Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 84

Thread: Could Germany have won WWII?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Strategist and Storyteller Senior Member Myth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,921

    Default Could Germany have won WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by Myth
    How can one say that Germany is nothing? This is absurd. Even after being torn to bits by the allies and russians in WWII it is still the beating heart of Europe economics wise. It is THE country to talk about when we are talking manufacturuing. German cars and industrial machines are a staple for quality, not American ones.

    Germany was divided, a lot of intellectuals and scientists were moved to either the USSR or the USA. Most of the inventions claimed to be done by the USA are actually done by European (and mostly German) scientists.

    That Germany waged sucessfull war in WWII versus so many opponents is a feat of military prowess which the USA has not even come close to matching. All your wars were versus two-bit third world countries. And even then you sometimes got your arses handed to you (Veitnam). In fact, if Hitler had not spared the British troops the war might have been a tad bit harder, especially since the USA and Canadian navies suffered heavy losses to German submarines.

    It is also a fact that the heavy lifting in WWII was done by Soviet troops, and the fall of the Wehrmacht was due mainly to lack of minerals and fuel to resupply the armoured corps and Luftwaffe. Is their modern army not up to the same standard? Probably. But they have they industrial capabilty and the discipline to get back at it if they WANTED to. But warmongering and stealing resources is left to other powers...
    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    Myth Germany lost because it was arrogant, had a big mouth and didn't have the ability to back it up.

    Amateurs fight shiny metal object vs shiny metal object. Professionals talk logistics.

    Not just the wealth and industrial might to be at war and develop nuclear weapons, nor the industrial might to rebuild an air craft carrier faster than your enemy can conceive it (Midway), the ability to supply both USSR and UK with the materials to fight against an arrogant aggressor and build ships like the liberty.

    Then add to it after the Allies defeated the Axis the industrial might to rebuild the economies from scratch. If you want an object lesson in the intent and capability of the US then compare and contrast what Japan and Germany did to their occupied nations and then compare how Western Germany did vs Eastern Germany.

    Western Germany was so prosperous that unification for them was a scary thing as the debt to bring Eastern Germany up to scratch was massive.

    So lets get real here. WWII Germany was a bunch of bully boy facists who lost most of their great scientists before the war even started. The only awards for logistics that won were best slave and concentration camps and mass graves awards. They started a war, they got trounced and lost all their colonial assets.
    Quote Originally Posted by Myth
    Of course logistics plays a key role, and it is closely related to the issues I pointed out:

    - Not enough steel to manufacture spare parts (this includes trucks which are what makes an army supply go forward)
    - Not enough fuel for not just tanks but also for the non-combat vehicles, so the forward positions were left woefully undersupplied

    So much was the issue that a unit of 50 veteran foot soldiers was ass signed to a single anti-tank cannon (I know the name but can't spell it and not make a jackass of myself since I can't spell in German)

    In any event, your notion that Germany lost because they got arrogant is too linear IMO. It is never this simple, and never this black and white. First of all, Germany was set up for WWII. Poland was committing genocide in Prussia and waving their d**cks at Hitler from across the yard, knowing that they had a secret deal with France and England that they'd back them up if Germany invaded.

    Hitler surrounded the English army on the atlantic coast and could have captured/massacred them. Instead, he let them go, to show a gesture of good faith to Churchill, who then insisted that the war continued.

    Stalin was preparing for war regardless of the German invasion. As such, picking a war with the USSR wasn't Hitler's biggest mistake (as some say) but rather the timing of it and the objectives.

    Thinking they could thwart mighty Russia in 2 months time (dreadfully short summer in those parts) IS arrogant. And not counting in the fact that Russia had dirt paths and taiga for infrastructure also... And the biggest one (after letting all those Brits go to their island kingdom) is throwing so much manpower in capturing Moscow. Amrygroup Center was essentially wasted effort. He should have gone for Stalingrad and get the Caucassian oil fields and the iron and coal mines in the Ural mountains, then entrench for the winter.

    WWII Germany with enough oil, steel and manpower (from occupied Europe. And not all people were opposed to Nazi rule. It sure as hell wasn't teatime and pancakes for the Ukranian folk. Hell, they viewed the German soldiers as LIBERATORS) could keep a firm hold on Europe that the USA would not be able to crack sans nuclear weapons.

    Also, excuse me if I'm wrong, but Germany was actually closer to getting nukes than the USA before it all hit the fan... Regarding occupation - German occupied countries did just fine. The most prosperous countries in Europe now are direct descendants of the HRE (Germany, Austria, Northern Italy) or are Scandinavian. USSR occupation is what made Eastern Germany (as well as Poland, Czheckoslovakia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria) so bad. In fact, this example defeats your own - the German people, when left to freely pursue their industrial and disciplined way of life, can and will build a country that is just awesome.

    Germany lends money out now, the USA borrows money. I think that's pretty obvious. Hence, you can see the value of each economy. The real produced and exported goods and services.

    That the USA supplied airplanes to the USSR and sent ships to help Britain hold out was remarcable. I admire them for that, but it is, after all an entire CONTINENT and all it's industry directed to war manufacturing. But I say again, if Germany didn't have so much on its plate, the USA would really have a hard time projecting power on continental Europe. Imagine D-Day with a well supplied, veteran, entrenched Wehrmacht waiting for you...

    That the USA is a megapower because it can now sustain its economy and mass produce weapons is known. That it has the best power projection in the world currently, is also fact (navy, marines, airforce). But for a country which was left to its own devices on an entire continent I'd rather say this was expected. The industrial might to rebuild France, England and so on is no argument here. Germany was torn inside-out. Entire factories were dismantled and moved to Syberia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus
    Myth: I don’t want to start a debate on History (there is a place in the org for that) but all your facts are absolutely wrong and come from Rightist/revisionist propaganda.
    Germany and its allies (that somehow you forget) lost the war because they were ill prepared for war they initiated and started. All others points (as Stalin preparing a war) are unproved and in fact utterly false. Hitler didn’t want to save the British Army, Hitler, remembering WW1, wanted to secure the flank of his armies, as the French in Lille were still fighting against all odds, and Hitler couldn’t be sure what could come from this. And the battle of Gembloux has proved to the Germans that their tactic could be defeated, so more caution was required.
    And yes, you are wrong. Germany even not approached the atomic power, as their path (Heavy Water) was a Cul de Sac.
    The myth of USSR saved by the USA material: The first defeat in the Eastern Front came even before the USA was pushed in war (Moscow). And in term of tanks, the Soviets ones were much better than the British, French or US of the times. Or German for the matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Myth
    I've actually seen a T55 and I have a colleague who was part of its crew during the mandatory military service era of not so long ago. They were an average tank - not as bad as the French ones, but nowhere near as good as the German ones. But the sheer volume of manufacturing capability and the manpower behind the USSR is waht made that tank into a monster. Having a 5 to 1 numeric advantage would let spearchuckers win vs. so few German tanks.
    So... Let's get it started then! Most of my information on WWII is from history channel/youtube videos/high school and I haven't read a book about it indepth. So i'd like an educational discussion where perhaps I can benefit from the knowledge of more informed scholars.
    The art of war, then, is governed by five constant
    factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations,
    when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

    These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
    (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
    Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
    Like totalwar.org on Facebook!

    Member thankful for this post:



  2. #2
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Hitler surrounded the English army on the atlantic coast and could have captured/massacred them. Instead, he let them go, to show a gesture of good faith to Churchill, who then insisted that the war continued.
    Hitler wasn't trying to give a gesture of good will. He was stalled by the French army who valiantly fought the Germans to a stand still and made sure the British could retreat in good order.

    The fact that the British could retreat was because they still ruled the Channel and at least the fear of their fleet kept the Germans at bay. That the British people helped the British army retreat speaks to how tenacious the people were. An flotilla of small personal boats and yachts helped rescue the men from the beaches.

