Historical Discussion Thread

[Saintt]

I enjoyed “fighter” by Len Deighton. The New York Times review stated ‘The best, most dispassionate story of the battle that I have read.’

[Ocelot]

All I know is, I wouldn't recommend Holland's"The Battle of Britain" so far

[Grumpy]

Personally, I think the western interpretation of the Wehrmacht is particularly skewed. Coming from Cold War propaganda/lack of unbiased source material the narrative of outnumbered German soldiers constantly throwing back enormous hordes of unceasing Soviet men and material is very misleading. The Wehrmacht was not as comparatively dominant as popular history like to portray, and the Soviet ability to overwhelm with material (not so much bodies tho) significantly less than originally thought.

I'm going to cautiously dissent from this, although I'm no fan of the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe. Sir Max Hastings has argued convincingly in a number of books and articles that almost every time the Wehrmacht met the Allies (British, Russian, or US) on equal terms, the Germans prevailed. German, training, tactics, and dogma, especially at the small unit level, and their reliance on experienced noncom leadership, gave them a distinct tactical advantage (see also Paul Fussel on this point as well). Especially important was the German tactical emphasis on the rapid, aggressive counterattack to immediately retrieve ground that they'd lost. The Allies had no firm doctrine on this point, and tended to relax after taking a position, which made the German tactic highly effective (I'm talking from the 35,000 ft perspective, of course).

One of my favorite Hastings remarks is that, when asked if the Allies could have won the Market Garden campaign, he replies, "Yes, if they'd been fighting the Italians." As Hastings also says, "the Germans were just better."

[Ocelot]

Oh boy that’s a big one. A lot contained in that.

First tho, I’d have to ask - were there any “even” or “equal” battles of the Second World War? I’d strongly argue absolutely not. Between even the basic variables of equipment, position, supply, and experience - the view of any battle can swing from disadvantageous to promising depending on the lens from which you view it.

As far as squad tactics in particular - I confess I don’t know enough specifics on the subject to speak accurately. But my point wasn’t that German doctrine couldn’t have advantages or disadvantages in certain situations. Maybe German squad tactics were objectively superior? I’ll have to reach out to some USMA history friends and see what they think, I dunno. I wouldn’t say German overall doctrine was in any way superior to any other power however. My point was merely that (from the 35,000’ perspective), postwar historiography overestimated the effectiveness of German arms at multiple levels. A significant portion was due to intentional misinformation by the USSR and the Germans; which also conveniently played into a Cold War niche. German victories are often portrayed as against longer odds than they truly were, while their defeats blamed on overwhelming enemy numbers or the tiny mustache man without diving deeply enough to understand the German failures involved. (Not that the Germans are alone in that *cough* *cough* Midway). Luckily with the short lived window into Soviet archives, some of the assumptions are getting cleared up.

[Hawkeye]

I'm going to cautiously dissent from this, although I'm no fan of the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe. Sir Max Hastings has argued convincingly in a number of books and articles that almost every time the Wehrmacht met the Allies (British, Russian, or US) on equal terms, the Germans prevailed.

Forgive me for being so blunt on this, but Hastings is buying into and circulating a myth. As Ocelot said, fighting on equal terms generally didn't occur. I doubt anyone at OKW sat there, picked equal terms and then had it out. That said, the Germans did, obviously, enjoy great success earlier in the war.

But later in the war wasn't simply a case of superior Allied numbers and industry, although those certainly were advantages that we possessed. There are plenty of examples in 1944 of superior German forces failed to gain victory over Allied units. At the Battle of Arracourt, CCA of 4th Armored Division engaged and defeated a superior German armored force with minimal losses in US Armor. Mind, much of the air support during this battle for the US came in the form of a single L-4 Grasshopper with Bazookas on it.

A similar battle occurred a few days earlier where Paul de Langlade's brigade from the 2nd Free French Armored Division was attacked by a superior German force. The French annihilated the attacking Germans despite the nearly 2 - 1 numerical advantage. The final tally was 36 Panthers and 24 Panzer IVs knocked out, and by some sources about half their infantry, for the loss of 4 Shermans and 2 Stuarts for the French.

If I wasn't tired and lazy I'd dive into the Eastern Front. Tentatively, it's worth noting that Paulus' 6th Army was unable to destroy the smaller 62nd Army in Stalingrad before the launch of Operation Uranus, although admittedly, they came damn close. There were also engagements earlier in the war during the Battle of Moscow where inferior sized Soviet units were able to successfully delay or repulse larger German units.

It's also worth noting that Soviet military operations on the Eastern Front were regularly impressive affairs that resulted in tremendous victories for the Red Army, and weren't massed human wave tactics.

I think Hastings falls into a trap where he has a somewhat romanticized idea where the invincible Wehrmacht could only defeated through industry and numbers. It fits nicely with the German's staggering successes earlier in the war. It lacks nuance or, I dunno, a particularly realistic view of the conflict. In the end, the German military was broken on the field of battle by larger, better trained, better equipped, and better led Allied Armies.

Hopefully this makes some sense. I'm extremely tired!

[Blondi]

Not that I know of in particular, more just stirring the pot. I think he was an interesting figure though. Leading from the front and all that. I just also think he had a massive ego that seems to get in the way of the reality that his side lost.

I think Robin Olds called it best:



From what I've read and seen in interviews, he was a very likable person too. All the RAF veterans got along with him very well. Stanford-Tuck even made him Godfather to his Son.

[Jackman]

They don't make men like him anymore Olds is egendary they should make a movie about him.

[Hawkeye]

I'd watch the shit out of that.

[Shadepiece]

I like that it seems that most aviators put aside the war after it ended. I always felt that there was, and is, a culture surrounding air warfare that is knightly in nature. Honor seems to find it's way into many stories about history's great aces. I am not sure if I can think of any other profession that does so, at least one that doesn't involve firing lethal weapons at each other.

I get the mentality, and of course saw it a lot during my time in the Air Force. It always felt strange watching those guys climb into the cockpit and feeling like I signed up for the wrong job standing there with my rifle on post haha! I would love to go fly as an instructor, even if it was just in a sim-capacity. Just one time though, I wanna take a ride and see what it's like for real. This is now off topic so I'll end my rant here.

[Ocelot]

Olds was a true bro as far as I can tell, got the chance to meet a few of the dudes who flew with him in Vietnam. (Note he was a P-38 pliot first, claimed 8 in the lightning if I remember correctly. Just saying

The guy with the biggest ego I've ever met was Yeager tho; I dunno if it was due to his age but he acted like his ass smelled like flowers when he visited the academy. *Not that you can really blame him after everything he did but still.*