[WarInEur] Pro German Bias

Mon Feb 4 11:22:58 EST 2008

Chuck Sutherland
Network Support Technician
Danville-Pittsylvania Community Services
245 Hairston Street
Danville, VA  24540
(434)799-0456 x3079
csutherland at dpcs.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Buckley, John D. [mailto:J.Buckley at wlv.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:20 AM
To: Chuck Sutherland; warineur at mailman.halisp.net
Subject: RE: [WarInEur] Pro German Bias

Chuck,
In the immortal words of every historian- yes and no. I accept some of the points you are making but, it's not on just to say that 'if the Germans had only had this' or 'done this'. This presumes that the Alleis wouldn't have reacted with a countermeasure or two.
One or two of your points are worth considering:
1. The Ju 87 was inteneded for pin-point bombing at level much above tactical; it certainly wasn't designed or originally intended as a close air support aeroplane. The records and evidence is fairy clear on this. What it increasingly became used as isn't the point. The Luftwaffe devoted as little effort as possible to CAS and BAI.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So I should ignore the accounts I read where Soviet forces were held up by air force assets alone? The tank originally was intended as an infantry support weapon, I don't deal in what was intended to be used as, I look at what it was used for! While the Germans had the combined arms right they were still learning how to make it work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Yes the Gemans used speed and decisiveness and had grasped some of the aspects of manoeuvre but there was no grand concept or tactical plan called blitzkrieg - they were pushed into a corner and came up with a gamble which their forces were able to cope with - in the short term.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Von Manstein's battle plan for France was brilliant, taking into account what the allies would most likely do and countering it perfectly I would call a grand concept, while most of the senior German command were as stunned as the allies that it worked, I would say that several of the Generals in the German army understood how to plan a campaign. They set the bait and the allies took it hook line and sinker and the Panzer's reeled them in.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The German armies had no answer to the Allied and Soviet methods of the latter half of the war; Hitler and his senior commanders' decisions about static defence or avoiding retreat merely changed the mix of the final result; they were still doomed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck replies:
At that point the numbers were so strongly against the Germans that there was no adequate response! As for the no retreat orders, it did not simply add to the mix, it made the war much shorter, the Germans lost the ground Hitler was trying to hold anyway and had those troops been available for use instead of dead or captured there might have been a different outcome during some of the battles, there may have been more tactical counter attacks and perhaps less ground lost in the long run. It played a huge part in the war!

The war was lost from a strategic aspect the moment the Soviet Union was invaded, it was only a question of if the Germans could cause Stalin to be overthrown in my book as otherwise even the loss of Moscow would not have mattered as the numbers and depth would eventually take their toll.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone also mentiond in an earlier posting that the Allies used blitzkrieg (or some form of) which is simply not true in any form.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck replies:
But was is blitzkrieg? My understanding is lightening war, I would consider Patton's race through France as Blitzkrieg as he was moving faster then the Germans were able to respond! Shades of France 1940! Using speed and applying concentrated force at a selected point to disrupt the enemy is lightning war.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Germans were successful early on, but the weaknesses were all there wiating for the initial onslaugh to be weathered (ouch) by someone. The Germans had some spectacular successes but they concealed inherrent weaknesses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck replies:
It was the depth of the USSR that sealed their fate, it allowed enough time and bodies to be wasted to slow the Germans enough to get them into bad weather and into an over taxed supply state that saw them unable to mount offensive operations along the front. Once they started to go static they were doomed to defeat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Here comes the Me262 argument again! No it wasn't ready in 1941 or anything like; when it did start to appear with or without the delays the engines didn't work properly; there was no fuel and all the pilots were dead or hopelessly inexperienced. Moreover, if the Allies realised what the Germans were doing with an earlier introduction there would have been a reaction. The failure of the Luftwaffe came from appalling longterm planning, the nature of the German state created by the Nazis, and the leadership of Goering. The big gambles made on new technologies came because the Germans were already way behind in the air war and it was way too,late to catch up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck replies:
The argument was simply to show that the ground commanders were hugely affected by decisions that were made outside their control! It's not simply a blame game situation, it is to show that other aspects did effect the war on the ground. For instance the lack of urgency to upgrade equipment was brought on by the great success they had achieved. Had the Germans better managed their production and research it would have had an effect on the war.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Declaration of war on the US was indeed dumb, but so might have bee going to war in 1939 when all and sundry said it was a bad idea; so was invading the USSR in 1941; so was failing to move the economy to a total war footing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck replies:
So was not finishing off the trapped allied armies at Dunkirk! So was not finishing the English before taking on the USSR, all this was Hitler's choice or his cronies. And all of them had an effect on the Ground war. Had they been different the USSR might have fallen, England might have sued for peace or made a treaty with Churchill gone etc. The fact the German military made the war last as long as it did with all the bad strategic decisions that were made is amazing in itself!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All these decisions weer backed by substantial parts of the Nazi hierarchy, including the military. The German state functioned in the manner it did because it was the state it was; you can't tinker with one decision or two that can be seen to have been bad - you take the whole lot or play the opposition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck replies:
The opposition were either dead or in jail, this is not an option! However the player is not a crony he is the leader of the Nation and can make the right decisions or should be able to do so to allow his armies to be slightly better then historical. And of course make his own bonehead mistakes!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Is a win with manoeuvre the only way to win? Surely strategy and good planning is the ability to match resources and capabilities to your political objectives? If you can do this with limited casualties, as the Western Allies did, sounds good to me. German units continued with outdated doctrines that were often counterproductive right through to the end. Is this brilliant also?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck replies:
The Germans could not use movement war against the western allies simply because they did not control the air and were under tactical air attack all the time. Movement war to encircle and force the opponent off balance to lower your own losses was the only way they could fight and hope to win. Once that option was no longer open their choices were limited at best.

In the east the air was not totally allied controlled but it still was not totally under German control. Of course the Soviets took over the air in 44 for the most part, but the expanse of the front and the numbers involved simply doomed the Germans to being worn down by the Soviets. It didn't matter how many troops they lost winning because there was no bad press to be published in the USSR at least that didn't land you in prison for doing it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Tying the German economy to success and failure of the German army or political points wuld actually work rather well in simulating how the German state functioned. If you win at the start you have to make do; only when things start to go wrong would there be increases in economic output. I can't see the Nazi hierarchy agreeing to a mass mobilisation of the economy in 1942/3 if they were still doing very well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck replies:
But I could lose at the start to get more later. Never underestimate what a gamer will do with a rule! I believe one of the issues with WitE replacement track use was to get around that very thing as they looked at setting up rules for German reverses triggering an influx of reinforcements but felt that gamers would abuse it totally!.