Why the Germans lost WW2

[Emgy]

Your original point and the picture with it underlines that American genius for organization and mass production that without a shadow of a doubt meant the allies emerged victorious after a truly horrible world war lasting six years.  However, again imho only, I believe without that effort the Soviet Union would eventually have emerged the dominant nation over the whole of Europe after an unimaginable conflict lasting beyond 1950.

The US Army would still be in play and very likely in Western Europe even if US aircraft production had been just mediocre.

 

Not uncommon for flightsimmers to downplay ground forces. More war materiel that imho had more of an impact:

Edited March 5, 2014 by Calvamos

[Kublai]

Koblai, I am the original poster and this thread took a wrong turn right from the start as no one read the link which showed 1000s upon 1000s of USAAF airplanes waiting to be disposed of at the end of WW2.

 

There was NO asking.

 

All I can say you need to do more reading.

Milo your statement "Why the Germans lost WWII" while not a question certainly was a statement that was to elicit many responses and opinions. The link showing 1000s of surplus USAAF planes clearly shows your bias that it was primarily the USAAF that won the war in no small part due the the vast productive resources of the US. I think my responses were respectful disagreements with your view and a discussion thereafter following the thread of your OP. If my reading of the history and my conclusion drawn from it differs from yours then I make no apologies. Everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as we remain respectful on these forums.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

Otherwise the logic would be bombers were sent to bomb German cites to lure German fighters up so Allied fighters could destroy them and thus defeat the enemy air force. This is clearly ludicrous.

 

Are you aware of RAF leaning forward into France? Or Circus operations? This is exactly what happened there, and first half of 1944 this is also what 8th AF did. Meaning that destroying Luftwaffe fighters was the primary objective.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

The link showing 1000s of surplus USAAF planes clearly shows your bias that it was primarily the USAAF that won the war in no small part due the the vast productive resources of the US. I think my responses were respectful disagreements with your view and a discussion thereafter following the thread of your OP. If my reading of the history and my conclusion drawn from it differs from yours then I make no apologies. Everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as we remain respectful on these forums.

 

I would have thought that it was meant to mean that US industrial power won the war. And on that I more or less agree these days. I used to think at some point that Soviets alone could have won, but after about decade of more reading about WW II I have come to conclusion that industrial capacity of US was the single most important factor. A true necessary condition, if not true sufficient one, if you are familiar with logic.

 

Btw. I do agree that RAF's part in bombing campaign may not have been the most efficient way to use those resources.

Edited March 5, 2014 by 13./JG51mprhead

[MiloMorai]

Milo your statement "Why the Germans lost WWII" while not a question certainly was a statement that was to elicit many responses and opinions. The link showing 1000s of surplus USAAF planes clearly shows your bias that it was primarily the USAAF that won the war in no small part due the the vast productive resources of the US. I think my responses were respectful disagreements with your view and a discussion thereafter following the thread of your OP. If my reading of the history and my conclusion drawn from it differs from yours then I make no apologies. Everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as we remain respectful on these forums.

 

Yes it does show what production heights can be reached when not interrupted by round the clock day and night bombing, doesn't it.

[Kublai]

Google Lend Lease and read the history of the program and some of the myths posted in this thread will be busted

-Lend Lead started in March 1941, fully 9 month before US entry into war

- "In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China"

-"the Lend-Lease Act was specifically cited by Hitler as yet another provocation and de facto US entry into the war"

 

So US aid to USSR though not insignificant pales compared to aid given to Britan and one can imagine what USSR spent on their own. Point being in the whole scheme of things, Lend Lease was not critical to Soviet war effort.

 

Hitler was not stupid or crazy to declare war on the US. He basically had no choice but to as US actively supporting his two main adversaries.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

So US aid to USSR though not insignificant pales compared to aid given to Britan and one can imagine what USSR spent on their own. Point being in the whole scheme of things, Lend Lease was not critical to Soviet war effort.

 

About lend lease being critical to Soviet war effert, that's something we really can't know about. Until German defeat in Stalingrad things were pretty much hanging in balance and not before Kursk was German defeat in East certain. But in larger scale Lend Lease quite certainly was critical, I don't really see Britain being able to continue war without US help, at least not in the scale they did, and I don't see Soviets being able to win alone.

 

 

Hitler was not stupid or crazy to declare war on the US. He basically had no choice but to as US actively supporting his two main adversaries.

 

Might be so, still in my opinion it was a mistake.