    One of my great uncles was at both Dunkirk and Normandy. So I've had second hand accounts of it growing up from my mother.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio View Post
    Hitler wasn't trying to give a gesture of good will. He was stalled by the French army who valiantly fought the Germans to a stand still and made sure the British could retreat in good order.

    The fact that the British could retreat was because they still ruled the Channel and at least the fear of their fleet kept the Germans at bay. That the British people helped the British army retreat speaks to how tenacious the people were. An flotilla of small personal boats and yachts helped rescue the men from the beaches.

    One of my great uncles was at both Dunkirk and Normandy. So I've had second hand accounts of it growing up from my mother.
    I think it was a little of both.

    The attack on Dunkirk was halted for several days. I think, in part because Hitler had never wanted war with the UK and admired them. It was Hitler who ordered the battle halted, and then resumed.

    It is very conflicted. At any rate, the Germans stopped the attack for three days and allowed a defensive perimeter to be established and the evacuation to be organized, allowing something of around 338,000 allied troops to escape. The entire battle lasted 11 days and it was the French defense that allowed the British time to evacuate, as well as that three day pause in the battle. Had the attack been pressed it would have been an even greater disaster for them.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

    Member thankful for this post:



  4. #4
    Member Member Sp4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,101

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Germany was rebuilt after the war, which was mostly made possible by the US and whoever else paid for the Marshall plan (It's been a while since I did this in school, so I can't remember if it was just US)

    The way WW2 went, Germany could not have won it. There are a lot of reasons for that, one of the biggest was probably that the country wasn't prepared for the war to get as big or last as long as it did.
    Could Germany have won WW2 if WW2 went differently? Who knows? What was Hitler trying to win? What was the idea he had for the country, or empire rather. The better question would probably be whether Germany could have realised his ideas and plans.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    The attack on Dunkirk was halted for several days.” Not really. Goering and Hitler though that the Luftwaffe could do the job. Even today, we have people over-estimating Air-power… And even if the English would have lost the BEF, it was “only” hundreds of thousand soldiers. More important, they lost all the heavy material, which was a blessing as their tanks were under gunned and too slow.

    As the question of the French tanks, they were better than most of the Germans tanks. The German had a better tactic and were trained to be aggressive. They trained for years, when France was very reluctant to go for other slaughter. Unfortunately, the several French Governments (and UK) couldn’t believe that a leader in Europe would go for another one…
    But, the reality is that the Germans answered to the Russian Tanks. The Pz IV was the early answer to the T34 and KV. Then they developed the Panther, then the Tiger. But the T34 evolved as well, and in term of innovation, the T34 with the slope armour and large caterpillars were more ahead than the Germans tanks.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  6. #6
    Member Member Alexander the Pretty Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    4,979

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_DnRn9hyFU

    They might've, but it would've required Nazi Germany to act like not-Nazi-Germany.

    The Pz IV was the early answer to the T34 and KV.
    Well, the up-armament projects were the answer, but the Pz 4 was designed before the Germans faced the T-34 and KV.

    Member thankful for this post:



  7. #7
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,454

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Could Germany have won? Yes. The odds against Germany were pretty steep though.


    With Major Shifts from History
    An easy win would have required several major alterations of history including a war production board aligning Germany's economy for war; a greater emphasis on motorization and logistical transport/tank recovery units; discarding the use of naval surface vessels past those needed for service strictly in the Baltic so as to greatly increase the numbers of submarines and reprovisioning submarines available; a far greater effort to neutralize/conquer Gibraltar and Malta; A greater willingness to turn the panzer spearheads loose without worrying about their flanks so as to multiply the speed/shock impact; and under no circumstances declare war against the USA until after they have declared war on you. Just a few minor things.....


    Without
    Absent major changes from what happened, it is possible, though still a bit unlikely, that Germany might have punched through to Moscow -- with it's attendant destruction of a big slice of Soviet heavy industry and their rail infrastructure -- had the Germans followed the conquest of Smolensk with short operational pause and a direct strike at the Soviet capitol (beginning c. 15 Sep not 2 Oct). Would have been tough going logistically, but might have brought Stalin's regime down and/or shattered the entire front as the rail network went down for everything North of Vorozneh [sic?]. Apparently, Sep/Oct of '41 was the only time the Russians were truly on the brink of an outright collapse. The Caucuses campaign in '42 was hard on the Soviets, but never brought them to the brink of collapse.

    And yes, ultimately, it all hinged on Russia. Had Germany won there it would have been almost impossible for the USA/UK to retake Europe. With Atomic weapons years away -- and some worried it was many years yet at the time -- it is arguable that some form of peace deal could have been made that left Germany in charge of pretty much all of Europe East of the Rhine.
    Last edited by Seamus Fermanagh; 10-02-2013 at 02:39.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  8. #8
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    The most prosperous countries in Europe now are direct descendants of the HRE (Germany, Austria, Northern Italy) or are Scandinavian. USSR occupation is what made Eastern Germany (as well as Poland, Czheckoslovakia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria) so bad. In fact, this example defeats your own - the German people, when left to freely pursue their industrial and disciplined way of life, can and will build a country that is just awesome.
    That prosperity is directly related to the Marshall Plan and the additional billions pumped in pre and post those four years.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marshall_Plan.svg
    Look at this page to see a graph of the money spent and it essentially is a picture of the countries you listed. The soviet bloc did not receive that investment because the investment was to counter communism.

    The rebuilding of Europe was so successful that "By 1952, as the funding ended, the economy of every participant state had surpassed pre-war levels; for all Marshall Plan recipients, output in 1951 was at least 35% higher than in 1938"

    So it wasn't some sort of übermensch it was simple economics and a desire not to repeat the mistakes post WW I. So post WWII recovery can be directly linked to US investment.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    If Germany had not declared war on the US post Pearl Harbor could they have won a war in Europe before the US got around to it? Even including a fight with the Soviets.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    If you read RHS Stolfi's Hitler's Panzers East, he makes the argument (quite convincingly) that had not Hitler redirected his armored units south into Ukraine in July/August 1941 and taken Moscow as planned, he could have effectively taken the Soviet Union out of the war. England & the US would have seen Stalin as effectively beaten and would have husbanded their war material instead of shipping it overseas.

  11. #11
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,454

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by boarwild View Post
    If you read RHS Stolfi's Hitler's Panzers East, he makes the argument (quite convincingly) that had not Hitler redirected his armored units south into Ukraine in July/August 1941 and taken Moscow as planned, he could have effectively taken the Soviet Union out of the war. England & the US would have seen Stalin as effectively beaten and would have husbanded their war material instead of shipping it overseas.
    Its a great read. Stolfi acknowledges that it still might have come up a bit short -- the logistics/tank recovery teams might have pulled it off but it would've been close. But Guderian was correct and OKH and Hitler wrong. They needed to have kept up the skeer and didn't. That was the one chance for victory.

    'damascus:
    Had the USA never been involved in Europe aside from the Lend Lease we supplied before the end of 1942, Germany would still have lost. After the last quarter of 1941, The USSR could have beaten them even had England sued for peace. Stalin and Beria were willing to kill 40 million Russians to win -- say what you will about them being monsters, you cannot fault their resolve -- and Germany never had the wherewithal to land a killing blow after the first Winter. Absent the USA and absent Britain, the USSR may not have won until 1949 or 1950, but eventually they would have. Like Gelcube notes above, the economics of the thing meant that anything that didn't result in a decisive win for Germany in the opening year translated as an eventual -- however Pyrrhic -- victory for the CCCP.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

    Member thankful for this post:



  12. #12
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    had not Hitler redirected his armored units south into Ukraine in July/August 1941 and taken Moscow as planned, he could have effectively taken the Soviet Union out of the war.
    Not likely. Stolfi never took the time to do the logistical calculations for what the Germans could throw at Moscow in July/August. At best, considering the rail repair and re-gauging time, and a brief halt to regroup after all of the furious Soviet counter-attacks against AGC, the Germans could have mustered about 20-30 divisions according to the Quartermaster General Wagner (and this if the Germans suspended all advances on the other fronts).

