Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Germany COULD have defeated the Soviets if not for five mistakes:
1) The Non-Aggression Pact with Stalin, which moved Germany's jumping off point for Barbarossa much further east.
2) Declaring war on the US, which allowed the US to openly ship trucks, food, oil, radios and clothing to the Soviets. This Lend Lease aid was invaluable in keeping the Soviet units mobile, fed and in communication with their leadership.
3) Hitler pulling his Panzers off the attack and shifting southward towards Stalingrad, where some of his best, most irreplaceable mobile units were ground down in house by house urban warfare.
4) Failing to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk.
5) Shifting the bombing away from RAF airfields and attacking British cities. The RAF was at the breaking point and another week of bombing would have finished them. The shift to the city bombing gave the RAF time to rebuild and to rest.
Now, could Germany have invaded all of the Soviet Union and occupied it? No. But destroying Stalin's armies and seizing Moscow and most of the territory west of the Urals might have brought about Stalin's removal. It certainly would have made him look like a weak warlord.
5) Shifting the bombing away from RAF airfields and attacking British cities. The RAF was at the breaking point and another week of bombing would have finished them. The shift to the city bombing gave the RAF time to rebuild and to rest.
This is absolutely false.
The whole idea that the Luftwaffe 'almost' broke the RAF during the Battle of Britain is one of those myths that everyone 'knows'.
The RAF was not running out of fighters. The number of fighters available and serving increased every month during the Battle of Britain.
Also noted is that by early September, RAF fighter strength actually outnumbered that of the Luftwaffe. And this really cuts to the heart of misperceptions of the Battle of Britain. People think that the RAF was slowly being ground down, and there's this myth that victory was within Hitler's grasp, and then he blew it. In reality, with every passing month the RAF was increasingly gaining parity with the Luftwaffe.
Partly, this misunderstanding is borne by inflating the myth of The Few. The sacrifice of the men in the RAF is made to seem all the greater by suggesting that they were more outnumbered than they in fact were, and is portrayed as greater and more significant when made to seem like they barely held the line against a Nazi occupation. And I don't think this is done intentionally in most cases. After all, it is human ature to glorify heroes, with their heroics growing with each telling. But it does, and has in this case, profoundly misled.
Over 700 aircraft lost during that one month, along with 499 pilots KIA, POW, MIA.
With things even by September in terms of machines, it was over. Germany needed a substantial material advantage because the fight was so much more difficult for them. Over Britain, the RAF had greater loiter time. Damaged RAF craft could make emergency landings, be fixed or parted out, and the pilots could return to battle - and often did the same day. If shot down, the pilot could return to battle even with the aircraft lost. As for the Luftwaffe, any plane disabled, forced down or shot down resulted in a machine and crew lost for the duration.
Look at the comparative aircraft losses for each day - from July 10 thru October 30, on 10 days the RAF lost more aircraft than the Luftwaffe, on 9 days losses were even, and on 94 days the Luftwaffe suffered the most losses. And a closer look reveals that most days where the RAF lost more craft, total losses were minimal and close - 5 aircraft to 2, 9 aircraft to 7, and so forth. But check out the really big numbers. You'll find that they're devastating to the Luftwaffe.
The 6-day stretch from August 13 to August 18 - the RAF loses 103 aircraft, the Luftwaffe loses 258 aircraft.
And the campaign against the airfields, from August 23 to September 15, was still a loser for the Luftwaffe, with 560 losses in this span to just over 400 for the RAF. Battle of Britain - aircraft losses
Another issue seldom recognized is that during the Battle of Britain, the RAF maintained strict discipline when it came to assigning pilots beyond the battle itself. A significant number of pilots were in regular rotation out of combat in order to provide top-level instruction to pilot trainees, as well as for further training themselves. Also, it was RAF procedure that pilots make up the backbone of staff and command positions, taking those individuals out of combat. Finally, normal pilot leave was maintained. Not only did these procedures ensure a steady supply of new pilots, the consistent improvement of current pilots, and maintaining the combat effectiveness of pilots, it also provided a large pilot reserve - had things gone bad, this large body of pilots was available.
In contrast, the Luftwaffe did not do this anywhere to the degree as did the RAF. As such, they did not have that reserve to draw upon. They were already balls to the wall. They had already played all their cards.
In the end, Britain won because they were more than replacing losses in both men and materiel, while Germany was being bled white in both those categories. The RAF could keep going - the Luftwaffe could not.
And why? Because the UK had aircraft that were just as good, their pilots were just as well trained, because they enjoyed the myriad advantages cited above of fighting on their own aerial turf, and because Hugh Dowding was far more competent than Hermann Goering.
