Yet another WW2 could Germany have won if... thread

[Easy-Kill]

Really? Adam Tooze? The individual you mention in every single post, repeatedly, because 'Wages of Destruction' renders all other historical tomes and anything resembling first-hand experience irrelevant? You are fond of him? I hadn't noticed.

Really are we resorting to this now? I like Tooze's works, not just Wages of Destruction but the other work that is openly published. It provides a comprehensively constructed, yet concise description of the Nazi economy and draws conclusions as to how this affected German performance in the war. With regards to Speer, it deconstructs the 'Speer Armaments Miracle's and corellates the uplift in construction to the conquests of 1940 and 1941.

Seriously, I'm tired of this back and forth over hypotheticals you are using to justify a series of shaded personal attacks. I'm done.

I am embarrassed that you feel I am personally attacking you and offer my apologies - I am sorry. However, what I am struggling to see is how your proposals can be realised. In Anwar where the victors are dropping millions of tonnes of bombs and conducting raids by 1000s of heavy bombers, an additional 1000 fighters, 200 heavy guns, or the capture of a Radar device is just a minor aspect of a very big machine. I am interested in your theory, but can't see how it would be realised ... I was hoping you would be able to explain to me.

Russia didn't surrender. Germany Lost. Praise God. The End.

Have a nice day.

Didn't we have a conversation about needing to have the last word and refusing to discuss further?

 

[pithorr]

The Toozists...
Did he write a Bible or something?

 

[Herbert West]

The Toozists...
Did he write a Bible or something?

Well, Easy-Kill does treat him like holy writ. From what I can see, admittedly not having read the book, the assertion of Tooze, and Easy-Kill as a derivative, is that the Ruhr bombing campaign could have been continued ad infinituum. Which raises the question: why was it not.

The answer to that question is simple: above-replacement loss rates for both equipment, and much more importantly, men and morale.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Didn't we have a conversation about needing to have the last word and refusing to discuss further?

I have an existential need to quote Jim Morrison whenever possible, my version of a mic drop.

I appreciate the apology, of course it is accepted.

The Toozists...
Did he write a Bible or something?

The Toouezenots were Heretical Economists of the Hitlerian Period, who were persecuted when the Edict of Ruhr was revoked by the Bomber Stream.

Well, Easy-Kill does treat him like holy writ.

God created Tooze to train the faithful . . . . Bilal Kaifa.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Well, Easy-Kill does treat him like holy writ. From what I can see, admittedly not having read the book, the assertion of Tooze, and Easy-Kill as a derivative, is that the Ruhr bombing campaign could have been continued ad infinituum. Which raises the question: why was it not.

The answer to that question is simple: above-replacement loss rates for both equipment, and much more importantly, men and morale.

What Tooze has done is to collect all of the pertinent economic information together in a single accessible volume - i.e. the facts which are relevent to considering the offensive capability of the German Military.

He has also interpreted those facts to explain a number of oft discussed issues, such as the effect of the strategic bombing campaign, the Speer miracle and German equipment Vs armaments.

The facts are what they are, whereas the interpretation is open to debate. However, no counter interpretation has as much of a factual basis as Tooze's book, or any of his other work.

The holy writ? No ... But essential reading for any student of Third Reich history? Absolutely.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I am ambivalent about Tooze, he is nuts in some regards but he made also a few good points and portrayed stuff from different angles.


Interesting but biased and overated. Thats at least my opinion.

 

[Easy-Kill]

I am ambivalent about Tooze, he is nuts in some regards but he made also a few good points and portrayed stuff from different angles.


Interesting but biased and overated. Thats at least my opinion.

Interested where you think he is nuts? Any of his material seems quite sane to me.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Interested where you think he is nuts? Any of his material seems quite sane to me.

His whole angle on the bombing campaign was weird imo, like he had to justify it or so. I admit its been already 6 years or so since I have read him.


Wasnt this Germany had no effective nightfighters nonsense also from him ?

 

[DoomBunny]

His whole angle on the bombing campaign was weird imo, like he had to justify it or so. I admit its been already 6 years or so since I have read him.

To be fair, that label gets slapped on pretty much anyone who points out its successes. For some reason strategic bombing has gone down in history as a pointless failure, largely through comparison to the unachievable goal set by the Bomber Barons themselves.

Wasnt this Germany had no effective nightfighters nonsense also from him ?

And the whole 'German fighters like the 109 and 190 were obsolete by the war's end' IIRC. Though really, this is just a consequence of historianing over a field you're not familiar with; Tooze is an economist/economic historian rather than a military historian, as such I'd take conclusions about the battlefront with a pinch of salt, but economically he probably knows what he's talking about. Might have to pick a copy up for £0.01 at Christmas.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

To be fair, that label gets slapped on pretty much anyone who points out its successes. For some reason strategic bombing has gone down in history as a pointless failure, largely through comparison to the unachievable goal set by the Bomber Barons themselves.

