Why Do The Americans Think They Won WW2?

[Nikitn]

Dude if germany, even with air superiorty, attempted an invasion it would turn out to be a disaster, and thats ignoring the 1.5 million british on the home guard at the time.

http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Miscellaneous/Sealion.htm

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

The British Home Guard was barely equipped and completely untrained, while the British army was lacking in equipment, and was generally of low quality. If the Germans landed a few corps, they could break through.

And air superiority wasnt lost because they started bombing london, in fact, the only reason they started the terror bombings was because they knew they were defeated and were looking for alternate ways to subjugate the british.

Nope, Hitler started terror-bombing the UK as a response to RAF bombings of German city, and general frustration. Regardless, the RAF was getting beaten severely in early-september, and would probably have to fall back if the Germans just kept bombing the runways.

In the end your arguments are based on a high number of what "ifs".

Yeh, but every single one of them is highly plausible.

----

Turtler, you continuing resistance and tenacity in the face of reason is astounding. I'll make one last 15-20 min post to educate you, so you can stop embarrassing yourself with these failings. Just an advice.

1) Turtler, if the RAF is broken and needing in rebuilding, it will be a force out of action, else it will be destroyed completely. This gives free reign to the luftwafe over the channel and dominance over Southern England. What is so hard to comprehend? Even by October, the Luftwaffe was in no way broken. It had hit its head on the wall after Hitler ordered the terror-bombings, but it could very much continue for a prolonged period of time. However, in early September the RAF was close to having to retreat. This would lead to a window of opportunity for an invasion. What's so hard to comprehend?

2) The Luftwaffe had many bombs capable to easily sink British ships - like they sunk 200+ or so at Dunkirk - why are you repeatedly babbling about this?

3) The mining would be easy - the Germans mined every southern port in the UK and approaches all over the channel during the BoB. Why are you crying about it being "impossible" to mine the channel?

4) *sigh* So you are whining about Soviet archives' reliability? I guess the fact that they're used as a reliable source by pretty much every single historian on the USSR escaped you? And even then, are you seriously claiming the Soviet officials were unable to count how much locomotives and rail-wagons they had in stock? This is just becoming more and more retarded.

5) Can you stop making idiotic rants and source your claims about the Eastern divisions being "elite"? If you have no sources, then I am forced to assume you actually are lying as well as posting logically-flawed nonsense.

6) Wow, so you are

a) Denying that Vladivostok is surrounded by Axis forces (yes, surrounded as in it can easily be cut-off from supplies)? I don't know about hoi, but even a child would understand how ridiculously easy it would be for a Japanese attack from Manchuria to cut Vladivostok off.
b) Failing at comprehending the central differences between the situations in Sevastopol, Odessa and Vladivostok (sea-supply/evacuation/reinforcement)? rofl
c) Claiming that solid defences and coastal forts (vast majority built during the Czarist era, when, you know, Vladivostok wasn't surrounded on 3 sides) are somehow supposed to stop the Japanese from simply cutting the city off and taking it 2 months later when everybody have started 2 death?
d) Claiming I'm taking your astoundingly nonsensical "position" by saying the Soviets would leave some men to cover the retreat? Do you comprehend the concept of "rear-guard"?

The amount of fail is simply amazing.. Why do you persist?

7) The BEF was completely ravaged everywhere, losing at every turn. The only reason it survived, was due to luck (Germans not realizing just how weak it was, and stopped at Dunkirk) and because it could be evacuated by sea. No Soviet divisions caught by surprise, and with no fuel or supplies, had such luxuries.

8) There were 2 relatively weak Italian divisions accompanying Rommel's Africa corps. Are you suggesting this means every attack carried out by the Africa corps was spearheaded by Italians? sigh stop the nonsense already.

9) Gibraltar was easily surrounded and could easily be shelled to hell, and supplies cut-off by artillery and aircraft - something impossible during the musket-age. I thought this went without saying and thus didn't bother explaining it - but I guess I was wrong.

10) 7 million Soviets dead, 4.5 million Axis dead. I don't need to use calculus to see that this is roughly a K ratio of 1.5 for the Axis - how is this "not even in the Western Fronts of World War *ONE* did a ratio like this pop up."? How about at the Battle of Somme, were the Brits were slaughtered by the dozen? Or during the battle of France, where the Axis had a KDR between 2:1 and 3:1 against the French and British?

11) Are you denying the Soviets had the capability to retreat from the Ukraine, now? Are you joking? The Soviets retreated on plenty of occasion, and could easily go by rail or road. Hell, they retreated a major part of the industry from there BEFORE the Germans managed to surround it - are soldiers harder to transport than factories?

