D-Day 60th Anniversary

[Spiritus Naturae]

I thought it might be good to take a look at this astounding endeavour of modern warfare as we approach the 60th anniversary (June 6th 1944-2004).

Could an undertaking like this happen today? Was there anyone of the Allies more of an impact than the others? Some say the 'Brits' don't get enough credit for their part...any who agree?

Let's do this, History fiends!

Jonathan

[studyhound]

:thumb:

[DunnySaze]

I thought it might be good to take a look at this astounding endeavour of modern warfare as we approach the 60th anniversary (June 6th 1944-2004).

Could an undertaking like this happen today?

Perhaps the build-up and first Gulf War has some parallels as a modern analogue? Although the enemy was not as difficult and the attack over land and not water. Then there is the Inchon landing, as far as large scale marine operations is concerned.

Was there anyone of the Allies more of an impact than the others? Some say the 'Brits' don't get enough credit for their part...any who agree?

Let's do this, History fiends!

Jonathan

I always thought too much emphasis has been put on the Omaha Beach landings. For certain these were the toughest of all the landings, but the other four landings were equally important to maintain a stable beach-head IMO.

[GrayPilgrim]

I thought it might be good to take a look at this astounding endeavour of modern warfare as we approach the 60th anniversary (June 6th 1944-2004).

Could an undertaking like this happen today?

No. The casualties that Eisenhower was willing to take would not be tollerable with modern media coverage, if the press had been filming live from Omaha the political pressure would have been such that he would have been forced to withdraw. Second a large part of the success involved were the deceptions and ability to keep all the movements masked from the enemy. With media imbeds boradcasting from troop bivoaucs there would be too much evidence that would give away the proposed landing place. Part of the issue that made the invasion a success was throwing the enemy off the sent. Operations such as The Man Who Never Was (I know that it tied up troops in Greece and elsewhere for Operation Husky) were essential for tying up troops elsewhere. In the months leading up to the invasion we plastered Le Harve and the Pas de Calais, in order to concinve the Germans that we were going to attack there, we created a fictitious invasion force with the General they figured would use to lead the invasion.

One of the odd things about WWII is that the Wehrmacht when it was well suppled, filled with Germans, and Allied air supremecy was made unusable (generally based on inclimate weather dould knock the U.S. troops flat on the keisters every time even though we knew what they were doing because of Ultra). Normandy based on the deception campaign was largely filled with Ost Trupen, conscripts from Poland and other eastern lands who surrenedered as soon as possible

Back to the question...moreover we need a person who is willing to be duped that the invasion was coming elsewhere, and who would remain convinced that this huge invasion force was only a diversion so he kept his best troops, 15th Panzer, in reserves. The Naval power is also gone, the morale of the Allied Armada off the cost made German movement impracticable. Thus based on:

Lack of political will to take major casualites (heck in the first few hours of the invasion of Iwoa Jima the US suffered more casualties than the coalition since the invasion of Iraq and people are screeming masacre of our troops) no there is not the political will to suffer the necessary casualties to launch such an endeavor
The media blackout that would be necessary is not possible in the world of 24 hour cable channels, cell phones, the internet, and sattelite photo reconaisance.
Need for a suicidal meglomaniac who is willing to be duped for a long enough period (that is the one most likely to happen but not for as long as Hitler allowed himself to be duped.


Was there anyone of the Allies more of an impact than the others? Some say the 'Brits' don't get enough credit for their part...any who agree?

Let's do this, History fiends!

Jonathan

I think that the American beeches get the most press because Americans like to hear about Americans, but it is true without Sword, Gold, and Juno the beach head would have been too narrow to amass the sufficient manpower and materiel to take Cherbourg in order to get the deep water port necessary to drive the Germans out of France. So they were all essential, if any of the beeches were nto taken and their corresponding objectives the landings would have been untennable...

[billy_pilgrim]

[QUOTE=DunnySaze]Perhaps the build-up and first Gulf War has some parallels as a modern analogue? Although the enemy was not as difficult and the attack over land and not water. Then there is the Inchon landing, as far as large scale marine operations is concerned.

I agree. Inchon was perhaps the most successful sea-to-land invasion. D-Day is remembered today as a great success, yet men who were there often complain that the Navy did not do enough to soften up the German positions before the landings.

I would also like to suggest that all you history buffs in the Washington, D.C. area come down to the Mall on Memorial Day weekend. On Saturday May 29, the World War II memorial is going to be unveiled. Thousands of veterans are expected to attend. The Library of Congress will be there to collect oral histories for the Veteran's History Project. And to top off my plug, coinciding with the Memorial Day events, the Veteran's History Project will release on-line a collection of about 300 oral histories, memoirs, personal letters and photographs of veterans who participated in D-Day and have donated their papers to the Library of Congress. You can get a little taste of what the website will be like at the following address

http://www.loc.gov/folklife/vets/stories/wwiilist.html

[Socrates]

I thought it might be good to take a look at this astounding endeavour of modern warfare as we approach the 60th anniversary (June 6th 1944-2004).