    Let me quote you some numbers in the chapter entitled "Russian Roulette" from Martin van Creveld's book called "Supplying War":

    "From the middle of July, the supply situation of Army Group Center was developing signs of schizophrenia. On the one hand Wagner [the Quartermaster General] and Halder [OKH Chief of Staff] were aware of some 'strain', but nevertheless confident of their ability to build up a new supply basis on the Dnieper, from which further operations were to be launched at the end of the month. They appeared not to hear the loud cries of help from the armies. The consumption of ammunition throughout this period was very high, and could be met only-if at all- by means of a drastic curtailment in the supply of fuel and subsistence. 9th Army was fighting around Smolensk, but its nearest railhead was still at Polotsk [a distance of 250 miles]-and this at a time when a basic load of fuel lasted for only 25-30 miles instead of the regulation 65 miles. Around the middle of August, both 9th and 2nd Army were living from hand to mouth, with stocks of ammunition still falling instead of rising in preparation for a new offensive."

    Not a very nice situation to begin a major offensive with a city of over 2 million residents at the end of it. And if the strong forces present in the Kiev district are not eliminated, the Germans now have a very long, exposed flank with the majority of available Soviet armor sitting poised for a counter-attack from the south.

    And of course everyone assumes that if Moscow falls, the Soviets automatically throw in the towel, which certainly isn't the case considering that a large chunk of their weapons and munition producing areas are completely out of reach of the Germans.

    Oh, and this statement sums it all up pretty succinctly considering all the discussion of this type I've been involved with:

    They might've, but it would've required Nazi Germany to act like not-Nazi-Germany.
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 10-03-2013 at 04:12.
    High Plains Drifter

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  13. #13
    Member Member Sp4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,101

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    'damascus:
    Had the USA never been involved in Europe aside from the Lend Lease we supplied before the end of 1942, Germany would still have lost. After the last quarter of 1941, The USSR could have beaten them even had England sued for peace. Stalin and Beria were willing to kill 40 million Russians to win -- say what you will about them being monsters, you cannot fault their resolve -- and Germany never had the wherewithal to land a killing blow after the first Winter. Absent the USA and absent Britain, the USSR may not have won until 1949 or 1950, but eventually they would have. Like Gelcube notes above, the economics of the thing meant that anything that didn't result in a decisive win for Germany in the opening year translated as an eventual -- however Pyrrhic -- victory for the CCCP.
    What about nuclear weapons?

  14. #14
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    On the western front post D-Day it was mostly green troops (in fact often too old or too young to boot) or unhappy conscripts from occupied countries that the allies faced.
    This can only be said of the static coastal defense units. Without delving too far into OOB's, here's a few units that fought in Western Europe during the summer of 1944:

    1st SS Panzer Corps, which consisted of the 1st SS Panzer Division, the 12th SS Hitlerjugend, and the 17th SS Panzergrenadier
    Panzer Lehr Division
    2d Panzer Division
    21 Panzer Division
    1st SS Panzer Division Liebstandarte
    2d SS Panzer Division Das Reich
    9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen
    10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg
    II Fallschirm Corps containing the 3d & 5th Fallschirm Divisions
    schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 101 and schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 (both with a mix of Tiger I's and King Tiger's)

    ......and the list goes on. If you have any kind of access to OOB/TO&E lists (like Nafziger), you'll quickly see that most of those divisions just mentioned were elite or highly rated German units. One could do a listing for infantry units and find a number of highly rated units, as well. So the notion that the Allies in Western Europe fought the dregs at the bottom of the German manpower barrel is a myth.

    I think that's irrelevant compared to the air power and artillery advantages the Allies had from D-Day on though.
    And yet in one of the most famous armored battles between the Western Allies and Germany (Arracourt), which was fought entirely in the fog and rain (hence no air support whatsoever for the Allies, ended in a major defeat for the Germans. One could also point to the Ardennes Offensive in Dec 1944-Jan 1945 as another battle fought largely without air support for the Allies, yet resulted in another major defeat for the Germans despite the element of nearly complete surprise and the presence of two elite Panzer Armies in the 5th and 6th, along with a who-is-who list of German generals. Bastogne grabs all of the highlights and glory, but the defense of St. Vith was just as crucial to stopping the German advance and was a brilliant piece of tactics by Brigadier General Robert W. Hasbrouck who fought with a patchwork of units from several different US divisions against major elements of 6th Panzer Army.
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 10-10-2013 at 12:03.
    High Plains Drifter

    Member thankful for this post:



  15. #15

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    I almost don't trust Stephen Ambrose anymore even though I'm sure most of his stuff is right.

    Member thankful for this post:



  16. #16
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Many so-called SS units in the west were shells of their former selves, nowhere near full stregth and often filled with unwilling conscripts from places like Romania, Poland, or even Russia. Stephen Ambrose goes on at length about this in his book Citizen Soldiers, which I'll dig up later.
    I'll save you the trouble...and Ambrose is one of the worst sources you could possibly use:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_E._Ambrose

    Beginning late in his life and continuing after his death, however, evidence and reports have continued to surface documenting longtime patterns of plagiarism, falsification, and inaccuracies in many of his published writings and other work.
    http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/09/0109ambrose.html

    In his World War II book Citizen Soldiers, Ambrose clearly acknowledges his debt to Beyond the Beachhead, which was published by Stackpole Books . “I also stole material profitably if shamelessly” from Balkoski’s book and from that of another historian, Ambrose writes in an author’s note. He also cites Balkoski in the text–but the relevant passages tend to borrow Balkoski’s words freely without using quote marks.
    Read the rest of the article for a sample of Ambrose's plagiarism and "artful" twisting of another authors' material....

    So ok, I'll give you the OOB for the two SS Panzer Divisions of 1st SS Panzer Corps as of 6 June 1944: (from Niehorster---http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/000oob.htm)

    1st SS Panzer Division

    42 operational PzIVH with 8 in repair shops
    38 operational Panthers with 0 in repair shops
    53 operational StuG IIIG's

    Artillery: 18) 10.5cm---16) 15cm---6) Wespe 10.5cm SPG---6) Hummel 15cm SPG---10) 15cm NbW rocket launchers

    12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend

    91 operational PzIVH with 7 in repair shops
    48 operational Panther's with 2 in repair shops
    3) Marder 7.5 cm SPATG
    10) JgPzIV 7.5 cm SPATG

    Artillery: 18) 10.5cm---16) 15cm---12) Wespe 10.5cm SPG---6) Hummel 15cm SPG---12) FlaK 88 ATG's---8) FlaK 37 ATG

    Do these units look like "shells of their former selves, nowhere near full strength"? Hardly. I won't bore anyone else with details of other units....you can look that stuff up at Niehorster

    I also find it interesting that the first deployment of the King Tiger came not on the Eastern Front, but with schwere Abteilung 503 in Normandy.