12)

This is beyond moronic. Forget WWII, do you even know how Siberia was COLONIZED in the 1600's and 1700's by the Cossacks? Here's a hint: There ARE rivers running Eastward. If there weren't, there would never have been a question of moving Russian industry to Siberia in the first place.

As for efficiently carrying them over Soviet roads, that depends on what you mean by "efficient." If you mean Autobahn efficient, than no. However, if you mean "as efficient as any other source", than "just keep chugging along with a fuel truck in the convoy."

And for the love of God, don't put your foot in your mouth like that again.

And here is a great example of your misguided tenacity. Do you know how many rivers go eastwards and into Siberia? Pretty much one: the Volga. Do you know how you're going to get factories from Belarus, Ukraine and so on to the Volga? By railroad. As I said, the bulk of the industry was evacuated from Belarus and Ukraine by RAILROADS, not barges or ships.

Now, before you start crying about obscure rivers going through Ukrainian villages - I'm not denying barges were used for evacuation. I'm saying that due to the geography, their use was marginal compared to railcarts. Here's a picture illustrating the major rivers of the USSR

As for the roads: The Soviet roads were complete crap, and 30's trucks would be completely incapable of efficiently hauling heavy machine-tools over long distances, especially with the fuel-situation collapsing. And that's why they used RAILORADS to evacuate the factories.

Now, a time ago you posted some logically incoherent nonsense about half the rolling stock being gone after Barbarossa - how is that possible when so much industry was so swiftly evacuated by the limited available amount of rolling stock in Belarus and the Ukraine, with industry being far more difficult to move than rolling-stock? Please stop the nonsense. And source your blabberings.

13) "Economists sometimes speak of a law of diminishing marginal utility, meaning that the first unit of consumption of a good or service yields more utility than the second and subsequent units"

- This is the core of what marginal utility is about, and it completely supports my point and pisses on your garbage.

14)

With what? You just mined the way for ships to get into the Channel, *including Axis ships.* Mines work both ways.

And again, the Luftwaffe's anti-ship capabilities were pathetic.

Sigh your limited understanding is starting to tire me. Obviously they'd refrain from mining the southern approaches - you know, the approaches close to the massive German naval artillery positioned in the channel, and ready to blow any larger allied ship to dust.

As for the Luftwaffe - it was perfectly capable of sinking allied ships. Just ask the ghosts of thousands of British seamen.

Anyway, I suggest you stop the spam and calm down. Only then can you start to think clearly and actually make posts that make sense.

[Colossus]

Why do you keep saying that the RAF was broken in early September? They were not.

They produced double the number of fighters than the Luftwaffe in August and September, and had over double the available pilots in September. Fighter losses were compensated for by production. One sector station (out of six in 11 Group) was out of action for two hours. No airfields were out of action for more than a few hours. The Luftwaffe's losses were worse than the RAF's, as was their ability to replenish them.

[Nikitn]

In early September the RAF was losing more than 12% of their strength per week - a few weeks like that and they would be out of action unless they retreated northwards, regardless of how many raw-recruits you shove into airplanes. If Hitler had just kept his mouth shut and let the luftwaffe keep pounding the Fighter command, they would eventually be broken and forced back.

That was my point. I don't disagree that, on average, the RAF grew from July to October. I am merely saying it is a gross simplification to just assume therefore the RAF was never in danger of collapse.

I would like a source for the pilot count - the Luftwaffe was far bigger than the RAF in 1940.

[Colossus]

When you put per week in bold, this is only a period of two weeks you are talking about (24 August - 6 September). It's no good talking about RAF losses and availability if you fail to consider that the case was worse in both respects for the Luftwaffe.

To say raw recruits is rather one-sided; both sides lost their properly trained pilots, but only the British could survive if their plane got shot down. The level of training doesn't matter when the RAF were statistically shooting down more planes than they were losing, it was what it was. As with losses, the situation was the same - declines seen in the RAF were even worse in the Luftwaffe.

In terms of the figures, when I say at least double, that is for fighter aircraft pilots. Obviously the Luftwaffe force was bombers as well, but for the sort of precision attacks against airfields and sector stations, bombers alone are worthless without a fighter escort; it's an entirely different situation to generically bombing a huge city at night, where you can risk not having an escort because some will get through. Also, a bomber requires multiple pilots, which is obvious. It makes sense to take these figures out, because they were essential to what the Luftwaffe had to achieve, yet to achieve this was impossible without fighters.