Could an undertaking like this happen today?
GP's post was most informative. It certainly puts the current allied losses in Iraq in perspective. Thank goodness there were no leftist appeasenik mass media in WW2.

Was there anyone of the Allies more of an impact than the others? Some say the 'Brits' don't get enough credit for their part...any who agree?
Yeah. That mendacious U-571 movie is totally wrong, because the Enigma device was captured by the British, and not the US. The Brits evacuated Dunkirk, sunk the Graf Spee, won the Battle Britain, and did most of the work for the North African war. An old TV series on Eisenhower totally belittled Montgomery, Rommel's nemesis.

[GrayPilgrim]

GP's post was most informative. It certainly puts the current allied losses in Iraq in perspective. Thank goodness there were no leftist appeasenik mass media in WW2.


Yeah. That mendacious U-571 movie is totally wrong, because the Enigma device was captured by the British, and not the US. The Brits evacuated Dunkirk, sunk the Graf Spee, won the Battle Britain, and did most of the work for the North African war. An old TV series on Eisenhower totally belittled Montgomery, Rommel's nemesis.
That is the problem with American versions of the WW2. We forget that in reality the Russians defeated the Germans, the RAF had decimated the Luftwaffe which meant that as the war progressed teh Wehrmacht lost it abiltity to use combined arms operations. The reason that the Germans walked all over Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France was that they had air superiority and covered the units so that they were mobile artillery units. The RAF's victory in the Battle of Britain doomed Germany's hopes. For the the Russians were able to bleed the Germans dry, because Stalin didn't care about the casualties. (I think Lee's words to Longstreet in The Killer Angels are most instructive, one needs to be willing to allow the army a leader loves to die in order to come through to victory). Then the four years that RAF Bomber Command and the 8th Army Air Force spent crippling Germany's war industry made it almost impossible for Germany to win. Yet think about this we had cracked Germany's codes via Ultra/Enigma (which the Polish inventer tipped of the BRITISH that the Germans were using) for the whole war and look how long it took to crush the Germans. The main contribution of the US to the ETO was material. THe Lend Lease to Russia (especially :spam:) and Great Britain allowed them to stay in the war. If Goering's ego had not resutled to retaliatory raids after the British did a pin prick raid against Berlin, the Germans were a week a way from destroying the RAF and British ability to stay in the war. So the US is not the big heros, the played a significant role, but not as big as we are often wont to thing here...

[GrayPilgrim]

One note of clarification is in order when I say Wehrmacht I am using that in the technical sense of the German Military made up of der Heer (the Army), die Luftwaffe (the Air Force), and die Kriegsmarine (the Navy), and use these designations (or their English equivalents) when speeking of the constintuent parts.

[Christianotaku]

I love history great new forums..

yes this why I say the war in Iraq is nothing because compared to prior wars its a drop in a bucket...and thats why it is so right..

[Vorkosigan]

GP's post was most informative. It certainly puts the current allied losses in Iraq in perspective. Thank goodness there were no leftist appeasenik mass media in WW2.

Yes, I think it is terrible the way the media travels to Iraq, shakes Hussein's hand, and calls him "our strong right arm in the Middle East".....oh, wait......

In any case, opposition to the war in the West came largely from the Right -- that's your side, Soc -- which saw Hitler as one of its own, and focused more on the anti-Communist crusade. Naturally the Right was more influential than the Left, just as it is today. If you check Shirer's Rise and Fall, p 983-987 you can see information on Germany's attempt to influence the Republicans, who were basically anti-war, at the convention in 1940. Lindbergh, on the Right, got Germany's second highest medal from Hitler in 1938, of course, though he finally saw the light later in the war, and did good service in the Pacific.

[Vorkosigan]

The casualties that Eisenhower was willing to take would not be tollerable with modern media coverage, if the press had been filming live from Omaha the political pressure would have been such that he would have been forced to withdraw.

The reality is that pictures of American dead were often used in campaigns to get Americans to buy more bonds. When the images were still new -- as at Tarawa -- they had a profoundly negative affect (marine corps recruiting fell off 35% when the first pictures of the US dead from there hit the media) but D-Day was months later, and pictures of the action would not have made the slightest difference. The public, after all, overwhelmingly supported unconditional surrender. It knew the price, and was prepared to say. And the idea that we would have abandoned the French, British, Russians, and the Chinese is a bit ridiculous.

Second a large part of the success involved were the deceptions and ability to keep all the movements masked from the enemy. With media imbeds boradcasting from troop bivoaucs there would be too much evidence that would give away the proposed landing place.

In WWII the media was generally pretty good about cooperating, although of course there were lapses. Your comment is an outrageous slur on the patriotism of the hundreds of correspondents who served faithfully and kept their secrets. Further, the heavy fighting and general chaos of amphibious operations kept the allied war correspondents, of which there were many, from reporting back to the public for days. The first media organization to file a worldwide report was in fact German.

