroying bombs either through the grapevine or again by allied psy-ops.

Also, what are the Russians doing as Germany gets nuked? Stalin, if he still existed, would be quietly building up his forces, waiting to strike. Or are the Germans spending considerable efforts making sure he cannot, which would mean a weakening of his forces to face the European Allies.

[StellarRat]

I agree completely with you Vark. I see no survival for the Reich past fall of 1946 no matter how you look at it. I could easily see Truman saying "hands off" Europe to Stalin though. If the US was already nuking Germany and Stalin has no A Bomb then he'd be a fool to push his hand. It really depends on how much balls Truman has and what the relationship with Russia looks like. Remember the Soviets didn't have a nuke until 9/49. AND bear in mind that the US nukes were increasing rapidly in yield. Good thing the US was more benevolent than the Russians. The atomic bomb is really the trump card in all these debates.

[Georgie]

Surely destroying the Nazi leadership would have been a better target, in your hypothetical scenario. Secondly, the Germans would not be aware of the lack of nukes, first Berlin, then, then....pick a target, highly symbolic for the Nazi cause. Then leaflet the remaining cities saying, this is just a piece of paper it could so easily have been a nuclear bomb. I doubt the Nazi grasp on the German psyche was so over-whelming, given the quite sizeable anti-nazi elements already in the armed forces and population in general, that it could prevent a revolt against the war. Imagine frontline troops hearing about the city-destroying bombs either through the grapevine or again by allied psy-ops.

Also, what are the Russians doing as Germany gets nuked? Stalin, if he still existed, would be quietly building up his forces, waiting to strike. Or are the Germans spending considerable efforts making sure he cannot, which would mean a weakening of his forces to face the European Allies.

It would have been the only viable target. Hitler would have welcomed the Atom Bomb as the just punishement to his people for their failure to have acheived "his" dream. So dropping it on any other target other than Hitler himself would have achieved nothing that the mass bombing wasn't already achieving.

[Taraphir]

The Atom-Bomb could certainly have been an option, if German resistance had continued a few months longer.

Fortunately the Reich surrendered on May the 8th 1945 and there was no need to put nuclear weapons into action against Nazi Germany.

Back to the topic of conventional US Forces of this period I would say that their equipment in most areas was at least adequate.

The American Military usually was better supplied and mantained than their German Adversary and had the advantage

of almost complete Air Superiority. In terms of strategy, tactics and training the Americans were very well advanced.

Please excuse my lousy English!

[sburke]

The Atom-Bomb could certainly have been an option, if German resistance had continued a few months longer.

Fortunately the Reich surrendered on May the 8th 1945 and there was no need to put nuclear weapons into action against Nazi Germany.

Back to the topic of conventional US Forces of this period I would say that their equipment in most areas was at least adequate.

The American Military usually was better supplied and mantained than their German Adversary and had the advantage

of almost complete Air Superiority. In terms of strategy, tactics and training the Americans were very well advanced.

Please excuse my lousy English!

Are you kidding me? Why don't you come on over here and take a job as an English teacher. We could use you.

[Squatdog]

I applaud the OP on sticking his head above the parapet and asking the questions - and for getting to the stage where he realised there's something not quite right about tales of exploding Shermans, GI's trying to make a buck out of the war and shirking combat at all times and ineffective command stacked up against, Uber German Infantry/Tanks/Aircrafts/Generals but still doing a more impressive Blitzkrieg than that of 1940. Something doesn't add up does it?

It does when you factor in the massive numerical and material superiority of the US forces, who had near-total air supremacy against an opponent worn down by years of bitter fighting on multiple fronts, with severely compromised logistics.

Even then, they didn't have anywhere near the relative level of success as Blitzkrieg and performed abysmally on numerous occasions, especially when they didn't have the luxury of air support or effective artillery coverage.

[ChrisND]

Even then, they didn't have anywhere near the relative level of success as Blitzkrieg ...

Last I checked the Germans lost. So, Blitzkrieg didn't work out all that well for them, did it?

Well, I guess the Germans were "better" as long as you don't factor in things, military intelligence, logistics, timely R&D on meaningful systems, don't match them up against anything but 2nd/3rd rate and/or badly unprepared obsolete armies, or in fact compare anything other than their MGs and tanks in 1 on 1 fights. Besides that, yeah they were way "better" than the Allies.