The figures are from Richard Overy's Battle of Britain. From mid-August to mid-September, RAF available pilots increased from ~1,400 to 1,500. So it rose by the same number of pilots that were killed during this time. Luftwaffe fighter pilots were ~700. Though I haven't seen it, Steven Bungay's Battle of Britain, which is even more recent and comprehensive, asserts the same as Overy. You can evaluate how close the RAF was to defeat for yourself, but the numbers speak for themselves - it doesn't really matter if the RAF would have broken down with more of the same; the Luftwaffe was already weakened to the point that it could not carry this out.

[Nikitn]

No, the figures weren't worse for the Luftwaffe: the Luftwaffe were losing far less fighters than the British in all stages of the BoB. Most of the Luftwaffe manpower casualties were bomber-crew. I also disagree that bombers are useless* without fighters - the British and Americans sent bomber-formations unescorted quite often against Germany, and the German bombers often lost their escorts as well.

As for the pilots: I find it hard to believe the RAF had twice the amount of combat-pilots than the Luftwaffe in September (can you give me a link?). At the start of the BoB, there were significantly more German fighterpilots, and they were far better in terms of training and experience. While the RAF had a huge advantage with their pilots being able to bail over friendly ground, it still doesn't change the fact that the situation was absolutely critical in late august-early september. Even Churchill himself said the fighter command was being beaten down. If casualties like 300 experienced fighter-pilots per week (being replaced by a few hundred raw recruits) persisted for too long, the RAF would NOT be able to resist the German bombings anymore, regardless if the Germans take a bit higher casualties.

What changed the tide was Hitler's fury at British bombings of Berlin - he ordered the swap from bombing airfields (ie, destroying British planes on the ground as well as their support) to pointlessly bombing civilian cities.

[Turtler]

The British Home Guard was barely equipped and completely untrained, while the British army was lacking in equipment, and was generally of low quality. If the Germans landed a few corps, they could break through.

Which is what they did at Moscow, correct?

No? Why not?

The bottom line is that the British Home Guard were a sorry sack comparatively, but they weren't idjiots and they certainly looked a great deal better than many Soviet formations that won in the crucial months after Barbarossa. IN ADDITION they were not hobkobbed by the murderously inane rules and dictates of a totalitarian tyrant, and so could be assumed to fight more effectively and preserve their strength better than people who were all but obliged (if their Commissars and commanders were stupid enough to follow it to the letter) to die to a man when defending.

On top of that, there are many, MANY, many crucial problems that trying to cross a Channel impose upon the defender, which thus act as force multipliers for the defender's benefit far more than a winter (no matter how ferocious) does. Any Wehrmact formation that did manage to fight their way to the shores would be facing a decently led, decently trained enemy growing daily, and sans much of their own heavy equipment and air power. We have repeatedly hammered home the many problems with a cross channel invasion only for you to disregard them out of some perverse egotism and ignorance, so there is little reason to fully rephrase what we have already said.

Nope, Hitler started terror-bombing the UK as a response to RAF bombings of German city, and general frustration. Regardless, the RAF was getting beaten severely in early-september, and would probably have to fall back if the Germans just kept bombing the runways.

The truth was a mixture of the two. Frustration at the lack of progress *and* at the declining aerial superiority of the Luftwaffe. If the "rate of exchange" kept steady as it was, it was clear who would win. Hence Hitler's decision to find alternate ways to try and break the Western Allied in the BoB before his manpower and equipment pools clicked "empty" and/or he'd have to redeploy East.

Yeh, but every single one of them is highly plausible.

The fact that just about every single one of them involves the British government losing its' collective head and throwing their established plans for waging the war until the bitter end RIGHT out the window displays how accurate this is.

----

Turtler

, you continuing resistance and tenacity in the face of reason is astounding.

It is a mark of honor, given how your "reason" is the anathema of any *realistic* definition of reason.

I'll make one last 15-20 min post to educate you, so you can stop embarrassing yourself with these failings.

The only person I am embarrassing is you, and the only failings are your own. You cannot educate someone about which side of the Channel the BoB was fought on, much less anything else.

Just an advice.

The fact that even this little snippet is woefully grammatically incorrect shows how valuable that is. Your "advice" is beyond worthless. As are your claims and arguments.

1) Turtler, if the RAF is broken and needing in rebuilding, it will be a force out of action, else it will be destroyed completely.

Again, the conflation of the RAF with "broken" is an old and thoroughly debunked canard. Just because it was in the process of reorganizing does not mean it suddenly was on the verge of completely being destroyed. The travails of the VVS- which was if anything in FAR worse straits than the RAF ever was- shows that much. Your endless repetition of that canard changes the truth value of Jack Squat.

