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.
No. All they had were numbers and lots of them. Their technology was crap
There was a new Soviet industrial base to the east of the Urals, which had the capacity to sustain a population of at least 40 million people. Soviet industrial capacity was clearly very substantial.
"the technological key to Soviet superiority in the output of weapons was mass production. At the outbreak of war Soviet industry as a whole was not larger and not more productive than German industry. The non-industrial resources on which Soviet industry could draw were larger than Germany's in the sense of territory and population, but of considerably lower quality, more far-flung, and less well integrated. Both countries had given considerable thought to industrial mobilisation preparations, but the results were of questionable efficacy. In both countries war production was poorly organised at first and productivity in the military-industrial sector had been falling for several years. The most important difference was that Soviet industry had made real strides towards mass production, while German industry was still locked into an artisan mode of production that placed a premium on quality and assortment rather than quantity. Soviet industry produced fewer models of each type of weapon, and subjected them to less modification, but produced them in far larger quantities. Thus the Soviet Union was able to make considerably more effective use of its limited industrial resources than Germany."
"Before the war Soviet defence industry was in a state of permanent technological reorganisation as new models of aircraft, tanks, and other weapons were introduced and old ones phased out at dizzying rate."
The USSR had access to oil and more natural resources and far more men. Making their ability to produce far greater than Germany, which actually happened.
Despite having suffered huge territorial losses and disruption that resulted in a 25% fall in total national product,
the USSR in 1942 out-produced Germany in virtually every category of weapons. Small arms and artillery was 3:1. In tanks it was a staggering 4:1. The difference compounded again by the superior quality of the T34 tank. Even in combat aircraft the margin was 2:1. The Soviet ground attack planes even had armoured underbellies. Artillery and anti-tank guns were equal to any produced by Germany and the western allies.
And if the Allies hadn’t pushed the Germans out of North Africa? If the Other Allies weren’t tying up the German Air Force and bombing german cities and manufacturing into dust? If they weren’t tying up German forces with the mere possibility of invasion?
What if Japan attacks the Soviet Union instead of America? The Far East troops from Siberia that Stalin moved to Moscow are suddenly trapped east in a 2 front war…
As far as I can tell, the Germans in North Africa for the bulk of the campaign were pretty small potatoes - about 27,000, along with about 50,000 Italians, facing off against 230,000 British troops. The only reason why the North African front was a concern was that the British Empire was afraid that the Axis powers would take Egypt and the Suez Canal. Additionally, Axis forces in the Mediterranean meant that British shipping was forced around the Horn of Africa. By Spring 1943 the Russian victory on the Eastern Front was assured, if only in retrospect, and the Germans and Italians were turned back from Egypt by the British and were retreating across Libya and into Tunisia. One of Hitler's mistakes was to push more German troops into Tunisia at the very end, resulting in the capture of about 250,000 German soldiers. However, putting those 250K troops on the Eastern Front in Spring 1943 to join the nearly 4 million Axis troops already there wouldn't have turned back the Soviets, maybe only slowed them a bit.
As for the British-American bombing campaign, it didn't have any real effect on German war manufactures until late 1944, well after the Russians were rolling the German armies back in the east and the British and American forces were dashing across France.
Finally, the 'what if' about the Soviet Union and Japan that you posit didn't happen, and for good reason. Japan needed a neutral Soviet Union so that it could take on the US as much as the Soviets needed a neutral Japan so that they could face Nazi Germany. That's why the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact was signed in April 1941.
As far as I can tell, the Germans in North Africa for the bulk of the campaign were pretty small potatoes - about 27,000, along with about 50,000 Italians, facing off against 230,000 British troops.
A potential German invasion from the USSR in the north into the oil rich Middle East entailed expanded British troop deployment to keep the Germans away from the oil fields, until they were defeated at Stalingrad.