Yes thats true and of course also weird.

I also found the economic parts the most intriguing an spot on.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Wasnt this Germany had no effective nightfighters nonsense also from him ?

This was made up by me. For a night time fighter to be effective it had to have a combination of the following:
1) Effective Radar (or rather the space to mount an effective high power radar).
2) Stable flight pattern during manouvre
3) Long endurance
4) Heavy armament

The principal German night fighters in the time where it mattered were the BF110 and the Ju88. Neither were designed for aricraft engagement and their armament was relatively clumsy - that is, their design characteristics meant that they couldn't act as an effective gun platform. What is worse, is that the retrofitting of armament greatly diminished some of the design features making them less aerodynamic. They were sluggish and difficult to control with the armament necessary to attack enemy aircraft and when more powerful/nimble aircraft like to mosquito were the opposition ... well they got 'bitten'.

The other major flaw was the German radar. This was based on 2 issues. The first was that their systems were not as effective as allied systems using the Cavity Magnetron technology. This meant that the allies had higher power (more range) and higher frequency (smaller electronics, smaller antennas, better resolution and again likely more range). It was like trying to fight with 'foggy' lenses. Secondly, because of allied countermeasures were highly effective and due to the operational analysis branch, were able to assess the performance of things like their ECM by the effectiveness of their missions. Intelligence on the German radars also helped.

Germany also suffered by simply not having enough. In 1942 when Britain started to launch bombing raids with over a thousand aircraft, the entire strength of the Luftwaffe night fighter corps was around 200 ... for the whole of Germany.

So, if the poor state of Germany' night really is 'nonsense', I would like to understand why you think that is the case?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

This was made up by me. For a night time fighter to be effective it had to have a combination of the following:
1) Effective Radar (or rather the space to mount an effective high power radar).
2) Stable flight pattern during manouvre
3) Long endurance
4) Heavy armament

The principal German night fighters in the time where it mattered were the BF110 and the Ju88. Neither were designed for aricraft engagement and their armament was relatively clumsy - that is, their design characteristics meant that they couldn't act as an effective gun platform. What is worse, is that the retrofitting of armament greatly diminished some of the design features making them less aerodynamic. They were sluggish and difficult to control with the armament necessary to attack enemy aircraft and when more powerful/nimble aircraft like to mosquito were the opposition ... well they got 'bitten'.

The other major flaw was the German radar. This was based on 2 issues. The first was that their systems were not as effective as allied systems using the Cavity Magnetron technology. This meant that the allies had higher power (more range) and higher frequency (smaller electronics, smaller antennas, better resolution and again likely more range). It was like trying to fight with 'foggy' lenses. Secondly, because of allied countermeasures were highly effective and due to the operational analysis branch, were able to assess the performance of things like their ECM by the effectiveness of their missions. Intelligence on the German radars also helped.

Germany also suffered by simply not having enough. In 1942 when Britain started to launch bombing raids with over a thousand aircraft, the entire strength of the Luftwaffe night fighter corps was around 200 ... for the whole of Germany.

So, if the poor state of Germany' night really is 'nonsense', I would like to understand why you think that is the case?

Well maybe you have a point about having not enough. but dont tell me the He 219 wasnt an effective nightfighter. Not to mention that Germans wrote the book in ww2 night combat even with lagging somewhat behind in radar technology in 1942.

You also claimed that in 1942/43 the UK brought Germany almost to it knees by its strategic night campaign which is also ridiculous and flat out wrong.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Well maybe you have a point about having not enough. but dont tell me the He 219 wasnt an effective nightfighter. Not to mention that Germans wrote the book in ww2 night combat even with lagging somewhat behind in radar technology in 1942.

You also claimed that in 1942/43 the UK brought Germany almost to it knees by its strategic night campaign which is also ridiculous and flat out wrong.
Not to mention that you claimed that the UK was producing more war materiel than Germany which is again ridiculous.

This entire argument continues to revolve around one air campaign, the Battle of the Ruhr, not the entire Air War writ large. His mistake is using a lot of general terms rather than the specifics relating to the actual campaign.

The second problem by focusing on a snapshot rather than the entire narrative is failure to acknowledge that every measure produced a counter-measure. And every counter-measure produced a counter-counter-meausre. The British develop 'Monica' to protect their rear, the German's develop a radar designed to hunt 'Monica'. Chaff blinds the radar, so the fighters and AAA focus on large blobs of chaff, so decoy chaff screens are created as a diversion in the raids to come. On and on. It's war, and both sides earned their pay.

The Eagle-Owl doesn't fly until late '42 - early '43, after this is over; but, yes, it was a lethal predator more like a cat stalking its prey than a fighter.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

This entire argument continues to revolve around one air campaign, the Battle of the Ruhr, not the entire Air War writ large. His mistake is using a lot of general terms rather than the specifics relating to the actual campaign.