[DD_Arthur]

So US aid to USSR though not insignificant pales compared to aid given to Britan and one can imagine what USSR spent on their own. Point being in the whole scheme of things, Lend Lease was not critical to Soviet war effort.

 

Hitler was not stupid or crazy to declare war on the US. He basically had no choice but to as US actively supporting his two main adversaries.

 

 I'm not sure about that Kublai.  Lend Lease was critical to the USSR in that it made the war effort for the USSR vastly easier and led to a much quicker conclusion.  The sheer scale of what the US sent is astonishing.  The Red Army ate American food, walked in American boots or were carried in American trucks.  The enormous reserves Stalin was able to muster were taken to the front behind locomotives from America running on American rails.

 

Not to mention the 'planes Russia built from American aluminium or the ammunition they fired made in chemical works supplied from the 'states.  It was that sort of scale.

 

Hitler's decision to declare war on the USA is still something of a mystery.  Not enough documentation has been found to truly establish what were the processes behind this decision.  One things for sure; he had plenty of choices to just sit on his hands! 

[Kublai]

 I'm not sure about that Kublai.  Lend Lease was critical to the USSR in that it made the war effort for the USSR vastly easier and led to a much quicker conclusion.  The sheer scale of what the US sent is astonishing.  The Red Army ate American food, walked in American boots or were carried in American trucks.  The enormous reserves Stalin was able to muster were taken to the front behind locomotives from America running on American rails.

 

Not to mention the 'planes Russia built from American aluminium or the ammunition they fired made in chemical works supplied from the 'states.  It was that sort of scale.

 

Hitler's decision to declare war on the USA is still something of a mystery.  Not enough documentation has been found to truly establish what were the processes behind this decision.  One things for sure; he had plenty of choices to just sit on his hands! 

I would have to agree Lend Lease was critical to Britain and very important to the USSR prior to US entry to war, the emergency lasting at least to end of 42. By 43 the Soviets mobilized to full war economy and Lend Lease, especially as regards to weapons procurement was not critical any more. It was T72s and IL2s that won the battles of Kursk and beyond not Shermans and P40s. Wasn't the massive Soviet arsenal one of the justification for dropping the A bomb - as a warning to Stalin to hold the line in his advance?

 

Does anybody have a source on how much USSR spent on WWII. It would be interesting to compare that to the $10B that US supplied to them under Lend Lease. I saw a figure of $192 Billion - that would make the $10B look pretty insignificant. I have read of one commentator say did one soldier throwing one grenade make a difference - yes, but it did not win the war. I would have to say the same about US Lend Lease to the Soviet.

[MiloMorai]

I would have to agree Lend Lease was critical to Britain and very important to the USSR prior to US entry to war, the emergency lasting at least to end of 42. By 43 the Soviets mobilized to full war economy and Lend Lease, especially as regards to weapons procurement was not critical any more. It was T72s and IL2s that won the battles of Kursk and beyond not Shermans and P40s. Wasn't the massive Soviet arsenal one of the justification for dropping the A bomb - as a warning to Stalin to hold the line in his advance?

 

T-72s at Kursk?.

 

[Bladderburst]

If the russians had T72s during WWII it would have lasted 6 months total.

[Kublai]

If the russians had T72s during WWII it would have lasted 6 months total.

LOL fingers and brain are not cooperating - you know it was suppose to be T34!

[Bladderburst]

Yeah but entertaining the thought of it is funny. The Germans would have loved the T34 compared to this.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

 The sheer scale of what the US sent is astonishing.  The Red Army ate American food, walked in American boots or were carried in American trucks.

 

Of the lend-lease aid that made the most impact on the Soviet war effort was probably the trucks. The importance of the trucks may well have eclipsed that of the US bombing effort in Europe, despite the enormous amounts of B-17s built.

[Finkeren]

Of the lend-lease aid that made the most impact on the Soviet war effort was probably the trucks. The importance of the trucks may well have eclipsed that of the US bombing effort in Europe, despite the enormous amounts of B-17s built.

Indeed. People often tend to focus quite a lot on weaponry (for obvious reasons) but forget about logistics, even though logistics often lie at the heart of the most important turning points in military history.

[MiloMorai]

Trucks in Russian service.

 

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

 

domestic - 2.136,400 77%

imported - 525,500 19%

[Kublai]

Indeed. People often tend to focus quite a lot on weaponry (for obvious reasons) but forget about logistics, even though logistics often lie at the heart of the most important turning points in military history.

