• '20 '19 '18

    I’m reading Paul Kennedy’s excellent “Engineers of Victory” and stumbled upon this nugget whilst sipping my morning coffee:

    “…Finally, from mid-1943 onward, all those Russian weapons systems [he’s talking about anti-tank guns and mines] had one further advantage: the mobility brought about by the continual stream of Studebaker trucks and the ubiquitous jeeps. Mutual Cold War chauvinisms later produced a silly debate about how much or how little American Lend-Lease aid actually “helped” the USSR during the war, and it is quite true that the majority of Red Army vehicles (58 percent of its 665,000 trucks by war’s end) was produced in the country itself. Yet it is also true that the American trucks and jeeps were significantly more robust and reliable, that the frontline Soviet commanders insisted on having them, and that they were exclusively used to carry guns and ammunition for combat units, while the Russian trucks were employed to bring up follow-on supplies and carry back the wounded. (A nice symbiosis is observable here: American trucks, brought over in British naval convoys, helped Zhukov’s frontline mobility.) By 1944, ironically, a completely motorized Russian antitank regiment could probably move around faster than a tank regiment itself. No other army managed that.” –Engineers of Victory, p.196

    Just thought I’d throw another log on the fire.  :wink:  Oh, and if you haven’t read this book, you really should. Two thumbs up.


  • Yeah, there is a reason why Italy never left the med because they wanted north Africa for themselves. They are basically trying to reunite the Roman Empire. No need to go anywhere else when your enemy is basically in your face.


  • @suprise:

    Could Russia and Great Britain have defeated Germany without help from the U.S.

    I doubt the British 8th Army could win in North Africa in 1943 without U.S Forces attacking from the west. Either a stalemate in Tunisia would have played out or the Axis would have pushed the 8th Army to the Benghazi area.


  • True Worsham.


  • But note the Germans were still retreating even being routed by the 8th long before the Americans landed. The US basically sealed the deal, otherwise the DAK would have been not dislodged from Africa, but still defeated alone by the British

  • '22 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    @suprise:

    Could Russia and Great Britain have defeated Germany without help from the U.S.

    Ha, one of the most debated questions about WWII history!

    But usually it’s pitched as: “Could the USSR have defeated Germany on its own, with the UK in support.”

    The spur for such theorizing is based on the fact that the vast majority of the Germany army faced east at all times, only throwing a fraction of it against the UK/US in 44-45, and was still in retreat. Further the Germans were in full, inexorable retreat after Kursk, i.e. the later half of 1943. This suggests that the USSR could have taken it all the way to Berlin regardless of the US/UK involvement

    BUT, what if the Germans were able to throw and extra 30 divisions from positions in the West against the Eastern Front?  The UK never would have had the manpower to commence a major sustained landing in Europe.  If the US stayed out, Germany could have plausibly pulled out substantial numbers of its western forces to the east.  Would that have been enough?  Could the German’s have ground down the Soviet Juggernaut to a stalemate and then a settled peace, with the boarders not so different than from 1940?

    Hard to say.  Reminds me of a famous quote from the German General Mellenthin, paraphrased here from a book on the Eastern Front:

    During their counter-attacks around Zhitomir in November [1943], the Germans took several thousand prisoners-of-war, but most were either young teenagers or older men, some in their fifties. It seemed that Russian manpower was not inexhaustible after all, a revelation that, as Mellenthin observed, ‘strengthened our determination to stick it out’. Indeed, the authorized strength of a Russian rifle division had been reduced twice during 1943, the numbers of replacements were insufficient to sustain existing units, even when newly-liberated villages and towns were combed for young men to fill out Soviet units.

  • '17 '16 '15

    The Americans loaded the brits up with over 300 tanks. Doubt they stop Rommel at El Alamein without them. Maybe they do. Even if they stalemate Rommel, it’d be a win, being how Rommel was about out of gas and everything else.

  • '23 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I still think people aren’t reckoning with the chain reactions. Like, yes, if you pull 300 American tanks from the 8th Army, you probably get a stalemate in Tunisia, assuming everything else is equal. But it’s not equal! The 8th army has to send infantry east to defend India against Japan, instead of receiving reinforcements from India. The 8th army is getting zilch in the way of replacement aircraft because without US aid, the UK needs every fighter it can scramble to defend the sea lane from Canada.

    If you pull the 8th army’s tanks and planes and infantry reinforcements, all together, the 8th army get a routed, and rommel rides into Alexandria. Now the Axis have an eastern Med port, and the Allies might have an Arab revolt to put down.

    This stuff all tends to spiral out of control.


  • Hence Lend-Lease is a game changer as I pointed out several times.

  • '21 '18 '16

    This is like asking how many licks to the center of a Tootsie Pop!
    The world may never know…
    But in this case, our current dimensional plane in which we exist, we will never know.


  • It takes 3 licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop, I remember that commercial


  • @Midnight_Reaper:

    Well, I think that one of the major consequences of the US staying out of the war would have been all of Germany being run by Soviets, as opposed to just their chunk in the east.

    -Midnight_Reaper

    Had operation Overlord failed all of Western Europe would have been in the Soviet sphere. Had Churchill protested Stalin would simply ask him “where is your army”.

    Likely that Franco would have been overthrown in Spain by the Red Army.


  • @8thGuards:

    @Midnight_Reaper:

    Well, I think that one of the major consequences of the US staying out of the war would have been all of Germany being run by Soviets, as opposed to just their chunk in the east.