There's a good page on the fearless service and high courage of the war reporters at D-Day here:

http://www.britishheritage.com/bhonews.htm

Take note of this comment:

"Allied leaders treated the media almost as another branch of the military by June 1944, so completely had media owners and staff cooperated in defeating the Nazis. A week before the invasion, Allied journalists had been put on trains and shipped to Scotland as part of a broad deception plan designed to make it look as though something big was happening in the north. But when the time came for the actual invasion Allied governments did everything they could to help those same journalists cover what was to come. No fewer than 558 writers, radio reporters, photographers, and cameramen were accredited for the landing."

Note that they were accredited for the landing. Obviously some of the media knew or figured it out, but didn't blab.

The idea that the media are traitors is a lie spread by men who do not want the nefarious dealings brought to light, and who cannot stand the idea that independent thought is the basis of a free society.

One of the odd things about WWII is that the Wehrmacht when it was well suppled, filled with Germans, and Allied air supremecy was made unusable (generally based on inclimate weather dould knock the U.S. troops flat on the keisters every time even though we knew what they were doing because of Ultra

One of the odd things was that people still believe this despite the many fine histories of the war.

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

I don't think that, if the US was attacked by a foriegn power, the media would be critical. Look at Afghanistan. There was barely a whimper, and that was only after the major fighting was over. And when attacked, the American people have no trouble finding resolve.

[Socrates]

In WWII the media was generally pretty good about cooperating, although of course there were lapses. Your comment is an outrageous slur on the patriotism of the hundreds of correspondents who served faithfully and kept their secrets. Further, the heavy fighting and general chaos of amphibious operations kept the allied war correspondents, of which there were many, from reporting back to the public for days. The first media organization to file a worldwide report was in fact German.
Hang on a minute. No one was saying anything about the media back then. 60 years ago, most journalists tried to report the news objectively rather than make the news, or put a liberal slant on everything. It's TODAY's newsmen I wouldn't trust to keep our plans secret when they have decided the war is wrong.

There's a good page on the fearless service and high courage of the war reporters at D-Day here:
No reason to dispute that.:thumb:

The idea that the media are traitors is a lie spread by men who do not want the nefarious dealings brought to light, and who cannot stand the idea that independent thought is the basis of a free society.
Oh, the irony from people who wanted to keep the status quo in Iraq, with its strange conception of a free society and free press.

[Socrates]

In any case, opposition to the war in the West came largely from the Right -- that's your side, Soc -- which saw Hitler as one of its own, and focused more on the anti-Communist crusade.
Not my side at all. I've pointed out that extreme left and extreme right tend to meet in the middle. Both Nazism and Communism led to mass slaughters and treat people as property of the State.

A lot of Hitler's support came from the Darwinian eugenics movement, which had a chilling amount of support from both left and right, e.g. Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institution founded by the Übercapitalists and justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, as documented in Edwin Black's book War Against the Weak (http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/reviews.php)

Naturally the Right was more influential than the Left, just as it is today.
How did you work that out. The average journo is well to the left of the average person.

If you check Shirer's Rise and Fall, p 983-987 you can see information on Germany's attempt to influence the Republicans, who were basically anti-war, at the convention in 1940. Lindbergh, on the Right, got Germany's second highest medal from Hitler in 1938, of course, though he finally saw the light later in the war, and did good service in the Pacific.
Yeah, good book. Right-wingness without Christianity is dangerous. It was also Hobson's choice whether to support Hitler or Stalin, when you consider the mass purges in 1930s USSR.

[GrayPilgrim]

Vork,

You missed my point intirely about the media. Okay you get in enbed at a place and he interviews a soldier, well the Soldier has on his unit insigna, boom there you get the units involved with a coming invasion. You get a unit imbed at a training site X, and hey those look like the formations of rocks at site Y. My complaint is about our modern media, not anything was said against the Correspondents during WW2. It is the ubiquitous nature of the media and other traceable technology which would make such a build up impossible.

I am sorry, you analysis of the Heer is off, I have read many of the fine histories, and the US's ability to stop them was largely based on the mass production. But even still it was the Soviets who bled the Germans dry and the US and British who got the "easier" bit. The Germans lost there best on the Eastern Front and Hitler was a moron who lost homself the war, by getting into a two front war, and allowing Mussolini to dictate the opening date of Barbarossa, which started 2-3 months later than planned because of Mussolini's botched invasion of the Balkans.


_____

Edit to add:

The problem with the media IMO in the areaa of military coverage is ignorance. The media by and large do not understand what is militarily sensitive information. They find the rules of secrecy as just a means to keep back information, while I do not deny that that happens as well, they also do not understand the need for secrecy in military settings. While it is true that the correspondants in WW2 were by and large considered part of the military (maybe that is because they WERE in the military) the modern media has been trained by and works in a field that looks askance on the military,a nd the military definitely distrusts and dislikes the media. Moreover, the modern media is generally more about making money, and so they are going to try and get mroe sensational stuff, like live shots of ongoing military operations, so Vork, maybe if you had read more carefully you wouldn't have been able to use your misplaced "outrage" about me impugn teh WW2 era correspondants patriotism, it is the post-Vietnam era media whose patriotism I doubt, not the WW2 era.