Throughout 1942 British Commonwealth troops were fighting, or seriously expecting to be attacked, in:
♦ French North Africa;
♦ Libya;
♦ Egypt;
♦ Cyprus;
♦ Syria: where an airborne assault was expected, with preparations to reinforce Turkey if they were attacked;
♦ Madagascar: fighting the Vichy French to prevent them from inviting the Japanese in as they had done in Indochina;
♦ Iraq;
♦ Iran: the British & Soviets invaded Iran in August 1941.
Those spread-out covering troops were more in combined numbers than were facing Japan and Rommel in North Africa. They were supplied by a large merchant fleet sailing the equivalent of half way around the world around the Cape. The British Commonwealth fielded over 100 divisions in 1942 alone, compared to the US total of 88 by the end of the war.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,483,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Soviets should have not tried so hard to keep up with USA's nuclear program. Just a couple nukes almost totally eliminates any outside invasion. They went bankrupt trying to keep up with the richest capitalist nation using a less dynamic economic system Then they should've done the economic reforms China was able to do while remaining officially Communist.
A potential German invasion from the USSR in the north into the oil rich Middle East entailed expanded British troop deployment to keep the Germans away from the oil fields, until they were defeated at Stalingrad.
The British didn't deploy troops in number to protect Iraq from a German attack out of the Soviet Union. It was roughly 1500 miles from the battle lines on the Eastern Front to Bagdad in Iraq. And there was a rather impressive mountain range between the Soviet Union and the Middle East. Blitzkrieg prefers flat, open plains, not rugged mountainsides.
There were British concerns about an Iraqi rebellion/revolution/coup that would produce a government that would ally with the Axis powers and deprive the British Empire of one of their main sources of oil - but at the time the United States was the largest oil producer in the world, and was producing enough oil for Britain and for the invasion of Western Europe.
The simple fact is that the Germans would have been perfectly happy to capture the Soviet oil fields in the Soviet Caucasus region (aka Case Blue), relieve their own oil shortages, and hide behind the Caucasus Mountains from any British attacks.
Quote:
Throughout 1942 British Commonwealth troops were fighting, or seriously expecting to be attacked, in:
♦ French North Africa;
♦ Libya;
♦ Egypt;
♦ Cyprus;
♦ Syria: where an airborne assault was expected, with preparations to reinforce Turkey if they were attacked;
♦ Madagascar: fighting the Vichy French to prevent them from inviting the Japanese in as they had done in Indochina;
♦ Iraq;
♦ Iran: the British & Soviets invaded Iran in August 1941.
Those spread-out covering troops were more in combined numbers than were facing Japan and Rommel in North Africa. They were supplied by a large merchant fleet sailing the equivalent of half way around the world around the Cape. The British Commonwealth fielded over 100 divisions in 1942 alone, compared to the US total of 88 by the end of the war.
The Germans weren't landing in French North Africa - there was no reason for them to do so.
The Germans and Italians were already in Libya.
Egypt was the key to the eastern end of the British defenses in the Mediterranean. Yes, it was the ultimate goal, as it would deny the British the Suez Canal and possibly lead to a German drive upon Iraq. All good, except for the fact that the Germans and Italians never had the manpower or logistics to pull off an invasion of Iraq from Egypt or even the capability to take Egypt itself.
Syria - again, no logistics to pull off an invasion from that section. IIRC, the Germans had already worn out their airborne divisions taking Crete and couldn't manage another such attack.
Madagascar? Really? Pray tell, what would the Germans gain from capturing Madagascar?
The entire North African theater in WW2 was pretty much a linear affair. The Germans and Italians in North Africa were tied down by their supply lines. They couldn't match British sea power throughout the Mediterranean and didn't have the capability to launch seaborn invasions anywhere they pleased. Their supply lines were from ports in Italy through the Mediterranean to ports in Libya and Tunisia, with the British fortress at Malta sitting astride those supply lines. The entire flow and ebb of the North African campaign was that the momentarily victorious side drove the other back until their supply lines were over extended, and then the tide turned and the other side drove their opponent back. It finally came to a close when the British in the East used a preponderance of manpower, machinery, and supplies to drive the Afrika Corps one last time westward across North Africa, where they were confronted with American armies driving eastward. Game over in North Africa for the Axis.