The Eagle-Owl doesn't fly until late '42 - early '43, after this is over.

Really ?
There isnt even a German name for this nuisance.

Afaik those 1942 British attacks on the Ruhr been just costly fiascos whith an abysmal hit rating and high British losses for nothing to show. Thats why they switched to city bombing. The only thing they could hit at night.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Well maybe you have a point about having not enough. but dont tell me the He 219 wasnt an effective nightfighter. Not to mention that Germans wrote the book in ww2 night combat even with lagging somewhat behind in radar technology in 1942.

You also claimed that in 1942/43 the UK brought Germany almost to it knees by its strategic night campaign which is also ridiculous and flat out wrong.

The He219 was an OK aircraft, but in comparison to its contemporaries (say for arguments sake the Mosquito), it was still under powered and lacked an effective radar. It also wasn't introduced until late 1943 and only around 200 were ever built. Over 7,300 Avro Lancasters were built.

It wasn't that Germany was brought to its knees - the battle of the Ruhr was an economic turning point which saw the area elevated from 'home front' to 'war zone'. By early 1943, steel production had fell by '200,000' tonnes. This saw a reduction in the monthly production by around 10% (and already added to a shortfall of 10%). Furthermore, the raids destroyed a series of factories which made component which were essential to the manufacture of other equipment. Speer's miracle of careful allocation and distribution was severely disrupted and resulted an immediate cut to the armaments program. The 'sub-component crisis' realise through the 1942/43 bombings in the Ruhr had an effect across Germany.

Essentially, what you see is the substantial growth that was seen throughout 1942 comes to an end, specific examples include the point that ammunition production in 1943 increased by only 20% (it had been 100% the previous year), or for that Luftwaffe aircraft production growth stops in 1943. While I don't like Speer as a source, he reportedly admitted to party members in 1943 that the strategic bombardment of the Ruhr (Britain's ability to bomb at will) had directly affected the planned armaments programme.

While the strategic bombardment didn't bring Germany to its 'knees' in the military sense. It did cause significant damage to German industry and specifically in 1942/43 it halted the growth of German armaments production. Something that would be felt substantially in the later years of the war. This fact is hugely important and overlooked by those who claim that it was simply a 'costly fiascos'.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

If it was so successfull why was it aborted ?

Also just by briefly looking at numbers one can see that it didnt halted the growth of German armament produktion. I dont even understand how one can come to such conclusions.

I read strategy btw and not so much tactics. I you tell me that the Me-110 wasnt so good at nightfighting I believe you even if I have read many texts stating otherwise. But HALTING growth of German armament production..well ya know, thats weird.
If you had said put a dent, sure why not could be but really halting ?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Well regarding steel which isnt equal to armament production mind you.

There wasnt much growth in the Ruhr indeed in 1942/43 but that is attributed to many factors.
One is that most easy improvments all have been made already early in the war when the Ruhr steel production was expanded considerably.
Then you have a surge in draft
Likewise steel production was increased in other places.
Not to mention the bottlenecks of Iron and coal. Capacity does not much on its own.
And yes, sure some British bombs didnt help at all.

No I am not convinced and stick with my costly failure.

It was justified however. the UK had to hit Germany somehow at this point. At least they tried.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Or am I dreaming?

Yes you are dreaming.

In hindsight Germany however should have tried it even with the troops swimming if needed or Soviet style paradrops without parachute.( I am not ridiculing those, I am a huge admire of soviet strategy)

 

[Easy-Kill]

Well regarding steel which isnt equal to armament production mind you.

There wasnt much growth in the Ruhr indeed in 1942/43 but that is attributed to many factors.
One is that most easy improvments all have been made already early in the war when the Ruhr steel production was expanded considerably.
Then you have a surge in draft
Likewise steel production was increased in other places.
Not to mention the bottlenecks of Iron and coal. Capacity does not much on its own.
And yes, sure some British bombs didnt help at all.

No I am not convinced and stick with my costly failure.

It was justified however. the UK had to hit Germany somehow at this point. At least they tried.

Well, the fact that some of the worlds leading historians and economic-historians are still writing books and research on the matter today does indeed highlight how much of an incomplete and complicated picture the German wartime economy really was. Huge changes in territory, slave labour, cities destroyed beyond that which we can imagine today doesn't make for a clear picture and I am quite sure that neither of us are 'right' ... just degrees of more or less 'wrong'.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Well, the fact that some of the worlds leading historians and economic-historians are still writing books and research on the matter today does indeed highlight how much of an incomplete and complicated picture the German wartime economy really was. Huge changes in territory, slave labour, cities destroyed beyond that which we can imagine today doesn't make for a clear picture and I am quite sure that neither of us are 'right' ... just degrees of more or less 'wrong'.

This is true and thats the reason I try to avoid absolutes and extremes bat the obvious things like the US made ALOT of stuff and such.