[DunnySaze]

The Germans lost there best on the Eastern Front and Hitler was a moron who lost homself the war, by getting into a two front war, and allowing Mussolini to dictate the opening date of Barbarossa, which started 2-3 months later than planned because of Mussolini's botched invasion of the Balkans.

Hi Gray,

These are an oft noted factors contributing to the defeat of Germany in Russia, but I think that the situation is not so cut and dried. Indeed, it's quite debatable.

Consider the notion that by invading Russia, Hitler had gotten himself into a two-front war. It was clear that the German generals were very much afraid of this, but look at the strategic situation at the time. Although England was not defeated, France was, and England had no immediate means of launching a new front in the west on the continent.

The Gemans tried mightily to initiate Operation Sealion, but that could not be done with any reasonable expectation of success unless the Luftwaffe could get air superiority over the channel, and that meant first destroying the RAF. With air superiority assured, that would keep the RN at bay as well and the operation could proceed. That turned out not to be possible, and so Hitler turned operations towards Russia, knowing that at least there would be nothing more than technically a second front in the west for the forseeable future. His judgement was that this situation would hold at least until the Russians were subdued in the east and he could turn back once again to the west (or offer the olive branch).

A better plan might have been to commit more heavily in North Africa with the goal of capturing the Straight of Gibralter, Egypt and the Suez Canal, and driving north towards the Caucasus. But that never happened.

As for the Balkan campaign, I think this is where the real debatable aspect comes in. Hitler already had plans for the Balkans irrespective of his bumbling Italian allies, as they were important both for economic reasons (e.g. bauxite, oil) and strategic reasons. Securing the Balkans would mean securing his extreme right during Barbarossa and would provide forward air-bases for Mediterranean operations.

Hitler had originally scheduled Barbarossa to begin on or about 15 May 1941. But as it turned out, the invasion of the Balkans, Operation Marita, did indeed delay that date by some 5 weeks (not 2-3 months) to 22 June 1941. As you've read, many historians credit this delay to the ultimate German defeat. But what most don't know is that the Winter of '40-'41 was an extremely snowy one, and the Spring was wet in eastern Europe. As a consequence, the land was soggy and the Russian roads, already not great were a mess. In addition, the rivers Bug and Nieman and their tributaries were in high flood. These barriers stood right in the proposed path of Panzer Group 2 and 3, and important wedge in the attack on Moscow by Army Group Centre. As a result, the attack would have been delayed anyway by 3 weeks. That meant that the Balkan campaign really only cost the Germans a couple weeks. The Germans, even with the delay, had made their objectives and were all set for the final victory by 16 July 41. The disasters that followed, IMO, had to do with factors other than the Balkan delay.

That campaign was not consequence free of course. It did tie up troops and tanks and wore down equipment. Also, the debacle at Crete (which only luck saved the Germans from complete disaster) convinced Hitler airbourne troops were not effective and so he failed to consider that possibility during Babarossa.

[GrayPilgrim]

I agree that it is the accumulation of all these factors that wore it down. Matthew Cooper in his book on the German Army in Wrold War 2 (I think that is the exact title, but all my books are in boxes as I ma moving this weekend so I can't double check) argues that the Oberkamando der Wehrmacht following in a long line of German military blunders never planned for a long war. German military doctrine going back at least as far as the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 always planned for short wars, and once the length of the war became protracted it militated against a succesful outcome to the war for the Germans. The loss of the German air superiority (or for that matter viability) made certain the defeat of the Germans. The Germans following Guderian's ideas used combined arms in the early years of the war which is what brought them success. Fortunately the RAF's victory in the Battle of Britain precluded any further use of combined arms by German armed forces. Moreover, the Germans did not consistently use massed armored tactics, which ment that while the US may loose a mess load of Shermans one could always get positioned so that it could knock out the tracks or the tank, so once the Allies used combined arms in a more consitent manner the war was lost for Germany in the west. On the East there never really was a chance. Even if they had taken Moscow, that would have proven pointless, as the Russians had always given away territory and their numerical superiority which they had the political stomach to suffer wasunimaginable. Although if the Nazi's ahd not been about racial purity they would have had a chance of turning the populus on their side, generally early on they were conisdered liberators as the front line of Army units came through, but once the Waffen SS or Einsatzgruppen came in to the area all good will was dashed, and Germany had to fight both the front line and resistance movements...in other words Germany could never have one in the East. Even if they had take the British Isles, largely because Hitler had not concept for political solutions to the war, he thought you throw enough troops at them that will solve the problem, (if only the Coalition had thought this through in Iraq)

So thanks for the correction of five weeks instead of two months, but I say the accumulation of set backs leading up to Barbarossa an d then the desolation that ensued there, North Africa, and Italy made the Western Front necessary to hasten the end, but it was easier absed on the losses in the East. In fact when units were transfered from the East to teh Western Front, they feared the allied air supremecy more than the opposing ground forces.