Logistics is probably the key secret "weapon" the US had and was more important to the overall war effort than any single weapon system. Nobody did logistics anywhere close to what the US were able to do. 

[Bladderburst]

The germans still used a lot of horses. And they had the very bad habit of overstretching their supply line.

[MiloMorai]

 My reading of WWII and especially since my exposure to IL2 is that Russia did most of the heavy lifting to defeat Germany.

 

The heavy lifting by the SBC drew off fighters, men and material that could have been used on the Eastern Front. It also resulted in a ~30% drop in production.

 

 

 

OK Most factory workers were women and slaves and POWs in Nazi Germany. I do not believe too many people were emigrating to Germany in 44-45 looking for factory work. I think it would be reasonable to assume foreign workers were slaves and POWs. The main point being they were not German men in the 15 to 65 age range as they would have been at the front.

 

The numbers don't support your statement. Who do you think built those T-34s, Spitfires, P-51s etc?

[Kublai]

The heavy lifting by the SBC drew off fighters, men and material that could have been used on the Eastern Front. It also resulted in a ~30% drop in production.

 

 

 

 

The numbers don't support your statement. Who do you think built those T-34s, Spitfires, P-51s etc?

When did Nazi war production drop 30%? In 45 when Soviets were banging on the front door and Allies banging on the back door? Nazi war production peaked in 44 at the height of SBC bombing campaign. This is undisputed fact and led many post war commentators to acknowledge the SBC campaign was an ineffective waste of resources.

 

I did not imply SBC or Allied air forces were useless. They certainly played a very important role in the war effort but they were not decisive and did not win the war against Germany. Even your OP with the 1000s of US planes in cold storage with the heading "Why the Germans Lost WWII" is kinda of funny here in the IL2 game forum. The IL2 was the most produced combat plane in WWII. The Soviets in all probability had more combat planes in service against the Nazi than the Allies did as Allies had to split their production with the Pacific theater.  

 

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say in your second statement. What does Nazi factories have to do with production of T34, Spitfires and P51s?

 

We are fans of IL2 the Combat Sim, surely after years of playing this I would think you would have learned a bit more of WWII as fought on the Eastern Front and realized that that was the most intense part of the Europe war and was the decisive front to defeat Nazi Germany. 

[MiloMorai]

Some reading for you Kublai, http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/

 

As of April 1945, the American alone had 18,735 a/c on hand vs the Germans. The British had something like 10,000 a/c. Back up your statement for the number of Soviet a/c.

 

Without the SBC German production would have been 30% higher. Do you know why German production increased?

 

A great percentage of the factory workers were women in all the countries, so I don't know why you keep mentioning women.

[II./JG27_Rich]

I say again

 

The Enigma Code being broke

 

and the Russians

 

[Kublai]

Some reading for you Kublai, http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/

 

As of April 1945, the American alone had 18,735 a/c on hand vs the Germans. The British had something like 10,000 a/c. Back up your statement for the number of Soviet a/c.

 

Without the SBC German production would have been 30% higher. Do you know why German production increased?

 

A great percentage of the factory workers were women in all the countries, so I don't know why you keep mentioning women.

It was not hard to find info on Soviet Air Force in WWII, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Forces

 

As was suspected between IL2 and Yaks, almost 80K were produced - they represented half of Soviet air force. In all over 125K combat aircraft were produced by the Soviets. Even with attrition I think it can be safe to say the Soviets were fielding 50 to 60K combat aircraft at wars end - easily doubling Allied combat arrayed against the Nazis.

 

The article you cite, despite its title, supports my assertion that SBC failed in its stated mission to win the war. Murray writes in his conclusion "there is no doubt that airpower played a decisive role in the winning or losing of the war" then in the next sentences writes "But that decisive role was no greater than the victory in the Atlantic that allowed America to bring its industrial and military power to bear or the victories of the Red Army on the eastern front that slowly but surely wore away the Wehrmacht's fighting edge. Although the air war was only a part of an enormous conflict that swept over Europe, it did prove decisive in helping the Allies achieve victory since it played an indispensable role, without which the Anglo-American lodgment on the continent and the final defeat of the Third Reich is inconceivable." I would agree with everything he wrote there except "the final defeat of the Third Reich is inconceivable." First off Murray gives minimal credit to the Soviet air and ground forces and secondly Murray himself describes the extreme reluctance of Harris to allow his bombers to support Overlord.