[sburke]

It does when you factor in the massive numerical and material superiority of the US forces, who had near-total air supremacy against an opponent worn down by years of bitter fighting on multiple fronts, with severely compromised logistics.

Even then, they didn't have anywhere near the relative level of success as Blitzkrieg and performed abysmally on numerous occasions, especially when they didn't have the luxury of air support or effective artillery coverage.

Yep there is always some excuse for the Ubermensch having lost. Whose fault was it anyway that they picked a fight with the greatest industrial powers on earth? Talk about stupid boner amateur hour moves.

[Squatdog]

Last I checked the Germans lost. So, Blitzkrieg didn't work out all that well for them, did it?

Well, I guess the Germans were "better" as long as you don't factor in things, military intelligence, logistics, timely R&D on meaningful systems, don't match them up against anything but 2nd/3rd rate and/or badly unprepared obsolete armies, or in fact compare anything other than their MGs and tanks in 1 on 1 fights. Besides that, yeah they were way "better" than the Allies.

As long as you don't factor in minor details like being MASSIVELY outnumbered across multiple fronts for several years straight, under near total enemy air superiority, with severely compromised logistics and industrial base...yet STILL managing to inflict massively disproportionate casualties despite being at such an incredible disadvantage?

[sburke]

As long as you don't factor in minor details like being MASSIVELY outnumbered across multiple fronts for several years straight, under near total enemy air superiority, with severely compromised logistics and industrial base...yet STILL managing to inflict massively disproportionate casualties despite being at such an incredible disadvantage?

Well unfortunately that is the war Germany chose and their performance evaluated in. The German Army was as capable of making poor tactical and operational blunders as any other army out there, but when they did, the apologists just blame Hitler. If it weren't for Hitler....

Man this broken record gets old.

[Squatdog]

Well obviously they weren't infallible, but in terms of organisation and combat efficiency, they were streets ahead for most of the war.

[Taraphir]

First I would like to reply to sburke for his kind words. Thank you very much and greetings from Germany!

The Game we all seem to like to play refers to the Battle of Normandy. The initial amphibious and airbourne Landings

were very challenging especially for the American Forces in certain sectors. Clearly a testament to the fighting spirit

of the US Soldiers who were considered so often inferior by german propaganda.

[Magpie_Oz]

Well obviously they weren't infallible, but in terms of organisation and combat efficiency, they were streets ahead for most of the war.

Things is tho' they weren't , they just said they were.

[Erwin]

The war in North Africa is sorta a metaphor for the entire German effort: Amazing successes early on primarily due to superior doctrine re tactics and an innovative commander who had been trained with the new ideas vs a numerically much superior foe, plus importantly, control of the air.

Then attrition and supply problems as the Germans became overconfident and overreached. Inability to replace losses.

Finally, defeat as the enemy (Allies) became overwhelmingly stronger, learned better tactics and took command of the air.

[sburke]

The war in North Africa is sorta a metaphor for the entire German effort: Amazing successes early on primarily due to superior doctrine re tactics and an innovative commander who had been trained with the new ideas vs a numerically much superior foe, plus importantly, control of the air.

Then attrition and supply problems as the Germans became overconfident and overreached. Inability to replace losses.

Finally, defeat as the enemy (Allies) became overwhelmingly stronger, learned better tactics and took command of the air.

I would agree with a slightly different bent

Commitment without a clear strategic goal and a refusal to recognize the logistical issues involved that need to be solved if that commitment is going to be successful. This seems to be the major achillies heel of the entire German war effort.

Whilst Germany understood the practice of combined arms warfare and the the mobility afforded by the new weapons, the logistical base required to support that mode of warfare was never addressed hence Germany having only a limited ability to actually wage modern warfare. That the allies practiced and prepared for modern combined arms warfare better than Germany inevitably gets turned into complaining about Allied air and artillery supremacy by apologists for the German Army. I mean saying the allies would stop when facing stiffening resistance and resort to artillery, what is this some romantic troubador tripping along in the Aquitaine talking about the chivalrous behavior of knights? Of course they stopped and dumped artillery on the enemy. We had it, why not use it...and it worked. When they could afford to do so the German army did the same, unfortunately they didn't plan for the war they picked.