    And this:

    often filled with unwilling conscripts from places like Romania, Poland, or even Russia.
    For the vast majority of SS units (especially the older elite units like the LAH, Das Reich, Totenkopf, etc) this sort of thing was not permitted. One simply did not pollute pure Aryan blood with riff-raff

    But somehow I don't believe I'm going to have any luck convincing you that many of the units that fought in Western Europe were of good quality (often times elite) with good equipment and good leadership. It's hard to break folks of the myth that the Western Allies won their part of the war on airpower and artillery alone, along with unlimited resources

    And speaking of overwhelming firepower via artillery and airplanes...why do we never have this type of discussion about the Soviets? Just do a little reading into OOB's for Soviet offensives starting with Uranus. It's simply astounding that any German could survive a Soviet artillery bombardment at the opening of an offensive considering the ungodly tonnage of TNT applied........
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 10-10-2013 at 23:36.
    High Plains Drifter

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  17. #17
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    logistics and fire support made the difference in the west.
    Aye, that it did. And thankfully, perhaps for me, it made the difference in the PTO, as well.....my father fought with the 40th US Army Division, and if the US had to use more manpower in lieu of firepower......well, I might not be here having this discussion
    High Plains Drifter

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  18. #18

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
    The best Germany could ever hope for by Kursk, was a stalemate. I would like to see some sort of plan that even remotely gives them a chance to win, by that time......
    As I previously stated, both the Russian and German armies were exhausted by '43. The Russians had more men in uniform, but the military's ability to recover from the kinds of massive losses experienced in the previous two fighting seasons had largely reached its limit. (This can be seen in the difficultly Russia had replenishing its losses after Kursk as compared to the quick rebound between '41-'42, which contributed to their inability to fully exploit the counteroffensives conducted after the battle and the relatively static nature of the Eastern Front until Bagration.) I believe a large scale envelopment (or several smaller scale ones) could have destroyed not only the offensive capabilities of the Red Army but also Stalin's will to continue the fight. In contrast to the myth, the man certainly did not have a "steel" constitution, and it is conceivable that, facing a major reversal, he would have sued for peace.

    The Germans mustered a very powerful force for Kursk, one capable of taking the fight back to the gates of Moscow under the unrestrained leadership of Manstein and Model and with a bit of luck. It was unfortunate, or I suppose fortunate, that it was thrown against a brick wall specifically crafted to destroy it. As I stated, the Germans demonstrated the ability to outmaneuver and defeat much larger Soviet formations late into the war (Kharkov) and even well after Kursk (Iasi Offensive). Neither Model nor Manstein wanted any part of the highly predictable, frontal attack that Hitler approved for Kursk, preferring to allow the Soviets to attack first and defeat them through maneuver and envelopment, which would have played to the German forces' strengths. Given the Soviet's propensity for over extension of their forces, a "backhand" operation could have achieved the kind of envelopment necessary to remove entire Soviet armies from the game.

    Essentially, the situation at the front was far more tenuous than is often implied through the numbers, which do not take into account combat effectiveness. I certainly do not think it would have been likely, but it is possible that the Germans could have delivered a powerful enough blow to reverse the fundamental calculus dictating the course of events on the Eastern Front. They had the forces and leadership in place to do so.

    A rather harsh and decidedly untrue statement. The Eastern Front, while it certainly attracted a much higher total number of German units, doesn't automatically qualify that theatre of operations as having the 'vast majority' of first-line units.
    Allied performance speaks for itself - while consistently overmanned and oversupplied, they also consistently underperformed as compared to their Russian and German counterparts. They lacked a sense of strategic and/or tactical urgency, consistently failing to take advantage of their material superiority or their enemy’s weakness.

    Take the Battle of the Bulge for example. The Allies were at the height of the operational capabilities in manpower, material, and experience while the Germans’ capabilities had been eroded to a great degree; many of the units taking part – once arguably the best in the world – were shadows of their former selves, brought up to full strength with Volkssturm and other conscript units. And yet, when the German assault exhausted the resources necessary to keep moving forward, the infighting and confusion/lack of situational awareness that characterized Allied operations throughout the war prevented a decisive response and the vast majority of German forces were simply allowed to withdraw back to their starting lines (and give the Seventh Army quite the mauling in the process). Allowing such a large, weak, and exposed enemy salient to simply evaporate at its own pace without even an attempt at envelopment would have been unthinkable on the Eastern Front, where commanders on both sides would have recognized the need to act without haste to take advantage of the situation.

    And speaking of The Bulge, I have a few issues with your characterization:

    One could also point to the Ardennes Offensive in Dec 1944-Jan 1945 as another battle fought largely without air support for the Allies, yet resulted in another major defeat for the Germans despite the element of nearly complete surprise and the presence of two elite Panzer Armies in the 5th and 6th, along with a who-is-who list of German generals. Bastogne grabs all of the highlights and glory, but the defense of St. Vith was just as crucial to stopping the German advance and was a brilliant piece of tactics by Brigadier General Robert W. Hasbrouck who fought with a patchwork of units from several different US divisions against major elements of 6th Panzer Army.
    a) Not to discount the efforts of the Allied soldiers – they fought hard and did delay the German timetable to some extent – but the offensive ground to a halt due to fuel and ammunition shortages and an inability for supply lines to keep up with the spearheads, as the German commanders predicted.

    b) “Largely without air support” is incorrect. The offensive began on December 16 and the battle lasted until January 25; by December 23 Allied air power was again fully operational. So the Allies operated without air support for roughly one week out of a six week engagement, a period in which they were shattered and thrown back in disarray.

    c) Calling any German unit that participated in the Bulge “elite” is a bit of a stretch. There were some elite banners carried into battle, but those units truly were shells of their former selves at that point. While the Germans were quite resourceful in quickly building surprisingly competent divisions from scratch through the clever distribution of battle hardened veterans in key positions, an ever increasing number of corners had to be cut by that stage of the war to meet the offensive's start date. I can detail the lack of training, use of Volks personnel to augment depleted units, deficit of fuel and supplies, etc. if you like. Such conditions were present throughout the German force, even in 1SS, Hitler’s namesake unit.
    Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 10-12-2013 at 07:16.

    Member thankful for this post:



  19. #19
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    that Stalin asked for a cease-fire” I read somewhere that, in fact, negotiations had been started but Stalin wanted a return to the 1941 borders, and Hitler disagreed. Citadel was to show that if Germany couldn’t win in the East, at least it could still bite.
    Hitler had shown previously a good instinct for Political Aims whereas his Generals couldn’t grasp the reality outside of the battlefields. The only problem (err, one of) for Hitler was his politic was based on strength and intimidation, and he hadn’t theses any more. The skills and the will of the German Soldiers will avoid a total collapse, but in Kursk, the German Forces only succeeded to dent the Soviets, but they didn’t succeed to reach their initial target. Later one, Model did claim it could have done it, if, but even this wouldn’t have secure the victory as the second pince was stalled completely.
    And the Soviet still had 2 Reserved ARMIES.

    As the Soviet man power, can I remind here that it was NOT Stalin who had to call on the 55 and 14 years Old to go to war? So Nazi Germany was more on the edge that USSR for this matter, and each liberated territories was adding to the Red Army man power. And I imagine that the volunteers for the former Nazi Occupied Territories were as motivated as possible to take on Germans.

    Fortunately, The German War Machine was not adapted to the task, nor her allies were. Lack of strategic bombers, lack of really modern infantry weapons (disregarded because very good one as MG42 and Sturmgehewr 44 but can’t hind the fact that most of the infantry was equipped with Mauser 98), lack of fighters with enough autonomy, absolute disorganisation in the war production and design in new material, rivalry within the army (Wehrmacht, SS), Intelligence (Abwehr, Gestapo), I can carry on… And we can speak about Germany’s Allies: Rumania, Bulgaria, Italy, and Hungary were used as cannon-fodder.

    The entire concept of the Blitzkrieg was just flawed. As the Soviet Armies were not destroy at the borders as intended by Barbarossa, and succeeded to withdraw with heavy losses, but still managed to do it, the all Nazi Machine designed for one tactic didn’t adapt then collapse. The only hope was always “a last push” and the Russian would collapse. So the Germans pushed, and pushed, and pushed, and no collapse. But you can read here and there the same sentence.
    The point is, nowhere in the Russian Front, after Moscow, you have a sign of a collapse in term of will to fight. The Germans did manage to win others battles and pushes, but the final collapse never happened.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

    Member thankful for this post:



  20. #20
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    As I previously stated, both the Russian and German armies were exhausted by '43.
    I don't believe that they were, judging from the tremendous buildup on both sides before Kursk. Germany had rebuilt its' Panzer armies and brought many of the Grenadier Divisions to nearly full strength. The Soviets, besides the massive concentration of forces within the Kursk salient, had 6 entire armies in reserve including two new tank armies (the 3rd & 5th Guards). I don't think that the Soviets ran out of steam until after the completion of Operation Bagration. By then, both sides had suffered very high casualties, and needed rest and refit before continuing the conflict.