Don't you think deep down they wished the confederacy/Germans won or is it just a historical curiosity?
Curiosity.
I mean, they were so wildly successful in the beginning...it's interesting to see where the failure of tactics occurred. If anything, the analysis of this can teach you something about what to do in future endeavors.
Germany COULD have defeated the Soviets if not for five mistakes:
1) The Non-Aggression Pact with Stalin, which moved Germany's jumping off point for Barbarossa much further east.
2) Declaring war on the US, which allowed the US to openly ship trucks, food, oil, radios and clothing to the Soviets. This Lend Lease aid was invaluable in keeping the Soviet units mobile, fed and in communication with their leadership.
3) Hitler pulling his Panzers off the attack and shifting southward towards Stalingrad, where some of his best, most irreplaceable mobile units were ground down in house by house urban warfare.
4) Failing to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk.
5) Shifting the bombing away from RAF airfields and attacking British cities. The RAF was at the breaking point and another week of bombing would have finished them. The shift to the city bombing gave the RAF time to rebuild and to rest.
Now, could Germany have invaded all of the Soviet Union and occupied it? No. But destroying Stalin's armies and seizing Moscow and most of the territory west of the Urals might have brought about Stalin's removal. It certainly would have made him look like a weak warlord.
#2 was the worst. I don't think #4 and #5 were factors.
The other factor was the breaking of Enigma. There were many fronts - for example, North Africa - where critical supply runs were lost due to the Allies knowing the routes. Had Rommel been resupplied it is possible he could have made it to the Suez Canal and then Plan Orient could have had him pivoting around to the Caucasus from the south. A lot of "maybes" there, but possible.
A third factor was Hitler's complete misuse of naval power. He was a Continental warrior trying to fight a global war. The sole bright spot were the U-Boats but they never were produced or updated in sufficient numbers.
And why? Because the UK had aircraft that were just as good, their pilots were just as well trained, because they enjoyed the myriad advantages cited above of fighting on their own aerial turf, and because Hugh Dowding was far more competent than Hermann Goering.
This. Dowding pioneered the modern concept of coordinated air defense, including Chain Home which Goering failed to realize was strategically important. Without early detection the only option would have been to have constant combat air patrols on the lookout. CH gave controllers 15 minutes warning, sufficient to scramble and direct fighters.
I get these Quora emails and looks like people there, and elsewhere, just can't ask enough of like "What would have been the simplest way for Hitler/Germany to win WWII?" Is there some underlying wistfulness that surfaces as questions like this, that they should have won?
Yes.
Apparently these people still can't believe after all these years, that pesky Russians are still around)))
This. Dowding pioneered the modern concept of coordinated air defense, including Chain Home which Goering failed to realize was strategically important. Without early detection the only option would have been to have constant combat air patrols on the lookout. CH gave controllers 15 minutes warning, sufficient to scramble and direct fighters.
The coordinated air defence system was an important factor, it was not the only one. While the RAF and the Luftwaffe were broadly equal in quality of fighters, the RAF had, in addition, other advantages:
1. RAF fighters were not tied to escorting bombers. The Germans were.
2. The ME 109 was at the limit of its range and only had about 10 minutes 'loiter' time to fight. The RAF were close to their bases.
3. When an RAF pilot was shot down, if he survived, he could get back to base and be in another plane. A German pilot would end up as a PoW. So attrition was enhanced for the Germans.
I get these Quora emails and looks like people there, and elsewhere, just can't ask enough of like "What would have been the simplest way for Hitler/Germany to win WWII?" Is there some underlying wistfulness that surfaces as questions like this, that they should have won?
Germany's path to winning would have been to stop with France and not attack Russia. That wasn't in Hitler's nature though. He did not want to settle into becoming a Chancellor/Manager, declaring flood zones as disaster areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native
People also do this with The confederacy. I ponder both...
Likely no path to victory. A lot of bloodshed would have been avoided if Virginia had not seceded, since North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee left right behind Virginia. If disunion had remained with the Cotton States a siege and blockade would have snuffed out deeply impoverished South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana and Texas.
Germany's path to winning would have been to stop with France and not attack Russia. That wasn't in Hitler's nature though. He did not want to settle into becoming a Chancellor/Manager, declaring flood zones as disaster areas.
.
Germany was fighting France because that nation declared war on Germany in order to stop its eastern expansion. The goal all along was the east, the conquest of the west was a facilitator. Stopping with France would have flown in the face of the larger plan.
Examining how history might have turned out differently is an exercise in understanding why it turned out as it did.
Exactly, the main purpose of history is to learn from the mistakes of the past. So there is a benefit to exploring alternative timelines.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