As a side note, a friend of mine from New Zeeland told me a joke that was current inthe the New Zeeland division:

"When the Luftwaffe flies, the allies duck,
When the RAF flies, the Germans duck,
When the U.S. Air Corps flies, everyone ducks."

[elysian]

The Germans had superior technology. My grandfather fought in both France and Germany and he claimed there were few greater prizes than capturing enemy vehicles- the motorcycles and Kubelwagens were especially prized because the motorcycles were more reliable and faster, and Kubelwagens were more fuel-efficient and lighter than Jeeps and didn't require water.

What the Germans didn't have was "endless" supply. Allied vehicles, tanks, planes and even ships were not as technologically advanced as the German equivalents but the Allies had a lot more of them. Once the Allies had cut off the German supply lines and they could no longer build or maintain their material, technology didn't mean squat. The Allies had numbers.

The Germans' technology didn't go to waste though. (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blrocketv2.htm)

German scientists such as Wernher Von Braun (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blvonBraun.htm) who emigrated to the US were instrumental in pioneering space exploration and were major contributors to the further development of aviation.

[Vorkosigan]

Vork,
You missed my point intirely about the media. Okay you get in enbed at a place and he interviews a soldier, well the Soldier has on his unit insigna, boom there you get the units involved with a coming invasion. You get a unit imbed at a training site X, and hey those look like the formations of rocks at site Y. My complaint is about our modern media, not anything was said against the Correspondents during WW2. It is the ubiquitous nature of the media and other traceable technology which would make such a build up impossible.

I am sorry, you analysis of the Heer is off, I have read many of the fine histories, and the US's ability to stop them was largely based on the mass production.

This is an overly simplistic view. The US made very few stupid production decisions, unlike the Germans, who produced a bewildering array of equipment, and made poor choices, for example, wasting resources on the Panther and Tiger II when they should have been churning out Pz IVs by the thousand. The German Generals were brilliant at the tactical and operational level, but hopeless at strategy. The Germans alienated their subject populations -- had they conducted a rational occupation policy, for example, they easily would have defeated the Russians. Etc. Etc. Etc. The German war effort was flawed at every level, which is why they were beaten.

In any case, there were numerous occasions, most obviously during the Bulge, when the Germans were brought to a halt by US troops unsupported by airpower.
_____

Moreover, the modern media is generally more about making money, and so they are going to try and get mroe sensational stuff, like live shots of ongoing military operations, so Vork, maybe if you had read more carefully you wouldn't have been able to use your misplaced "outrage" about me impugn teh WW2 era correspondants patriotism, it is the post-Vietnam era media whose patriotism I doubt, not the WW2 era.

The media today is just as patriotic as it was in WWII. Apparently, for some, though, "patriotic" means "shut up and do what I tell you."

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

What the Germans didn't have was "endless" supply. Allied vehicles, tanks, planes and even ships were not as technologically advanced as the German equivalents but the Allies had a lot more of them.

"Endless" nonsense, you mean. "Technology" encompasses both the artifacts and the systems of human organization and behavior into which they are incorporated. In that sense the US was far ahead of the Germans. The "technologically advanced" Germans used horses to haul supplies, and even artillery, while the US was largely mechanized. US production was so far ahead of Germany that we not only supplied our own war effort to much greater levels than the German, but also the British and the Russians, who could not have won without the US. The US fielded the war's best tank, the Sherman (sorry, folks, but "best" means more than just how a tank might fare in head-to-head competition), and its best mass-production piston-engine fighters, a superb infantry rifle, etc. The Allies led the Germans in many areas of technology, from atomic weapons to radar, to code-breaking, to supply organization, and of course, massive leads in nearly all aspects of naval warfare. Germany's inefficient production technology, poor product choices, terrible strategic leadership, and so, were overshadowed by the Army's tactical and operational performance.

Finally, this may not have occurred to you, but an "endless" supply of X is probably due to the fact that it is a superior technology -- you know, cheaper to make, easier to fix, more reliable, etc.

Vorkosigan

[elysian]

"Endless" nonsense, you mean. "Technology" encompasses both the artifacts and the systems of human organization and behavior into which they are incorporated. In that sense the US was far ahead of the Germans. The "technologically advanced" Germans used horses to haul supplies, and even artillery, while the US was largely mechanized. US production was so far ahead of Germany that we not only supplied our own war effort to much greater levels than the German, but also the British and the Russians, who could not have won without the US. The US fielded the war's best tank, the Sherman (sorry, folks, but "best" means more than just how a tank might fare in head-to-head competition), and its best mass-production piston-engine fighters, a superb infantry rifle, etc. The Allies led the Germans in many areas of technology, from atomic weapons to radar, to code-breaking, to supply organization, and of course, massive leads in nearly all aspects of naval warfare. Germany's inefficient production technology, poor product choices, terrible strategic leadership, and so, were overshadowed by the Army's tactical and operational performance.