    In contrast to the myth, the man certainly did not have a "steel" constitution, and it is conceivable that, facing a major reversal, he would have sued for peace.
    In the late fall of 1941, this might perhaps be true IF the Germans had managed to capture Moscow. But by mid-1943, I doubt anything that the Germans could do would shake Stalin's confidence in victory. The Soviets had survived the dark days of 1941-42, had inflicted two major defeats on the Germans at Moscow and Stalingrad, and with the help of Lend Lease supplies and increased domestic production, were pushing the Germans back towards the original start borders of Barbarossa. Why would any defeat on the part of the Soviets cause Stalin to sue for peace?


    The Germans mustered a very powerful force for Kursk, one capable of taking the fight back to the gates of Moscow under the unrestrained leadership of Manstein and Model and with a bit of luck.
    This is just a pipe dream, I'm afraid. The Germans just barely got a glimpse of Moscow's tower spires in Dec 1941 before getting thrown back, and this under conditions of a badly organized and severely demoralized Red Army with a lot of dated equipment and poor tactics. What would lead you to believe it could be done against a now well equipped adversary both on the ground and in the air, who has good to excellent experienced leadership, with better organization (particularly in armor) and the confidence that the German could be defeated? And German logistics isn't any better in 1943 than it was in 1941...horse drawn methods were still prevalent.

    a "backhand" operation could have achieved the kind of envelopment necessary to remove entire Soviet armies from the game.
    Given the extent of Soviet mechanization (particularly with the ever-growing truck park) and the reorganization of armor into something resembling what the Germans were doing, I don't think you would have seen any 1941-42 style encirclements even if the Germans had not been the aggressor at Kursk. And Soviet generals had learned some very hard lessons in the previous two years to walk blindly into such situations anyways.

    it is possible that the Germans could have delivered a powerful enough blow to reverse the fundamental calculus dictating the course of events on the Eastern Front. They had the forces and leadership in place to do so.
    Without LRB's to do serious damage to Soviet industry, and LL cranking up to high proportions, I just can't agree with this. Germany just cannot slow Soviet production of weapons and material, and the ever-growing power of the VVS would ensure that no German offensive doesn't get severely punished by airpower.

    Allied performance speaks for itself - while consistently overmanned and oversupplied, they also consistently underperformed as compared to their Russian and German counterparts. They lacked a sense of strategic and/or tactical urgency, consistently failing to take advantage of their material superiority or their enemy’s weakness.
    At the risk of getting into a pissing contest, for every example you can put up that shows this, I can put up others that show the opposite

    And yet, when the German assault exhausted the resources necessary to keep moving forward, the infighting and confusion/lack of situational awareness that characterized Allied operations throughout the war prevented a decisive response and the vast majority of German forces were simply allowed to withdraw back to their starting lines.
    And such things never happened in the ranks of the Heer If Patton and Collins had been able sway Ike instead of Monty and Bradley, the counter-offensive would have been aimed at the shoulders with the intent of bagging the whole of the troops still in the salient.

    but the offensive ground to a halt due to fuel and ammunition shortages and an inability for supply lines to keep up with the spearheads.
    This only happened to a large extent to 6th Panzer Army and specifically Peiper's Kampfgruppe. 5th Panzer Army did not suffer nearly so much, and was able to reach as far as Celles before having to turn back.

    by December 23 Allied air power was again fully operational.
    Not according to Dupuy. Up until the January counter-offensive, air support was spotty, at best...a few good flying days here and there before the fog and snow settled back in. Besides, at the two critical junctions of Bastogne and St. Vith, the Americans inflicted high casualties on the Germans and slowed the advance to such an extent that by Christmas, most of the generals leading the advance had already conceded failure....all pretty much without air support.

    And in reference to c) above....yep, the Allies fought nothing but the dregs from the bottom of the barrel, and won solely on the strength of overwhelming material.....
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 10-12-2013 at 21:00.
    High Plains Drifter

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  21. #21
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    @ PJ

    Something for both of our pov's concerning the use of airpower during the Ardennes Offensive:

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/AAF-III-19.html

    While I don't subscribe to the USAAF's bloated kill figures ( 1161 tanks and AFV's destroyed when the entire offensive contained roughly 1500 at best? seriously? ), it does show the impact of interdiction missions on the logistics of the operation:

    Field Marshal von Rundstedt, upon conclusion of hostilities, summed up the effectiveness of these bridge attacks as follows:

    The cutting of bridges at Euskirchen, Ahrweiler, Mayen, Bullay, Nonnweiler, Sirnmern, Bad Münster, Kaiserslautern devastatingly contributed to the halting of the Ardennes offensive. Traffic was hopelessly clogged up and caused the repair columns long delays in arriving at the destroyed bridges.
    But it also points up my claim that the initial force of the attack was blunted by ground forces (St. Vith, Bastogne, 1st US Army defensive actions near Monschau) as there were very few good flying days in the period from Dec 16 to the 25th, and on the two favorable days of Dec 17 & 18, Allied FB's had to jettison their bombloads to dogfight with LW fighters in the St. Vith vicinity. Most German generals from Runstedt down to AG commanders all agreed that by Christmas, the attack could be considered a failure.

    Enjoy
    High Plains Drifter

    Member thankful for this post:



  22. #22

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    I completely agree that the biggest impact Allied soldiers played on the ground was in blowing the bridges and dumping their fuel. (An outcome that all in the German leadership had predicted apart from Hitler's yes-men in OKW.)

    My issue with the historiography surrounding the battle, which your post seemed to reflect, is that it has been almost exclusively been the purview of American authors writing good things about Americans for an American audience. The result is the exaggeration of the German’s strength, the discounting of the American aerial advantage and an attribution bias in the importance given to the combat actions of the American soldiers taking part in the battle – all, of course, predicated on the notion that the German commanders actually thought the thing would work.

    The biggest example of such is obviously much overhyped action at Bastogne. Reading many contemporary works about the Bulge would lead one to believe that the “siege of Bastogne” was a singular moment in the battle and the major turning point – that the town and its crossroads were critical to the German offensive. In reality, while the Germans would have liked to have secured the town, they recognized it as a hard point and the bulk of the 5th’s spearhead bypassed it relatively easily, leaving behind a small containment force – as their doctrine dictated. The same overhyped importance is given to St. Vith.

    The reality is that supply shortages, specifically fuel and ammunition, were the primary reason for the end of the offensive, trailed distantly by the clearing weather and the resumption of Allied air capabilities. Model and Rundstedt predicted that they would only be able to make it to the Meuse, and that’s essentially what they did. And despite all that’s been written about the major combat actions undertaken by the American forces, German losses were very light – much lighter than anticipated. By Christmas, the bulk of the German force remained relatively unscathed. It simply did not have the logistical capability to continue. The majority of German tanks lost, for example, we’re abandoned due to lack of fuel and not lost in combat.

    As for the quality of the German troops, I agree with you in regard to Normandy. While the majority of German units were second line and of poor to very poor quality, they were much bolstered by the presence of a core of what could accurately be called ‘elite’ and first line divisions. However, by the time of the Bulge, I just do not see how one could call any of the German units ‘elite’, even as compared to their manifestations in Normandy, not to mention those of ’41 – ’43. The training, experience, unit cohesion, etc. simply wasn’t there.

    None of this, by the way, is meant to disparage the American soldiers who fought in the battle. While many units broke easily, some did put up very stiff resistance and fought very well – demonstrating that lessons learned in Normandy were retained. However, it seems that the story of an elite German army defeated by plucky American resistence under no air cover has more commercial appeal than the story of a ragtag German army running itself out of fuel and withdrawing on its own accord.
    Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 10-13-2013 at 23:57.

