Historical Discussion Thread

Idle chat for all ACG and friends

Moderators: Board of Directors, Command

Storyteller
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:57 pm

Re: Historical Discussion Thread

Post by Storyteller » Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:50 am

Hawkeye wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:35 am
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.

...
I agree with Hawkeye. Especially later in the war from 1942/1943 the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine had to replace trained and battle hardened soldiers and crews with young and unexperienced replacements. And the veterans were not granted breaks because the Wehrmacht couldn't afford to not use them at the frontlines. Luftwaffe losses in the BoB in 1940, Kriegsmarine losses during the Norway campaign and the later Battle of the Atlantic and ground troop losses during Barbarossa in 1941 couldn't be replaced at the same quality level.

But even before the Wehrmacht had lost several engagements. Even in Poland everything didn't went as smooth as one might think. And in 1940 during the Battle of France during the initial river crossings some operations caused significant losses on the Wehrmacht. The Luftwaffe lost plenty of planes during Poland and France as well, which could be barely replaced, because the airplane (especially the fighter) production was still low at this time.

Anyhow the Wehrmacht performed quite well, especially in the time from 1939 to 1941 and even throughout most of 1942. But for me that shows, how bad the Allies performed on a strategic level in the first years of the war. But drawing from the huge ressources in men, material and ground, they could afford this. If the Wehrmacht had wasted their ressources like this and if Germany had made similar strategic mistakes, WW2 would have been lost by 1940 for them.

My conclusion:
Germany and the Wehrmacht did, from a military viewpoint, a lot of things very right, while the Allies learned their lessons the hard way. But from 1942 on the Allied forces got better and better and in 1943/1944 they were an even match in terms of equipment and experience. Additionally to this they had now the numbers and the ressources. So the war was lost for the Axis when Germany failed to take the Caucasus and Egypt and the Japanese lost at Midway. From this point on it was only buying time in spending the conquests the Axis had made and prolonging the suffering for all nations.
"The engine's overheating and so am I. Either we stand down or blow up. Now which do you want?"
Squadron Leader Canfield

Image

Shadepiece
Posts: 1204
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:33 am

Re: Historical Discussion Thread

Post by Shadepiece » Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:13 am

The US military adopted a huge amount of Wehrmacht doctrine post war. It's influence is still present in our training and SOP's to this day, I can tell you from experience. They did a lot really well, not perfect, but really well.

User avatar
Ocelot
Warrant Officer
Warrant Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:01 pm
Location: PST

Re: Historical Discussion Thread

Post by Ocelot » Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:48 am

Will anyone take up the gauntlet of German superiority?

Storyteller
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:57 pm

Re: Historical Discussion Thread

Post by Storyteller » Mon Jan 31, 2022 10:28 am

Ocelot wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:48 am
Will anyone take up the gauntlet of German superiority?
You mean German superiority by nature? No, most definitely not. ;-)

But as I said yesterday in Teamspeak, Germany learned their lessons from their defeat in WW1. And because only limited ressources were available, the Wehrmacht was a quite efficient as well as tactical and operational advanced army from 1939 - 1941. The Allies in contrary stuck mostly with WW1 strategies, because back then they were successful with them. Of course there were some new ideas as well, especially on the intelligence side, but the French never really got into gear until they were defeated and the British took a long time to adapt. The Soviets were thinking in terms of "Angriffskrieg", but were forced into the defensive due to Barbarossa.

But after the Axis hadn't achieve complete victory by 1942, the Allies caught up and adapted finally. From this on Germany had no true advantages anymore and they were just living from their earlier conquests.

Funny thing: If the Germans had done as many mistakes as the Allies did throughout 1939-1941, WW2 would have ended in 1940 latest.
"The engine's overheating and so am I. Either we stand down or blow up. Now which do you want?"
Squadron Leader Canfield

Image

User avatar
Ocelot
Warrant Officer
Warrant Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:01 pm
Location: PST

Re: Historical Discussion Thread

Post by Ocelot » Mon Jan 31, 2022 6:10 pm

Storyteller wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 10:28 am
Funny thing: If the Germans had done as many mistakes as the Allies did throughout 1939-1941, WW2 would have ended in 1940 latest.
I'm curious of your opinion on the "Mechelen Incident" in the context of mistakes made?

Storyteller
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:57 pm

Re: Historical Discussion Thread

Post by Storyteller » Tue Feb 01, 2022 1:21 am

Ocelot wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 6:10 pm
I'm curious of your opinion on the "Mechelen Incident" in the context of mistakes made?
If it was a true mistake (and military history says so), the German side had made the most out of it. Changing plans in such a radical way and making the French and the British believe the Wehrmacht would just follow a modified Schliefenplan, was ingenious. Interestingly von Manstein was the one behind this plan and the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht didn't like it. So von Manstein managed to talk to Hitler directly and he loved the plan.

"Kriegsglück" or luck of war is more the norm than the exception. It really depends what you are making out of the given situation. Rommel, Manstein and many other German commanders were pretty good at this. But of course even they made mistakes and German ressources were limited. For example Rommels first assault on Tobruk or his famous dash to the wire were gambles and he lost both.
"The engine's overheating and so am I. Either we stand down or blow up. Now which do you want?"
Squadron Leader Canfield

Image

User avatar
Ocelot
Warrant Officer
Warrant Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:01 pm
Location: PST

Re: Historical Discussion Thread

Post by Ocelot » Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:24 am

Anyone else wanna chime in on "Over or Under evaluation of the Nazi War Machine?" Or shall we move to a new topic? (Suggest anything you'd like).

Fluffy
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 12:05 am

Re: Historical Discussion Thread

Post by Fluffy » Wed Feb 16, 2022 6:29 pm

Wonder if this would be an appropriate place to link a bunch of audiobooks that I found posted on youtube, mostly war memoirs from the german perspective. Just about finished Tigers in the mud by Otto Carius and its an effin fantastic book.

User avatar
Ocelot
Warrant Officer
Warrant Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:01 pm
Location: PST

Re: Historical Discussion Thread

Post by Ocelot » Sat May 21, 2022 6:09 am

Sounds good to me apologies forgot this existed.

New topic: Yamamoto? Was he actually a decent Admiral? As one of the "enlightened few" Japanese leaders in modern WW2 historiography his legacy is often misleading and increasingly contested. Curious y'all's opinions?

(PS mine is that some of his decisions were absolutely absurd from an outside observers perspective)

Blaky
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2022 10:29 pm
Location: the Czech Republic

Re: Historical Discussion Thread

Post by Blaky » Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:29 pm

In my opinion he was more than decent, but he faced odds that were beyond his control. Firstly, there was that contest between army and navy which led basically to the similar problem Luftwaffe (and German forces in general) had - many types, but few numbers. It also affected the operations and their executions. Those two branches basically led two wars o their own. Also he was not allowed to choose the admirals for political and traditional reasons. Nagumo being the worst problem. He also made a critical mistake not setting the fuel tanks on Pearl Harbour as the secondary target if the carriers were not present. The last one he could have had under his control.

Post Reply