By this, "Madagascar? Really? Pray tell, what would the Germans gain from capturing Madagascar?", it was clear you never read what I wrote. It is best to look at the big picture. You are also confused at what happened and the situation in North Africa and the Middle East. The situation as they saw it at the time is what matters.
♦ About a million British Commonwealth troops were in North Africa and the Middle East.
♦ The Germans reached the Caucasus oil fields, but the Soviets sabotaged them beyond use. They would need to drill new deep bore holes then install the oil facilities and transportation. Too big and lengthy a task.
♦ The Germans had the Mesopotamia plan, to link up with the Japanese in India somewhere. It was actually partly enacted, by the large volume of tanks built.
♦ The Germans reached Baku on the Caspian Sea, shelling the city.
♦ Baku is 110 miles from the Iranian border.
♦ Baku is 700 miles from the Persian Gulf, around the 3/4 of the distance across northern Libya.
♦ The Germans were prevented from obtaining a warm water port.
♦ Britain controlled all the Middle East preparing for a German breakthrough from the southern USSR.
♦ Britain was giving assurances to assist the Turks if the Germans just walked in, but also preparing for Turkey moving over into the Axis camp if they turned.
♦ The British took Syria and Madagascar from the Vichy French.
♦ Those covering troops in the Middle East, as I have written, were more than facing Rommel and the Japanese.
♦ The troops in North Africa and the Middle East had to be supplied via the Cape - a return sailing of circumnavigating the earth by a large merchant fleet.
♦ The Royal Navy controlled the Eastern Med all through WW2.
I have the clear impression you knew little to nothing of the British Commonwealth troop deployments acting as a huge backstop for the USSR, and to keep the Germans away from the oil fields and a Japanese link up.
♦ The main oil supply for the British in North Africa, Middle East, India, and the USSR was the British refinery at Aberdan in Iran.
♦ There was a crude oil pipeline from Iraq to Palestine, built in 1942, serving a small oil refinery at Haifa, and one at Suez. Still partly operational.
♦ The Japanese sunk a British battleship in Madagascar.
♦ If the Japanese were operating submarines out of Madagascar they could interdict British convoys supplying North Africa, the Middle East, Australia and India. Keeping the Japanese out of the western Indian Ocean was vital.
♦ 75% of Axis supplies got through to North Africa from nearby Italy.
♦ One of the fastest, if not the fastest, advances of WW2 was when the Eighth Army moved 1,100 km in just 17 days from El Alamein on November 4th 1942 to Benghazi on 20th November 1942.
♦ The Eight Army pushed the Germans back into Tunisia, however not once over extending supply lines from Suez. The faster they advanced the longer the supply lines became. They linked up with the Torch landing troops, a joint British US force, in Tunisia. The Eighth Army saved Patton's 88,000 men from a possible annihilation, after the Kassarine debacle, as the Axis forces had to turn 180 degrees to meet the Eighth Army coming up their rear.
Never lose sight of the big picture.
Last edited by Dave Davis; 03-14-2022 at 05:40 AM..
By this, "Madagascar? Really? Pray tell, what would the Germans gain from capturing Madagascar?", it was clear you never read what I wrote. It is best to look at the big picture. You are also confused at what happened and the situation in North Africa and the Middle East. The situation as they saw it at the time is what matters.
I have the clear impression you knew little to nothing of the British Commonwealth troop deployments acting as a huge backstop for the USSR, and to keep the Germans away from the oil fields and a Japanese link up.
Regarding Madagascar - you still haven't stated what goal Nazi Germany hoped to accomplish by capturing a large island off the southeastern coast of Africa, nor have you explained how Nazi Germany, which lacked the capability to invade England across perhaps 20 miles of water, would somehow be able to invade another island that was literally thousands of miles away.