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  23. #23
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    And despite all that’s been written about the major combat actions undertaken by the American forces, German losses were very light – much lighter than anticipated.
    German casualty list KIA/WIA/MIA (from Trevor N. Dupuy Hitlers Last Gamble):

    Armored and Mechanized Divisions and Brigades: 30039 out of 159564 total (19%)
    Fallschirmjaeger and Volksgrenadier Divisions: 44420 out of 170596 total (26%)

    Totals: 74459 KIA/WIA/MIA out of 330160 troops committed (23%)

    Notsure almost 1/4 of all troops committed to battle constitutes "very light". It doesn't in my book, at any rate....

    The reality is that supply shortages, specifically fuel and ammunition, were the primary reason for the end of the offensive, trailed distantly by the clearing weather and the resumption of Allied air capabilities.
    Really? The real reality of the situation is that the inability to secure the major crossroads at Bastogne and St. Vith caused huge delays in the German timetable, and exacerbated an already bad logistical situation by forcing German units into rough terrain to circumvent the Americans holding those strongpoints. Take a good look at a map of that area of the Ardennes. Besides the hub of roads going in and out of both towns, there are....no other roads available. Units have to go cross-country or make large diversions because of impassable steep terrain

    The biggest example of such is obviously much overhyped action at Bastogne. Reading many contemporary works about the Bulge would lead one to believe that the “siege of Bastogne” was a singular moment in the battle and the major turning point – that the town and its crossroads were critical to the German offensive. In reality, while the Germans would have liked to have secured the town, they recognized it as a hard point and the bulk of the 5th’s spearhead bypassed it relatively easily.
    Right. If Bastogne was so insignificant that the bulk of 5th spearhead "bypassed it relatively easily", then why did the Germans try for an entire week to take the place? You know something Manteuffel didn't?

    a ragtag German army running itself out of fuel and withdrawing on its own accord.
    This comment is so sophomoric, that it doesn't even merit a reply
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 10-14-2013 at 01:48.
    High Plains Drifter

    Member thankful for this post:



  24. #24
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    The biggest example of such is obviously much overhyped action at Bastogne.[...]...that the town and its crossroads were critical to the German offensive.
    The same overhyped importance is given to St. Vith.
    I'm returning to these two statements and then to the opinions of the commanding officer of 5th Panzer Army, General Hasso von Manteuffel. I'll leave it to viewers as to which one to believe....

    [From The German Generals Talk by Liddell Hart:

    [The consequences of not capturing Bastogne]

    "To cover these by-passing advances [by Panzer Lehr Division, and 2d PzD] I masked Bastogne, using the 26th VGD to surround the town, with the help of a panzer grenadier regiment from the Panzer Lehr Division."

    "Even so, the masking of Bastogne entailed a weakening of my strength for the forward drive, and thus diminished the chances of reaching the Meuse at Dinant."

    According to the German timetable for the attack, Bastogne was to be reached on the 2nd day, but it wasn't reached until the third day, and finally bypassed on the sixth. Now what American generals including McCauliffe at Bastogne, and Hasbrouck at St. Vith realized was that for every day the German advance could be held up or slowed, was more time for SHAEF to have to assemble a blocking force at the Meuse (which took the form of the British XXX Corps and the US 2d Armored Division), and a counter-attack (which was executed by Patton from the south, and Collins from the north). In Manteuffel's opinion, with the delays at both junctions, a forced crossing of the Meuse became impossible, and the entire salient was vulnerable to becoming cut off. The junctions were important to keep the momentum going that was gained in the first few days, and to keep the Americans off balance and struggling to halt the advance before it reached the Meuse.

    So...myth and overhyped importance, or not

    A final comment from Manteuffel:

    "We had hardly begun this new push [referring to the transference of the main thrust from Sepp Dietritch's 6th Panzer Army to Manteuffel's 5th Panzer Army] before the Allied counter-offensive developed. I telephoned Jodl and asked him to tell the Fuhrer that I was going to withdraw my advanced forces out of the nose of the salient we had made--to the line Laroche-Bastogne. But Hitler forbade this step back. So instead of withdrawing in time, we were driven back bit by bit under pressure of the Allied attacks, suffering needlessly heavy losses. On January 5th the situation was so serious that I feared Montgomery would cut off both our Armies. Although we managed to avoid this danger, a large part of them were sacrificed. Our losses were much heavier in this later stage than they had been earlier, owing to Hitler's policy of 'no withdrawal'. It spelt bankruptcy, because we could not afford such losses."

    However, it seems that the story of an elite German army defeated by plucky American resistence under no air cover has more commercial appeal than the story of a ragtag German army running itself out of fuel and withdrawing on its own accord.
    Doesn't seem to me that Manteuffel would agree with that assessment
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 10-14-2013 at 04:10.
    High Plains Drifter

    Member thankful for this post:



  25. #25

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
    German casualty list KIA/WIA/MIA (from Trevor N. Dupuy Hitlers Last Gamble):

    Armored and Mechanized Divisions and Brigades: 30039 out of 159564 total (19%)
    Fallschirmjaeger and Volksgrenadier Divisions: 44420 out of 170596 total (26%)

    Totals: 74459 KIA/WIA/MIA out of 330160 troops committed (23%)

    Notsure almost 1/4 of all troops committed to battle constitutes "very light". It doesn't in my book, at any rate....
    Check your dates. The vast majority of German casualties were incurred in the defensive battles over the next month and well after the offensive ran out of fuel as the Germans used the terrain to extract as much blood out of the Allies as possible. As I said, the German force was left relatively unscathed from their offensive operations.


    Right. If Bastogne was so insignificant that the bulk of 5th spearhead "bypassed it relatively easily", then why did the Germans try for an entire week to take the place? You know something Manteuffel didn't?
    Again, check your dates. The main German spearhead reached Bastogne on the 20th and left on the 22nd, leaving only the 26th Volksgrenadier Division, which launched probing attacks for the next several days. There was never a major assault on the town; the panzer divisions were only used to encircle it.


    This comment is so sophomoric, that it doesn't even merit a reply
    And yet, that is what happened. I do not have access to my paper sources, but I believe the wiki on such a major event can be cited with a degree of authority.

    On the 'elite' German troops:

    The plan originally called for just under 45 divisions, including a dozen panzer and panzergrenadier divisions forming the armored spearhead and various infantry units to form a defensive line as the battle unfolded. By this time, however, the German Army suffered from an acute manpower shortage and the force had been reduced to around 30 divisions. Although it retained most of its armor, there were not enough infantry units because of the defensive needs in the East. These 30 newly rebuilt divisions used some of the last reserves of the German Army. Among them were Volksgrenadier units formed from a mix of battle-hardened veterans and recruits formerly regarded as too young or too old to fight. Training time, equipment and supplies were inadequate during the preparations. German fuel supplies were precarious—those materials and supplies that could not be directly transported by rail had to be horse-drawn to conserve fuel, and the mechanized and panzer divisions would depend heavily on captured fuel.
    On the German commanders' view of the battle:

    Several senior German military officers, including Field Marshal Walter Model and von Rundstedt, expressed concern as to whether the goals of the offensive could be realized. They offered alternative plans, but Hitler would not listen.