Finally, this may not have occurred to you, but an "endless" supply of X is probably due to the fact that it is a superior technology -- you know, cheaper to make, easier to fix, more reliable, etc.

Vorkosigan

True- perhaps I am confusing individual product quality or craftsmanship with overall system efficiency. We can all admire the craftsmanship of a Rolls Royce but in practical application Toyota does a better job of building cars. The Rolls might be more precise in its machining, and more exact in its specifications, but Toyota can churn out a lot of vehicles of good quality (though not to the same exacting standards as the Rolls) far more efficiently and at far lower cost. This is the way in which the Allies were superior to the Germans. They found technologies that worked, churned out the products and were far better organized, which is why the Allies won the war.

I still remember my grandfather's stories of the German BMW motorcycle he and his buddies had "appropriated" as well his stories of their adventures with French wine. :lol: The BMW was a lot faster than the Harley Davidsons (yes, Harley Davidson supplied the Army with motorcycles as well as Indian and Triumph but it was Harley's design) they were used to, and it didn't leak oil nearly as badly. Yet I bet there were a lot more Harleys built, and that they were built more efficiently. (BMW I am told still builds an awesome motorcycle, :lol: and they're still more expensive than Harleys.)

There is a certain degree of compromise between product quality and efficient production- it is better to manufacture a product of fair to good quality in high volume and at a reasonable price than to manufacture a product of extraordinary quality but at low volume and extreme cost. In this regard the Germans failed because their emphasis was wrong (if we have the "best" product we can possibly make we can win) and the Allies got it right (we find a good product that can be produced efficiently and in volume though it might not be the most "advanced" that can be made, it's the best that can be made efficiently.)

The US did end up benefitting from German research into jet propulsion and rocketry, which does seem a bit ironic, yet to the victor go the spoils.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah. That mendacious U-571 movie is totally wrong, because the Enigma device was captured by the British, and not the US.
The movie was self-admittedly fiction.

[Socrates]

I agree that it is the accumulation of all these factors that wore it down. Matthew Cooper in his book on the German Army in Wrold War 2 (I think that is the exact title, but all my books are in boxes as I ma moving this weekend so I can't double check) argues that the Oberkamando der Wehrmacht following in a long line of German military blunders never planned for a long war. German military doctrine going back at least as far as the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 always planned for short wars, and once the length of the war became protracted it militated against a succesful outcome to the war for the Germans.
It's also fortunate that Hitler came to believe that his earlier successes proved his own infallibility, rather than the ingenuity of generals Manstein and Guderian. So Hitler thought it was OK to overrule his generals in suicidal plans, like insisting that Paulus stayed where he was instead of retreating, and later, surrendering much earlier.

The Germans following Guderian's ideas used combined arms in the early years of the war which is what brought them success.
Guderian got a lot of his ideas from British military writers such as Basil Liddell Hart and John Fuller. Fortunately for us, his superior Kleist thought that tanks should not advance without infantry support, and Hitler agreed. So they ordered Guderian to hold back his panzers to wait for the infantry to catch up, which allowed the British Expeditionary Force to evacuate Dunkirk.

As a side note, a friend of mine from New Zeeland told me a joke that was current inthe the New Zeeland division:

"When the Luftwaffe flies, the allies duck,
When the RAF flies, the Germans duck,
When the U.S. Air Corps flies, everyone ducks."
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Socrates]

The movie was self-admittedly fiction.
That's not the point. Dramatization is one thing, but distorting the account is quite another. E.g. no one claims that everything done or said in The Great Escape was true to life, but this doesn't make it misleading. But it would be misleading if it portrayed the Chinese as the ringleaders, say. This is exactly what U-571 does -- portrays the US as heroes for a British success.

[Socrates]

The German Generals were brilliant at the tactical and operational level, but hopeless at strategy.
Dunno about that. Hitler kept overruling them. And you can blame Göring not the Luftwaffe for switching from airfields to cities.

The Germans alienated their subject populations -- had they conducted a rational occupation policy, for example, they easily would have defeated the Russians.
That's most likely true.

Etc. Etc. Etc. The German war effort was flawed at every level, which is why they were beaten.
OTOH the only reason they got as far as they did was blunders by the Allies, e.g. appeasement, and not striking when they were engaged in Poland.

[Socrates]

The idea that the media are traitors is a lie spread by men who do not want the nefarious dealings brought to light, and who cannot stand the idea that independent thought is the basis of a free society.
This is the height of irony, when the stridently anti-war British tabloid Daily Mirror just had to retract faked photos of prisoner abuse by British troops, and sack the editor Piers Morgan. The front page was "VILE ... but this time it's a BRITISH soldier degrading an Iraqi". They had to retract with another front page yesterday: "SORRY ... WE WERE HOAXED". Morgan was escorted off the premises by two security guards. This scumbag said he didn't even care that they were faked. Who cares about truth when lies will achieve his appeasenik aims instead? A former QLR commander, Col. David Black, said it was the ego of one editor against the life of one British soldier that was at stake.