I did look for any evidence of a Mesopotamia Plan by the Germans. Turns out that they had one - in the First World War. I doubt that there was any such plan in WW2. Nazi war aims were to conquer territory in the Soviet Union, turning it into a greater German Reich that would rival the United States. Remember lebensraum?
As for Baku, the Germany Army only came within 350 miles of that city on the Caspian Sea. They never threatened it. And Baku was the capital of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, part of the Soviet Union. Really doubt that there were British Commonwealth troops deployed as a "backstop" there for the Soviets.
And speaking about British Commonwealth troop deployments as a "backstop" for the Soviet Union (but not in Baku) - can you detail which units were actually deployed in the Middle East, and where specifically they were deployed?
Finally, the last push of the British 8th Army came courtesy of American Lend Lease. Montgomery's troops were well fed, well armed, and well supplied, and repelled the last attempt by Rommel's Afrika Corps to capture Alexandria. When the Germans ran out of fuel for their tanks, they simply began their rapid retreat back into Libya, with Montgomery's troops on their heels the entire way. Yes, the Americans had a poor showing at Kasserine Pass - stuff happens.
Soviets should have not tried so hard to keep up with USA's nuclear program. Just a couple nukes almost totally eliminates any outside invasion. They went bankrupt trying to keep up with the richest capitalist nation using a less dynamic economic system Then they should've done the economic reforms China was able to do while remaining officially Communist.
They went bankrupt through the massive inefficiency, waste and freebie perks built into the system. Well, and embezzlement of various sorts, graft, etc.
"Had he stuck with his Non-Aggression treaty with the USSR and concentrated on taking England out,"
You cannot do that without a navy.
Germany's biggest mistake was declaring war in the first place. Once they waged war when was the point they could not win? That was when the British refused to make peace in June 1940. With Britain still in the war the Royal Navy blockade starved Germany, and the Axis, of vital resources, including food, animal & human, and oil. Britain was even buying up rare metals from Turkey to ensure the Germans did not have them.
After June 1940 Germany has an enemy it can’t defeat not entertaining peace, and economically throttling them every day of the war. Germany never had time, the British did. The German invasion of the USSR with an army short of resources due to the Royal Navy blockade and RAF bombing of Germany, may have quickened the war's end for Germany, however it was not the point that Germany was doomed. Germany had already lost the war, it was just a matter of time when Germany collapsed.
Well said here. People often overlook the economic aspect of the war.
Couldn't the Germans have taken Gibraltar relatively easily though? A little more arm twisting of Franco and a few divisions might've done it. Malta also wasn't out of their reach. Even the Suez was not impossible if they had given Afrka Corps more men and supplies. That wouldn't knock the UK out of the war but would significantly diminish their industrial capacity.
Regarding Madagascar - you still haven't stated what goal Nazi Germany hoped to accomplish by capturing a large island off the southeastern coast of Africa,
You never understood most of what I wrote. Read again what I wrote about Madagascar and British troop deployment. My last reply was in bullet form as you were clearly taking no notice.
I miss-typed - the Germans were shelling Grozny and Astrakhan from long range. They air bombed Baku, Grozny and Astrakhan. If Stalingrad had fallen, or more sensibly, the Germans ignored moving around it (Hitler had an obsession with teh city), they would have reached the Iranian border.
The only supplies the US gave for El Alemain was eagerly supplying some new Sherman tanks. They were eager to get the new tank run out in battle to see how it went, as it was to be the USAs only main tank. The British deployed the unproven tank with an odd complex engine (five car engines in a circle) against weak Italian armour. The British gave their assessment to the US, giving recommendations for improvement. They also worked directly with either GM or Chrysler to improve the odd engine. No US forces ever used the Sherman with the engine - lucky for them. The US supplies to Britain was about 11% (British War production, Postan, 1952). A fair amount of that was continuing pre-war trade.
Rommel only got into Egypt because the Aussie, who were holding out at Tobruk, were replaced by South Africans who capitulated. Not only that they never destroyed the stores. Then Rommel had an abundance of captured fuel and food to get to the Suez Canal.
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.