    Model and von Rundstedt both believed aiming for Antwerp was too ambitious, given Germany's scarce resources in late 1944. At the same time they felt that maintaining a purely defensive posture (as had been the case since Normandy) would only delay defeat, not avert it. They thus developed alternative, less ambitious plans that did not aim to cross the Meuse River; Model's being Unternehmen Herbstnebel (Operation Autumn Mist) and von Rundstedt's Fall Martin ("Plan Martin"). The two field marshals combined their plans to present a joint "small solution" to Hitler, who rejected it in favor of his "big solution"."
    On "Siege of Bastogne":

    However, the two panzer divisions of the XLVII Panzer Corps—after using their mobility to isolate Bastogne, continued their mission towards the Meuse on 22 December, rather than attacking Bastogne with a single large force. They left just one regiment behind to assist the 26th Volksgrenadier Division in capturing the crossroads. The XLVII Panzer Corps probed different points of the southern and western defensive perimeter in echelon, where Bastogne was defended by just a single airborne regiment and support units doubling as infantry.
    On the condition of the German force at the end of the offensive, the weather situation, the fuel/supply situation, and the typically poor allied response:

    On 23 December, the weather conditions started improving, allowing the Allied air forces to attack. They launched devastating bombing raids on the German supply points in their rear, and P-47 Thunderbolts started attacking the German troops on the roads. Allied air forces also helped the defenders of Bastogne, dropping much-needed supplies—medicine, food, blankets, and ammunition. A team of volunteer surgeons flew in by military glider and began operating in a tool room.[93]

    By 24 December, the German advance was effectively stalled short of the Meuse. Units of the British XXX Corps were holding the bridges at Dinant, Givet, and Namur and U.S. units were about to take over. The Germans had outrun their supply lines, and shortages of fuel and ammunition were becoming critical. Up to this point the German losses had been light, notably in armor, which was almost untouched with the exception of Peiper's losses. On the evening of 24 December, General Hasso von Manteuffel recommended to Hitler's Military Adjutant a halt to all offensive operations and a withdrawal back to the West Wall. Hitler rejected this.

    However disagreement and confusion at the Allied command prevented a strong response, throwing away the opportunity for a decisive action.
    Finally, on the orderly withdrawal of German forces and the Allied inability to organize a proper response:

    Eisenhower wanted Montgomery to go on the counter offensive on 1 January, with the aim of meeting up with Patton's advancing Third Army and cutting off most of the attacking Germans, trapping them in a pocket. However, Montgomery, refusing to risk underprepared infantry in a snowstorm for a strategically unimportant area, did not launch the attack until 3 January, by which time substantial numbers of German troops had already managed to fall back successfully, but at the cost of losing most of their heavy equipment.

    At the start of the offensive, the First and Third U.S. Armies were separated by about 25 miles (40 km). American progress in the south was also restricted to about a kilometer a day. The majority of the German force executed a successful fighting withdrawal and escaped the battle area, although the fuel situation had become so dire that most of the German armor had to be abandoned. On 7 January 1945, Hitler agreed to withdraw all forces from the Ardennes, including the SS Panzer divisions, thus ending all offensive operations. However, considerable fighting went on for another 3 weeks; St. Vith was recaptured by the Americans on 23 January and the last German units participating in the offensive did not return to their start line until 25 January.
    I can expand on these facts with paper sources late next week if necessary.
    Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 10-14-2013 at 05:08.

  26. #26
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    You didn't address the comments made by someone who was intimately involved with the attack...namely Manteuffel. He clearly states that both junctions (Bastogne and St. Vith were necessary for a timely advance to the Meuse, and that having to invest Bastogne cost him both time and strength; time the US Army used to construct a barrier at the Meuse, and to organize a counter-attack.

    Check your dates. The vast majority of German casualties were incurred in the defensive battles over the next month and well after the offensive ran out of fuel as the Germans used the terrain to extract as much blood out of the Allies as possible. As I said, the German force was left relatively unscathed from their offensive operations.
    What is your point? 23% losses in men, and losing most of the 1500 AFV involved in the offensive is serious no matter at what stage of the battle they occurred. But just for S@#%s and giggles, here's a breakout:

    Armored and Mechanized Divisions and Brigades

    16-23 December 6620
    24 Dec-1 Jan 11584
    2-16 Jan 11835

    Fallschirmjaeger and VGD

    16-23 December 14421
    24 Dec-1 Jan 12111
    2-16 Jan 17888

    Totals

    16-23 December 21041 (6.4%)
    24 Dec-1 Jan 23695 (7.2%)
    2-16 Jan 29723 (9%)

    The main German spearhead reached Bastogne on the 20th and left on the 22nd
    The defense of Bastogne didn't involve just the town itself. First the defense perimeter had to be pushed back and this fight commenced on the 18th with elements of 2d PzD at Longvilly and Magaret just east of Bastogne. Noville to the north was attacked on the 20th.

    There was never a major assault on the town; the panzer divisions were only used to encircle it.
    You did not read my earlier post involving Manteuffel's comments. No German armor was used to encircle Bastogne...the 26th VGD drew that assignment. As for there not being a major assault on Bastogne:

    There were repeated assaults on Senonchamps and Villeroux (west of Bastogne) and the first major assault on the town itself happened on 23 Dec by major elements of 26th VGD, the 901st PzGren Regiment, and tanks from the 130th Panzer Regiment of Panzer Lehr Division. On 25th Dec, lead elements of 15th PzGen Div joined the attack by assaulting Longchamps (NW of Bastogne), and 26th VGD attempted a break-in to Bastogne itself. On the day after Christmas, lead elements of Patton's 4th AD began arriving followed closely by other units of III Corps and by 26 December, the siege of Bastogne was over. But hey, an entire VGD, and parts of two PzGren and a Panzer Division don't count as a major assault I guess

    Your sources for German armor losses are way off, as US TD's and tanks took a heavy toll in virtually every sector. Of the 800 or so AFV's destroyed, US TD's accounted for over 500 of them. The notion that most German tank losses were abandonment is....well, I'm trying to be polite here

    I've already addressed the timid Allied response: Monty and Bradley. If Patton and Collins had had their way, not much would have made it back to the Fatherland.

    As it stands, and as we all know, the whole affair was poorly conceived, poorly executed, and cost the Germans most of their effective armor formations in the West for the remainder of the war.

    Now....can we move back to the topic of how Germany could've won the war, please, because one thing is for sure....the Ardennes Offensive was not one of those ways.....
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 10-14-2013 at 07:19.
    High Plains Drifter

    Member thankful for this post:



  27. #27

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
    You didn't address the comments made by someone who was intimately involved with the attack...namely Manteuffel. He clearly states that both junctions (Bastogne and St. Vith were necessary for a timely advance to the Meuse, and that having to invest Bastogne cost him both time and strength; time the US Army used to construct a barrier at the Meuse, and to organize a counter-attack.
    Apart from the fact that Hart cannot be trusted as an accurate and objective conduit of information, IIRC, there was more to that quote and I will not have access to my sources until later in the week. Do you mind quoting the text before "Even so, the masking of Bastogne entailed a weakening of my strength for the forward drive, and thus diminished the chances of reaching the Meuse at Dinant"?

    Beyond that, you still do not seem to have an accurate understanding of the fuel situation. Find me a source that states the Germans had a) the fuel and b) the capability to transport it to the front to cross the Meuse and operate beyond it.

    This is the problem with American aggrandizement of the battle. In order to make St. Vith and Bastogne important actions, one must take Hitler's plan at face value - ie, one must accept that the German commanders truly believed that they could take and hold Brussels, Antwerp, and destroy the entire British contingent in the Netherlands. If one buys into that notion, then St. Vith and Bastogne become incredibly important in delaying the much vaunted German timetable. If they hadn't have been delayed those few days, the Germans may have crossed the Meuse and destroyed three full strength British armies!

    Of course, such a notion is ridiculous on its face and no one in the German command actually believed that. Model is well known for agreeing to Hitler's battle plans and simply ignoring them - part of why he had so much success. A more realistic perspective on the battle would take into consideration not yet another one of Hitler's wildly unrealistic offensives, but what the German commanders actually believed they could achieve. Luckily, we have clear documentation of their goals in the form of the plan they presented to Hitler - the small solution.

    When examining the offensive based on Model and Rundstedt’s more realistic understanding of their operational capabilities, it becomes clear that the Germans accomplished nearly exactly what they believed possible – they shocked the Allies, inflicted an embarrassing defeat on them that yielded over 20,000 POWs, and advanced to the Meuse with few casualties. Had Hitler issued a withdrawal when Manteuffel requested, the battle would have been won outright and the Germans would have been in a better defensive position moving into the spring fighting season.