 

Harris:

 "It is thus clear that the best and indeed the only efficient support which Bomber Command can give to OVERLORD is the intensification of attacks on suitable industrial centres in Germany as and when the opportunity offers. If we attempt to substitute for this process attacks on gun emplacements, beach defenses, communications or [ammunition] dumps in occupied territory, we shall commit the irremediable error of diverting our best weapons from the military function, for which it has been trained"

 

Third, when you achieve a secondary result, attrition of Luftwaffe, diversion of resources, disruption in production, but fail in the prime objective of your initial strategy, the defeat of your enemy by destruction through aerial bombardment of morale and industrial capability, it can hardly be redemption for the original strategy no matter how useful the secondary result is. SBC did not achieve what it set out to do - it did not win the war against Germany this is very clear. Did it help, sure did, but so did the French resistance fighter throwing that Malatov cocktail.

 

Women were mention in the context of women and POWs were the main factory worker and thus victims of industrial bombings. Women and children and the elderly were the main targets of area bombing. 

[Kublai]

I say again

 

The Enigma Code being broke

 

and the Russians

 

What was the decisive action taken as a result of the Enigma Code being broke? Britain hung on the precipice well into 43 nearly losing the battle of the North Atlantic. It was aircraft carriers and long range flying boats that eventually turned the tide against U boats. Did breaking of the Enigma code result in the defeat of any Nazi armies in battle? The Poles were the first to crack Enigma in 1933 but it did not prevent them from being surprised and defeated in 1939. With the code fully broken and any secret communicate by Nazi deciphered within two days, the Allies were still caught by surprise in the Ardennes in 44. The Me262 and Me162 when put into service were surprises and shocks to Allies. Did Churchill share Enigma with the Soviets? I don't think so, the Soviets did pretty good without it. Sure being able to read your enemies secret would be strategically important but how was the breaking of Enigma decisively important? 

[LLv44_Mprhead]

Soviet sources state that their loses during WW II was 106400 aircraft, so that would leave about 20000 at the end of the war http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/sovair.html if 125 000 produced is correct.

[Finkeren]

Soviet sources state that their loses during WW II was 106400 aircraft, so that would leave about 20000 at the end of the war http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/sovair.html if 125 000 produced is correct.

Except you're not counting the tens of thousands of pre-war aircraft destroyed during the war. The Soviet Air Forces became by far the largest air power in terms of numbers in the decade leading up to the war. These aircraft would not be counted towards the Soviet war time production but would be counted in the numbers destroyed since they constituted the far majority of VVS planes destroyed during the first 2 years of the war.

[II./JG27_Rich]

If you know what your enemy is going to do before they do it you can change your actions acordinly to counter it. Why doesn't this sink in how important this is? Allied forces 1942 onward pretty much new what the Germans were planning before they made any attack anywhere by intercepting enigma cypher messages. There never were any "surprise" attacks after 1942. Watch Mind of a Code Breaker if you can find it.

Edited March 9, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[JtD]

You can't use production figures to estimate front line strength. That's not how it works.

 

Ideally you check orders of battles and take it from there, or you can be a bit lazy and use secondary sources. Doing that by looking into the Groehler, you'll find for instance, that about 7500 Soviet aircraft were assigned for the battle of Berlin, or a front line strength of about 30000 for the US, 15000 for the SU and 9000 for the RAF in the last year of the war.

[II./JG27_Rich]

What was the decisive action taken as a result of the Enigma Code being broke? Britain hung on the precipice well into 43 nearly losing the battle of the North Atlantic. It was aircraft carriers and long range flying boats that eventually turned the tide against U boats. Did breaking of the Enigma code result in the defeat of any Nazi armies in battle? The Poles were the first to crack Enigma in 1933 but it did not prevent them from being surprised and defeated in 1939. With the code fully broken and any secret communicate by Nazi deciphered within two days, the Allies were still caught by surprise in the Ardennes in 44. The Me262 and Me162 when put into service were surprises and shocks to Allies. Did Churchill share Enigma with the Soviets? I don't think so, the Soviets did pretty good without it. Sure being able to read your enemies secret would be strategically important but how was the breaking of Enigma decisively important? 

Why did the Germans lose the Battle of the Atlantic? The should have won.   All of a sudden things started going wrong for them. Rommel. None of his supplys are getting through. Why is that? Because someone is listening.