    -Midnight_Reaper

    Had operation Overlord failed all of Western Europe would have been in the Soviet sphere. Had Churchill protested Stalin would simply ask him “where is your army”.

    Likely that Franco would have been overthrown in Spain by the Red Army.

    This is the most insane argument I have heard, let’s shoot for the moon on this and assume the allies just got destroyed during Overload so all the paratroopers are dead, and all landing parties were pushed back on the beach and surrendered. Explain to me how the Allies who are fighting against the Italians are going to then lose that sphere to USSR and then proceed to explain how USSR is going to capture Berlin and then move west, and after you get that done. Explain how the western allies are not going to do anything now.


  • Morelikely that the Reich and Soviet Union would have had a stall at Berlin.
    Nuremberg would have been Capitol of the Reich.
    So a kinda win win situation.

    The Allies didn’t pull off Overlord all by them self, it was an inside job.
    We all know that.


  • @aequitas:

    The Allies didn’t pull off Overlord all by them self, it was an inside job.
    We all know that.

    Either you’ve lost it, or you are insisting that the German Army “let” the Americans and the British into France.

    Sources please (yes, multiple sources from different places/people), or I’m just going to assume that you’re straight up trolling.

    -Midnight_Reaper


  • @Midnight_Reaper:

    @aequitas:

    The Allies didn’t pull off Overlord all by them self, it was an inside job.
    We all know that.

    Either you’ve lost it, or you are insisting that the German Army “let” the Americans and the British into France.

    Sources please (yes, multiple sources from different places/people), or I’m just going to assume that you’re straight up trolling.

    -Midnight_Reaper

    I will not provide a single extra source except the sources that are allready given.
    Just use your common sense for a minute and tell me/us that D-day happend exactly as History tells us it happend.
    If you don’t have a shadow of a doubt.
    Then we agree to disagree.

    Ask your self these Q: why said Eisenhower that casualties were more then the expected?

    • Check out Hans Speidel biography
    • Check out Dolchstosslegende
      There are many more but you need to dig for yourself and have the courage to ask the right questions.

    Do you Honestly think each single German soldier was a pro Nazi or Nazi at all?
    Do you really think that the Allies could have done the job on d-day by them selfs?

  • '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    D-Day was June 1944. So was Bagration. By that time the Russians had already beat them at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and a hundred other places.

    The USSR defeated Nazi Germany.  They would have won with or without the UK or USA.


  • @aequitas:

    The Allies didn’t pull off Overlord all by them self, it was an inside job.

    “The Allies didn’t pull off Overlord all by them self, it was an inside job” is a little vague, and I’m having trouble understanding precisely what this is meant to imply.  “Inside job” presumably refers to the German side, and probably more specifically to senior political and/or military leadership of Nazi Germany, which is what I’m going to assume; if you mean somthing else, could you clarify what you’re refering to?

    If the theory being proposed here is that the success or failure of the D-Day invasion depended entirely, or even to a significant degree, on conspiratorial machinations by anti-Nazi elements within Germany itself, I have trouble buying that argument.  Were there such anti-Nazi elements within Germany itself?  Of course there were, and that’s no secret; to pick just the most famous example, the almost-successful plot of July 20, 1944, to assassinate Hitler and stage a coup d’etat has been the subject of many books and movies (including a 2008 one starring Tom Cruise, for goodness sake).  And it’s likewise no secret that the German units manning the Atlantic Wall on D-Day included foreign conscripts of dubious quality or loyalty; as I recall, Cornelius Ryan mentions this in his book The Longest Day, which came out in the late 1950s.  There’s also nothing improbable about the notion that, on D-Day itself, there some German officers and some German soldiers who privately hoped that the Allied landings would be successful and who, perhaps, even tried to gum up the German response in minor ways that weren’t too obvious (in order to avoid detection and, most likely, summary trial and execution).  It’s quite a stretch, however, to extrapolate these things into the theory (if that’s what’s being implied) that they were the decisive factors in the ultimate success of Overlord – or even further, the theory that Overlord was primarily a German anti-Nazi operation rather than an Allied military operation.  In my opinion, the most significant contributions made by the Germans to the success of D-Day were the contributions they made through various strategic and tactical errors, compounded by such factors as (for example) the dysfunctional command structure which prevented German’s panzer reserves from being released without the express authorization of Hitler.

    The “Dolchstosslegende” mentioned in your later post, by the way, is very puzzling because it has nothing to do with D-Day or even with WWII.  It’s a reference to the post-WWI German popular theory (Hitler was quite fond of it) that Germany wasn’t really defeated militarily in WWI, but rather was “stabbed in the back” by traitorous senior German politicians.  And note that “Dolchstosslegende” translates as “back-stab legend”, which is in line with the conventional view that this is a mythological interpretation of why Germany lost WWI.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    I suppose that the real battle in the trenches is between those of us who have taken the time to validate an earnest and self-explanatory flow of narrative history based on actual events and facts

    And those who think that whatever they make up based on reading a few, general articles about something counts as history.


  • Guys stop feeding the troll, anyone who even remotely takes themselves serious about WWII wouldn’t argue those dumb points about Overlord.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 2
  • 7
  • 5
  • 6
  • 2
  • 5
  • 1.1k
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.7k

Users

40.4k

Topics

1.8m

Posts