    You see, to embrace the idea that St. Vith and Bastogne were actually of any real significance, one must also embrace a completely unrealistic view of the German’s operational and logistical capabilities that flies in the face of all data and reason, not to mention the very German commanders that orchestrated the battle. Not only did Model and Rundstedt not want to cross the Meuse (and expose German forces to being cut off), they knew it was not possible.


    What is your point? 23% losses in men, and losing most of the 1500 AFV involved in the offensive is serious no matter at what stage of the battle they occurred. But just for S@#%s and giggles, here's a breakout:

    Armored and Mechanized Divisions and Brigades

    16-23 December 6620
    24 Dec-1 Jan 11584
    2-16 Jan 11835

    Fallschirmjaeger and VGD

    16-23 December 1442
    24 Dec-1 Jan 12111
    2-16 Jan 17888

    Totals

    16-23 December 21041 (6.4%)
    24 Dec-1 Jan 23695 (7.2%)
    2-16 Jan 29723 (9%)
    My point is exactly the same point I've made from the beginning of this exchange - that the German forces were left relatively unscathed during the offensive portion of the battle. American resistance cause little actual material loss.


    You did not read my earlier post involving Manteuffel's comments. No German armor was used to encircle Bastogne...the 26th VGD drew that assignment.
    Sigh... not true.

    However, the two panzer divisions of the XLVII Panzer Corps—after using their mobility to isolate Bastogne, continued their mission towards the Meuse on 22 December, rather than attacking Bastogne with a single large force.
    But hey, an entire VGD, and parts of two PzGren and a Panzer Division don't count as a major assault I guess
    When examining such actions, it is important to understand not just the banners in use but the divisional strength and abilities at play. 26th was a horse drawn Volks division that was so under strength that it was forced to attack Bastogne piecemeal, and not in a major assault.

    The 26th VG received one panzergrenadier regiment from the 15th Panzergrenadier Division on Christmas Eve for its main assault the next day. Because it lacked sufficient troops and those of the 26th VG Division were near exhaustion, the XLVII Panzer Corps concentrated its assault on several individual locations on the west side of perimeter in sequence rather than launching one simultaneous attack on all sides. The assault—led by 18 tanks carrying a battalion of infantry—pierced the lines of the 327th's 3rd Battalion (officially, the 1st Battalion, 401st Glider Infantry), and advanced as far as the battalion command post at Hemroulle.
    Now that you have all of the facts, does it really sound like the Germans made a serious effort to take the town? This is yet another American myth built up around bastogne - rarely will you hear that the Battered Bastards were fighting primarily against a poorly trained, poorly equipped, undermanned, and exhausted Volks division.


    Your sources for German armor losses are way off, as US TD's and tanks took a heavy toll in virtually every sector. Of the 800 or so AFV's destroyed, US TD's accounted for over 500 of them. The notion that most German tank losses were abandonment is....well, I'm trying to be polite here
    You're asserting that over 62%... 62%... of all German tanks lost during the battle were the result of one weapons system, and you're laughing at me? Weren't you just quoting Allied Air Force claims in excess of 1,000 kills? That does not leave many losses due to fuel shortage, mechanical issues, other tanks, artillery, mines, terrain, infantry anti-tank systems, and the myriad of other reasons tanks are generally lost in combat.

    Again, check your sources. You undoubtedly pulled that gem from Harry Yeide's "Tank Killers" page 255. I would be very impressed if you were in possession of Lonnie Gill's "Tank Destroyers of WWII", where the initial claim was made. Regardless, you will note that neither source says that the TDs knocked out 500 German AFVs during the battle, only that they were "credited" with those kills. Digging a little deeper into Gill's primary source work, one finds that those credits came from the TD crews themselves - and with no confirmation (and certainly with no corresponding verification to German records). As anyone who studies such things knows, kill counts for air aces, tankers, and snipers tend toward gross exaggeration.

    On the other hand, we have actual German reports of mass quantities of tanks and other AFVs being abandoned due to fuel or other logistical issues. Again, I feel at a disadvantage being away from home and my paper, but a cursory look online offers support. For example, Panzer Lehr was a spearhead unit and involved in heavy combat from the outset. It not only fought during the offensive, but also on the defensive. If any division were to suffer disproportionately from the effects of these mythical American tank destroyers, Lehr would be it. However, according to Danny Parker, page 338:

    The Panzer Lehr Division went into battle with 3,000 grenadiers and 104 tanks and assault guns. Fifty-three of their tanks and assault guns had to be left behind due ot lack of fuel or tank-recovery vehicles.

    ...

    German armor losses increased during the retreat later that month, when large numbers of vehicles were lost due to mechanical failure, lack of tank retrievers and the chronic shortage of fuel. The problems were further aggrevated by Hitler's "no retreat" policy during the January campaign.
    So we have a very representative Panzer division that fought continuously throughout the battle losing 51% of their tanks to abandonment. Even if these magical American tank destroyers knocked out every single remaining tank lost, the numbers simply would not work.

    This is the problem with American pop history surrounding the battle - credited kills are turned into confirmed kills, insignificant actions are turned into major battles, and everyone solemnly pretends that, had it not been for those plucky Americans, the Germans might just have taken Antwerp - even though it is abundantly clear that the Fuhrer had no clothes.
    Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 10-15-2013 at 05:53.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Myth 


  28. #28
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,454

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Parker's material reveals part of the answer.

    Some of those 53 tanks were not left behind for lack of fuel but for lack of a recovery vehicle. That would include a number of the tanks knocked out by US TD's (which they would have claimed as a "kill" since they saw the crew abandon the vehicle they'd just hit. The crew likely abandoned because of a mobility issue and not wanting to fight in an immobile target -- that fact that it was recoverable and could be returned to service with a few hours labor would have not made the TD crew's report). Perhaps there is a good element of truth in the claims of both sides.


    EDIT: [Bragging] Please note that my thanks for this post comes from our resident trained tanker. Who probably had to check the tracks every time his track paused for longer than a gear change and who had to know EXACTLY how those kraut tankers would have reacted to being immobile while in somebody's gun sights. [/Bragging]
    Last edited by Seamus Fermanagh; 10-15-2013 at 16:50.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  29. #29
    Member Member Sp4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,101

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube View Post
    Could Japan have secured a permanent pacific Empire?
    Yes, that's actually interesting. I know nothing about that theater of the war. Go!

    Member thankful for this post:



  30. #30

    Default Re: Could Germany have won WWII?

    I offer General Marshall's VICTORY REPORT On the Winning of World War II in Europe and the Pacific published 1 September 1945 under the subtitle "Biennial Report of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, 1943 to 1945, to the Secretary of War"

    No claims are made regarding accuracy or authority of truth, I simply put this out to share what senior U.S. military staff were willing to share with the American public as their answer to the O.P. question.

    The steps in the German defeat, as described by captured members of the High Command were:
    1. Failure to invade England. (followed by a paragraph of fancy militaristic leadership words)
    2. The Campaign of 1941 in the Soviet Union. (words as above)
    3. Stalingrad. (words)
    4. Invasion of North Africa. Allied landings in North Africa came as a surprise to the German High Command. (and more words. added first sentence to clarify whose invasion)
    5. The Invasion of France. (lotsa words)
    6. The Ardennes Counterattack. (words) was Hitler's personal conception....Other German officers believe that this operation was reckless in the extreme, in that it irreparably damaged the comparatively fresh armored divisions of the Sixth Panzer Army...(and more words)
    7. The Crossing of the Rhine. (words)
    This thing was pretty cheaply produced and very cheaply bound so I don't jump into it too often. But it's interesting to keep around. 123 pages of senior staff garbage mixed in with a few interesting maps and some interesting tables and charts. I know it can add no content to this discussion, but perhaps it will add a bit of context.
    "The good man is the man who, no matter how morally unworthy he has been, is moving to become better."
    John Dewey

    Member thankful for this post:



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO