Did the Axis have any chance at all in WWII? - Page 5

Chris 62 · May 12, 2002, 00:10

Guys, first, the Me 262 wasn't ready in 40 or 41, the world's first turbo-jet fighter is the He-280, which didn't fly until April 12, 1941.
http://members.tripod.com/Air_Museum_ww2/id45.htm

The Me 262 got off the ground for the first time July 18, 1942, and simply wasn't availible earlier.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap11.htm

The T-34 data is also inaccurate, none were in service in 39 or 1940.
The first prototype wasn't ready till September of 1940, so it wouldn't be availible in Poland or in the battle of France time period.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-34.htm

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 00:13

Quote:

The T-34 data is also inaccurate, none were in service in 39 or 1940.
The first prototype wasn't ready till September of 1940, so it wouldn't be availible in Poland or in the battle of France time period.

Yup, and wasn't even used until Smolensk.

As to the Me-262, you're absolutely right.

Cavalcadeus · May 12, 2002, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Cav,

Maybe, but don't forget Britain's chemical weapons which would have been used against any invasion.

With the main British army destroyed at Dunkirk their would be all most no organized resistance to the Germans. The British airfields would quickly be over run. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons because he was afraid that England would respond in kind. If England used chemical weapons Germany would retaliate. I don't think that Churchill would want London to suffer chemical attacks.

On the subject of of a peace treaty with England: What if Germany had taken Dunkirk before the evacuations had started and Hitler had used the BEF as a bargining chip? "Surrender or I'll wipe put the BEF"

Dr Strangelove · May 12, 2002, 00:19

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Not necessarily. Germany held over 40% of the Russian population, including much of their breadbasket, by the end of 1941. If they had taken Moscow in Operation Typhoon (which is reasonable if they had a couple more weeks of good weather given that they wiped out about 7/8s of Moscow's defenders in Typhoon), they would have been capable of taking Leningrad, Stalingrad, and the Caucasus in 1942, and pushing further into Russia.

No, frostbite decimated their army. Machines not designed to work in subfreezing temperaures broke. Failing to provide for the winterization of the troops and their equipment meant that the Germans had to virtually replace both before mounting any subsequent serious operations after Typhoon.

Suggesting that a few more weeks of good weather in December in central Russia might have helped the Germans along is like suggesting that a couple of weeks of a really good long jungle killing dry spell would have been real nice for General Westmorland in Vietnam. Russia is an icy hell in the winter. Southeast Asia is jungle all the time. This is just the way things are.

Chris 62 · May 12, 2002, 00:22

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Yup, and wasn't even used until Smolensk.

As to the Me-262, you're absolutely right.

*Faints flatout*

OK, is Higgsy using your logon again?

I can't believe you agree with me!

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 00:24

Cav,

Quote:

If England used chemical weapons Germany would retaliate.

Yes, but against a small bridgehead, British chemical weapons would have been devastating, and the Germans could not invade or supply a large bridgehead.

Quote:

On the subject of of a peace treaty with England: What if Germany had taken Dunkirk before the evacuations had started and Hitler had used the BEF as a bargining chip? "Surrender or I'll wipe put the BEF"

Churchill would never have surrendered, period.

DS,

Quote:

No, frostbite decimated their army. Machines not designed to work in subfreezing temperaures broke. Failing to provide for the winterization of the troops and their equipment meant that the Germans had to virtually replace both before mounting any subsequent serious operations after Typhoon.

Yes of course - but the Russians, assuming a Typhoon defeat and the loss of Moscow, would have lost their transportation network and an additional 100-150,000 very good troops. Sure, they could have counterattacked, but with what? Half-trained conscripts and T-26s?

Quote:

Suggesting that a few more weeks of good weather in December in central Russia might have helped the Germans along is like suggesting that a couple of weeks of a really good long jungle killing dry spell would have been real nice for General Westmorland in Vietnam. Russia is an icy hell in the winter. Southeast Asia is jungle all the time. This is just the way things are.

No no, I'm suggesting that started 6 weeks EARLIER would have resulted in Moscow falling in October or November.

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 00:25

Quote:

OK, is Higgsy using your logon again?

I can't believe you agree with me!

On WW2 history, we're both gonna be very much in agreement on most subjects I think

Chris 62 · May 12, 2002, 00:26

And now I have to agree with Floyd, the 6 weeks lost in the Balkans effectivly lost the Russian campaign.

Another sign of the apocolyspe.

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 00:27

Just goes to show that honest historical evaluations transcend politics

TCO · May 12, 2002, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
And now I have to agree with Floyd, the 6 weeks lost in the Balkans effectivly lost the Russian campaign.

Another sign of the apocolyspe.

Getting soft, groundpounder. You and Mitty living in "coulda, woulda, shoulda" land...

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 00:31

Isn't that what this whole thread is about?

Begone, ya pansy submariner

Dr Strangelove · May 12, 2002, 00:32

Supposedly it was very muddy in western Russia until the end of May in 1941, so at best the operation could only have started 2 weeks earlier. The axis also absolutely had to have Yugoslavian roads and rails in order to extend their offensive start line south into Rumania, because the few roads and rails that passed directly from Hungary to Rumania were inadequate. Using Rumania as the southern start area was essential to the offensive in the south. If the axis had to attack the Ukraine from Hungary alone the southern offensive could have been very easily bottlenecked and blocked.

Chris 62 · May 12, 2002, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Getting soft, groundpounder. You and Mitty living in "coulda, woulda, shoulda" land...

Best way to gut a guy is if he doesn't expect it.

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 00:35

Quote:

If the axis had to attack the Ukraine from Hungary alone the southern offensive could have been very easily bottlenecked and blocked.

Yes, but I argue that this would have been beneficial to the Germans - the Russians would have reinforced "success" in a theater that didn't matter. Taking Moscow was key because of the transportation network.

Quote:

Supposedly it was very muddy in western Russia until the end of May in 1941, so at best the operation could only have started 2 weeks earlier.

2 weeks could easily have made the difference.

Cavalcadeus · May 12, 2002, 00:44

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Cav,

Yes, but against a small bridgehead, British chemical weapons would have been devastating, and the Germans could not invade or supply a large bridgehead.

Churchill would never have surrendered, period.

Using chemical weapons against the bridgehead would also be using them against their own population. There wouldn't be much of a British army to contain the Germans. I don't think that England would risk German retaliations against their cities.

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 00:46

Quote:

I don't think that England would risk German retaliations against their cities.

I disagree. Read some of Churchill's writings.

Serb · May 12, 2002, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
The T-34 data is also inaccurate, none were in service in 39 or 1940.
The first prototype wasn't ready till September of 1940, so it wouldn't be availible in Poland or in the battle of France time period.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-34.htm

I said that it was already invented in1939, not that it was put in mass production in 1939.
A quote from your source:"The T-34 was a technologically innovative design which addressed the short-comings of the earlier BT series of wheel/track tank. The T-34 was developed during the 1936-37 period, the prototype was completed in early 1939, ..."

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 00:48

Quote:

I said that it was already invented in1939, not that it was put in mass production in 1939.
A quote from your source:"The T-34 was a technologically innovative design which addressed the short-comings of the earlier BT series of wheel/track tank. The T-34 was developed during the 1936-37 period, the prototype was completed in early 1939, ..."

The US had a prototype F-22 years ago...but we still have no more than 8 or so in service, and those are not combat ready in any significant sense.

Against Pz1s and IIs, Russia would have little need for T-34s anyway.

Cavalcadeus · May 12, 2002, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
I disagree. Read some of Churchill's writings.

Could you point me to a site where I could find these writings? I don't feel like going through all of Churchill's speaches and writings.

Serb · May 12, 2002, 00:57

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

The US had a prototype F-22 years ago...but we still have no more than 8 or so in service, and those are not combat ready in any significant sense.

You are too slow then.
Quote:
"In August 1938 the High War Council, let by People's Commissar for Defense, K. J. Voroshilov, discussed the A-20 and T-32. Many on the Council disliked the T-32. In July 1939, the Kharkov Locomotive Factory had completed the prototypes for the A-20 and T-32. They were both then tested and it was decided to go with the T-32. On December 19, 1939, the People's Commissariat for Defense released the T-32 to the Red Army. It was soon designated the T-34.

Some models were sent to fight in the Finno-Russian war, but they arrived too late to be put into combat.

In June 1941, there were 1,225 that had been produced. First put into battle against the Germans in June 1941 at Grondno in Belorussia."
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/ussr/t34.html

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 00:58

Actually I'd recommend his WW2 5 volume history - The Gathering Storm, Their Finest Hour, The Grand Alliance, Hinge of Fate, and Closing the Ring.

While biased to a British perspective in many ways, they do provide good insight on British politics and thinking, which, IMO, is their greatest value.

Cavalcadeus · May 12, 2002, 01:01

I'll check that out. Thanks.

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 01:02

Quote:

In June 1941, there were 1,225 that had been produced. First put into battle against the Germans in June 1941 at Grondno in Belorussia."

Excuse me. Smolensk was the first time *significant* numbers were seen - and they were still brushed aside by the Germans, even though they had inferior tanks.

Quote:

You are too slow then.

I guess, but then again we have actually useful aircraft, such as the F-15, while the T-2 was utterly useless in 1941.

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 01:03

Quote:

I'll check that out. Thanks.

It's fairly old, I have a set but I've ever seen the books in local libraries. Good luck

KrazyHorse · May 12, 2002, 01:04

It would have to be...

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 01:05

What would?

KrazyHorse · May 12, 2002, 01:07

Anything written by Churchill.

Chris 62 · May 12, 2002, 01:08

The design was excellent, but it wasn't a prototype untill late 1940, Serb.

Test bed vehicles are far from combat ready, they aren't the same as true prototype.

It might be worth noting that soviet doctrone was to use a large number of different types in the same formation, and to disperse armor to infantry formations for close support.

The mention of the rush to reach the finnish front is indicative of the fact that it wasn't ready yet, as the Finns were finished in March of 1940.

The Soviets still needed to work on larger armor formations, most were "tank heavy" (To many tanks, not enough motorized support infantry) and thus were vulnerable to defeat even with better equipment.

It won't be till "Uranus" (Stalingrad counterattack) is launched that Soviet Armor formations make breakthroughs in German lines.
(The Moscow attacks were of a tactical nature, they never broke the German lines completely and followed through with a breakout in 41)

Cavalcadeus · May 12, 2002, 01:09

I know the local librarian fairly well. I'll try to talk her into finding me a copy.

David Floyd · May 12, 2002, 01:16

Quote:

(The Moscow attacks were of a tactical nature, they never broke the German lines completely and followed through with a breakout in 41)

Further, if we assume 100-200,000 more Russian losses in 1941 (in Typhoon), and Moscow falling, these attacks are probably repulsed by the Germans.

Quote:

The Soviets still needed to work on larger armor formations, most were "tank heavy" (To many tanks, not enough motorized support infantry) and thus were vulnerable to defeat even with better equipment.

Yes, and IMO the Germans had a much better grasp on fluid, mobile battle, hence their successful battles of Vernichtungsgedanke (encirclemant/annihilation) on the Eastern Front throughout the war.

Cav,

Quote:

I know the local librarian fairly well. I'll try to talk her into finding me a copy.

IMO they are well worth it, if you have the time to read through them.