Edited March 9, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[Finkeren]

If you know what your enemy is going to do before they do it you can change your actions acordinly to counter it. Why doesn't this sink in how important this is? Allied forces 1942 onward pretty much new what the Germans were planning before they made any attack anywhere by intercepting enigma cypher messages. There never were any "surprise" attacks after 1942. Watch Mind of a Code Breaker if you can find it.

I don't think anyone denies the operational importance of the breaking of the Enigma code. It surely enabled the Allies to counter most moves of the German forces late in the war.

 

However, there is no way you can say, that the spying on Enigma communication was a deciding factor in the war. By the time Enigma messages were regularly intercepted and decrypted in time to be useful, the outcome of the war was already decided, and Enigma spying played no deciding role in the major turning point battles on the Eastern Front, which is where it ultimately was decided.

[Finkeren]

Why did the Germans lose the Battle of the Atlantic? The should have won. All of a sudden things started going wrong for them. Rommel. None of his supplys are getting through. Why is that? Because someone is listening.

The Germans weren't posed to win the Battle Of The Atlantic at any point. It's true that their U-board at one point threatened shipping significantly, but the German high seas fleet was never really a threat, and the U-boats were defeated by proper escort tactics and aircraft patrolling which were developed largely by trial and error and only to a small degree by Enigma intelligence.

 

And if you think Rommels little side-show in North Africa had a decisive impact on the outcome of the war, you are sorely deluded.

[II./JG27_Rich]

The Germans weren't posed to win the Battle Of The Atlantic at any point. It's true that their U-board at one point threatened shipping significantly, but the German high seas fleet was never really a threat, and the U-boats were defeated by proper escort tactics and aircraft patrolling which were developed largely by trial and error and only to a small degree by Enigma intelligence.

 

And if you think Rommels little side-show in North Africa had a decisive impact on the outcome of the war, you are sorely deluded.

There may have been more to it if it lasted longer...But they stopped the side-show 

 

Edited March 9, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[II./JG27_Rich]

Finkeren:

 

Please remember I admitted that I have the "I'm always right desease" ....... so just ignore me ....I need to go to a shrink 

Edited March 9, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[Finkeren]

Finkeren:

 

Please remember I admitted that I have the "I'm always right desease" ....... so just ignore me ....I need to go to a shrink

No worries. We're just having an honest discussion I agree with you that Enigma code breaking was very important for the war effort (as well as for the development of modern computer logic, without which we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation)

 

I'm simply saying, that in my oppinion, the breaking of the Enigma code wasn't a deciding factor for the overall outcome of the war.

[MiloMorai]

 Did Churchill share Enigma with the Soviets? I don't think so, the Soviets did pretty good without it. Sure being able to read your enemies secret would be strategically important but how was the breaking of Enigma decisively important? 

 

Nope, not at all. Post WW2 the Brits spied on the Soviets who were using captured Enigma machines.

 

The Brits did give the Soviets intel tho (German OOB for Kursk, for example)

[II./JG27_Rich]

We're all making good points. Too bad we can't all go to the pub together. Twenty sim nerds in a pub with flying goggles on discussing IL-2 hehehe 

Edited March 9, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[DD_Crash]

Been there, done that for the last 4 Flying Legends at Duxford Same again this year

[DD_fruitbat]

Been there, done that for the last 4 Flying Legends at Duxford Same again this year

Yep, and I'll see you again this year Crash

Edited March 9, 2014 by fruitbat

[Rama]

Third, when you achieve a secondary result, attrition of Luftwaffe, diversion of resources, disruption in production, but fail in the prime objective of your initial strategy, the defeat of your enemy by destruction through aerial bombardment of morale and industrial capability, it can hardly be redemption for the original strategy no matter how useful the secondary result is.

"Bomber" Harris wasn't in charge to define the allied strategy for strategical bombing, he was just in charge for the RAF Bomber command, and his declarations were contradicting allied plans.

 

The strategic bomber objective defined in the Pointblank directive 'Quebec conference) and applied in the CBO plans in 1944 for the Argument, were absolutly clear about the main goal of the bombardement.(destroy the Luftwaffe).

[Kublai]

Soviet sources state that their loses during WW II was 106400 aircraft, so that would leave about 20000 at the end of the war http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/sovair.html if 125 000 produced is correct.

Soviets produced over 40,000 planes in 44, if Luftwaffe destroyed 20,000 planes in less than a years time while two great armies were bearing down on either side of them, well so much for your assertion that "the back of the Luftwaffe was broken". So either the Luftwaffe was still a very effective fighting force in 44-45 or the Soviets had way more aircraft remaining than you acknowledge.