[SteveF]

This is the height of irony, when the stridently anti-war British tabloid Daily Mirror just had to retract faked photos of prisoner abuse by British troops, and sack the editor Piers Morgan. The front page was "VILE ... but this time it's a BRITISH soldier degrading an Iraqi". They had to retract with another front page yesterday: "SORRY ... WE WERE HOAXED". Morgan was escorted off the premises by two security guards. This scumbag said he didn't even care that they were faked. Who cares about truth when lies will achieve his appeasenik aims instead? A former QLR commander, Col. David Black, said it was the ego of one editor against the life of one British soldier that was at stake.
While, I'm in no way defending Piers Moron (these photos should never have been published and I'm glad he was sacked), its probably worth pointing out that the Queens Lancashire Regiment are not denying that abuse by their soldiers may have taken place. This sort of information needs to be reported.

[Vorkosigan]

Of course. The Daily Mirror is hoaxed, so clearly they are traitors. Brilliant logic, Socrates. As Goering put it many years ago:

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country"

and of course

from James Baldwin:
"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."

and Mark Twain, a perennial anti-colonialist who would have hated this misbegotten war
"The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them."


Vorkosigan

[Socrates]

While, I'm in no way defending Piers Moron (these photos should never have been published and I'm glad he was sacked), its probably worth pointing out that the Queens Lancashire Regiment are not denying that abuse by their soldiers may have taken place. This sort of information needs to be reported.
When you have actual information that abuse HAS taken place, then it should be reported. A non denial of a maybe is hardly report-worthy. All we do know is that some appeaseniks will lie through their teeth with no remorse for putting our soldiers in danger. This backs up GP's point that we could no longer trust our media for a D-Day landing.

[learning]

I read a fictional novel a few years back that had this guy who was supposed to have been Churchill's nephew, who at 16 years of age, acted as a spy for the Germans, and they were told of the landing at Normandy? that was a disaster. The thing is, they learned to trust this guy because of this, and so he was able to tell them differently for D day, and that is why they were not there, they expected it somewhere else. I do not know if this is true, (the novel was historical fictional) but it is something I wondered about after.

What I think is really cool, is that some of the 'underground' on the allies side, were North American Indians that would relay messages in their Indian tongue over the radio, that non of the enemy could understand, and later translate it in English or French to whomever they needed to. :)

[One Bad Pig]

Of course. The Daily Mirror is hoaxed, so clearly they are traitors.
Vork, it's not so much that they were hoaxed, but that the editor didn't care.

[Vorkosigan]

This backs up GP's point that we could no longer trust our media for a D-Day landing.

If we were fighting a justified war against a common enemy, you bet the media would do its part. But the invasion of a smaller nation that has done us no harm is another thing entirely. That requires constant and severe oversight. As the systemic abuses show...

Also, you and GP would do well to crack open one of the serious studies of the war media -- or even a major work on a single campaign, like Frank's Guadalcanal -- to get an idea of how the media and the military interrelated. Back in that war the media was also suspicious of military motives and behavior, and the military believed the media would betray secrets at the drop of a hat. The reality is that both sides behaved pretty well, both were equally guilty of serious security breaches, and both served their country in their own way. War and democracy do not really get along very well, and democracy at home is certainly not compatible with our current imperialist foreign policy. One or the other will have to give way. Hopefully our troops will come home, and our democracy will be preserved.

Vorkosigan

[Socrates]

What I think is really cool, is that some of the 'underground' on the allies side, were North American Indians that would relay messages in their Indian tongue over the radio, that non of the enemy could understand, and later translate it in English or French to whomever they needed to. :)
:idea: AiG had a cool article about this -- Brave warriors with words (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/navajo.asp) :cool:

[Ben Franklin]

... The US fielded the war's best tank, the Sherman (sorry, folks, but "best" means more than just how a tank might fare in head-to-head competition)...

Finally, this may not have occurred to you, but an "endless" supply of X is probably due to the fact that it is a superior technology -- you know, cheaper to make, easier to fix, more reliable, etc...



Sorry, Vork, but in my opinion, the T-34 wins, even according to your own criteria. It was easier (and cheaper) for USSR to crank these babies out rather than repair them, and although the had a few short-comings (like a cramped crew compartment, exposed tank commander, poor radio system, e.g.), the Russian engineers really came through on the T-34. An excellent armor design, suspension system, diesel motor, cannon... Yo...! It were da bomb...! :thumb:

[Vorkosigan]

Sorry, Vork, but in my opinion, the T-34 wins, even according to your own criteria. It was easier (and cheaper) for USSR to crank these babies out rather than repair them, and although the had a few short-comings (like a cramped crew compartment, exposed tank commander, poor radio system, e.g.), the Russian engineers really came through on the T-34. An excellent armor design, suspension system, diesel motor, cannon... Yo...! It were da bomb...! :thumb:

The T-34 wasn't really cheaper than the Sherman, Ben. The T-34 had a hidden cost that doesn't show up in most discussions: in order to produce T-34s, the Sovs had to give up production of everything else -- trucks and locomotives, for example. Thus, the real cost -- the opportunity cost -- of producing a tank was much higher for the Russians than the Americans. The Americans, by contrast, were able to churn out Shermans AND trucks. In fact, they supplied the majority of trucks the Russians used, along with of course, the US army. The Sherman was, opportunity cost-wise, by far the cheaper of the two.

Another problem with the T-34 was its total lack of upgradeability. As a platform, it was completely sterile. Because of the poor suspension system (not good, Ben) it was limited in the size of hull, and thus turret, which meant that when the time came to upgrade it, it could only be increased to an 85mm gun, and that only by taking the turret off the KV-1. The tank simply could not take the bigger 100mm gun that was originally suggested for it. The Sherman, by contrast, came in all sorts of models, and as the Israelis showed, could take a much larger gun (they mounted a 105mm gun on it). The T-34 was an evolutionary dead end, which is why the subsequent Russian tanks (T-55 etc) are based on another platform. Because Russian metallurgy and manufacturing were inferior to the US, the T-34's 85mm main gun was only marginally better than the high velocity 76mm gun mounted on later US Shermans, and totally inferior to the 17 pdr installed in the British Firefly Sherman.

Here's a great website on Sov Tanks
http://www.battlefield.ru/map.html

Here is something you might enjoy very much on that site
US engineers evaluate the T-34 in 1942 (http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html). A fascinating document. You may change your mind about "those Russian engineers really coming through."

Sorry, Vork, but in my opinion, the T-34 wins, even according to your own criteria. It was easier (and cheaper) for USSR to crank these babies out rather than repair them, and although the had a few short-comings (like a cramped crew compartment, exposed tank commander, poor radio system, e.g.), the Russian engineers really came through on the T-34. An excellent armor design, suspension system, diesel motor, cannon... Yo...! It were da bomb...! :thumb:

The T-34 wasn't really cheaper than the Sherman, Ben. The T-34 had a hidden cost that doesn't show up in most discussions: in order to produce T-34s, the Sovs had to give up production of everything else -- trucks and locomotives, for example. Thus, the real cost -- the opportunity cost -- of producing a tank was much higher for the Russians than the Americans. The Americans, by contrast, were able to churn out Shermans AND trucks. In fact, they supplied the majority of trucks the Russians used, along with of course, the US army. The Sherman was, opportunity cost-wise, by far the cheaper of the two.

Another problem with the T-34 was its total lack of upgradeability. As a platform, it was completely sterile. Because of the poor suspension system (not good, Ben) it was limited in the size of hull, and thus turret, which meant that when the time came to upgrade it, it could only be increased to an 85mm gun, and that only by taking the turret off the KV-1. The tank simply could not take the bigger 100mm gun that was originally suggested for it. The Sherman, by contrast, came in all sorts of models, and as the Israelis showed, could take a much larger gun (they mounted a 105mm gun on it). The T-34 was an evolutionary dead end, which is why the subsequent Russian tanks (T-55 etc) are based on another platform. Because Russian metallurgy and manufacturing were inferior to the US, the T-34's 85mm main gun was only marginally better than the high velocity 76mm gun mounted on later US Shermans, and totally inferior to the 17 pdr installed in the British Firefly Sherman.

Here's a great website on Sov Tanks
http://www.battlefield.ru/map.html

Here is something you might enjoy very much on that site
US engineers evaluate the T-34 in 1942 (http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html). A fascinating document. You may change your mind about "those Russian engineers really coming through."

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

Here's a thought. The T-34 was a better tank, but the US had a better war machine. If the T-34 had been produced by American firms rather Soviet factories, maybe it would have been as tough or tougher than the Sherman. Maybe I am wrong, but it is a thought.

[Ben Franklin]

Whoops...! :blush: "Insert foot in mouth" :tongue: You got me, Vork...! :lol: Thanks for the info...! :thumb:

[One Bad Pig]

Here's a thought. The T-34 was a better tank, but the US had a better war machine. If the T-34 had been produced by American firms rather Soviet factories, maybe it would have been as tough or tougher than the Sherman. Maybe I am wrong, but it is a thought.
The T-34 wasn't just deficient in manufacturing quality; it was also an inferior design. Your postulate would only be valid if the designs were equivalent.

[Dienekes]

when looking at d-day we just have to look and laugh at Hitler he sent two Field Marshals there and they argued on where to put the heavy artillery Rommel said up front to destroy the big ships, the other said back to be able to suprise attack the invading troops. Truthfully either strategy would have if not decimated would have severly stalled the allies long enough for reinforcements to come. Hitler however would have no arguements and put them in the middle where they wouldn't be of help to either tactic (a point though the front line of the heavy artillery was able to destroy 1/5 of the attacking ships and planes, imagine what the whole artillery would have done).