The operational gap between the RAF having to pull out and it being ready for combat operations again would have been a matter of weeks, not months or years. Effectively far too narrow for the Axis to realistically exploit before a new, rested, and stronger RAF came back, buoyed by a combination of seasoned and rested veterans, a new organization, and valuable new planes and pilots.

This gives free reign to the luftwafe over the channel and dominance over Southern England. What is so hard to comprehend?

What is so hard to comprehend about the fact that THE LUFTWAFFE WAS NEVER EQUIPPED TO EXPLOIT ANY FREE REIGN IT WAS GIVEN due to a combination of aircraft limitations and lack of appropriate equipment? To say nothing of the fact that the AA defenses would have still been in operation, and the Luftwaffe was wholly incapable of crippling the Royal Navy and other Western Allied navies.

Even by October, the Luftwaffe was in no way broken.

No, but it was far more "broken" than the RAF was,a t least as far as the units assigned to the BoB went.

It had hit its head on the wall after Hitler ordered the terror-bombings, but it could very much continue for a prolonged period of time.

Unfortunately, they had long ago realized that the RAF could and would continue for a Far, FAR more prolonged period of time. Hence why Hitler lost his temper and started the terror bombing campaign.

However, in early September the RAF was close to having to retreat. This would lead to a window of opportunity for an invasion. What's so hard to comprehend?

What's so hard to comprehend about the fact that said "window of opportunity" would have opened and shut with no effective way to exploit it? if the RAF had to retreat in early September, it would have been back come October. There was no magic pixie dust avalible to the Axis that suddenly allowed them to jump from forcing the RAF to retreat and regroup to Suddenly OMGMagic forcing the Royal Navy Back, clearing the Channel, cobbling together enough seaborne forces to make it across, and landing? These things take TIME. Time that was far too short for the Axis to effectively exploit.

It took the Western Allies months to prepare for Torch, Husky, Overlord, etc. al. under ideal conditions. You're proposing a naval nonentity get ready in a couple weeks. Why is it so hard to comprehend that things DO NOT work that way?

2) The Luftwaffe had many bombs capable to easily sink British ships - like they sunk 200+ or so at Dunkirk - why are you repeatedly babbling about this?

Warships. At Dunkirk and the other evacuations the Western Allies grabbed any boats they could, mainly civilian and mainly unarmed and unarmored. Including things like row boats. Of COURSE the Luftwaffe would be able to massacre those.

However, against actual warships? Forget it. Take a look at Dunkirk and see how many of the 200+ ships were sunk were not row boats or pleasure cruise ships but *actual*, Royal-Navy-Crewed-and-Designed warships.

The Luftwaffe had a lot of bombers, but you need more than bombers to sink warships reliably. Not the least of which being torpedoes and/or proper bombs. Neither of which they could be said to have. Why are you repeatedly babbling about this when it is apparent you have no idea about the realities involved?

3) The mining would be easy - the Germans mined every southern port in the UK and approaches all over the channel during the BoB. Why are you crying about it being "impossible" to mine the channel?

Every Southern port in the UK? really? And how did that work for them?

MINING they could do. But getting those mines to LAST against fleets of minesweepers is another thing. The Germans mined all the approaches to the Channel during the BoB, but why are you crying about the fact that IN SPITE OF THAT FACT, the approaches to the Channel were STILL, *somehow* navigable in spite of that?

Really, the amount of psychotically deranged optimism you have for the Nazi efforts against the British Isles is even greater than that of the German command itself.

4) *sigh* So you are whining about Soviet archives' reliability?

No, Really? You don't say.

I guess the fact that they're used as a reliable source by pretty much every single historian on the USSR escaped you?

No. I gues the fact that I'm explicitly referring to PRODUCTION FIGURES escapes you. But the fact that you're trying to conflate my skewering of Soviet production records at the height of Stalin's reign speaks plenty about your arguments.

And even then, are you seriously claiming the Soviet officials were unable to count how much locomotives and rail-wagons they had in stock? This is just becoming more and more retarded.

Welcome to the reality of totalitarianism. Where if you count how many locomotives and rail-wagons you really have, you'll probably suffer an ugly fate for failing this or that production quota. It did get more and more retarded. That was a big part of the reason why the Soviet Union dealt with so many unnecessary inefficiencies, and a big part of the reason why it eventually collapsed under its' own jetspam.

5) Can you stop making idiotic rants

Can you stop giving Ad Hominem attacks that do nothing but discredit your own arguments?

and source your claims about the Eastern divisions being "elite"?

I have already explained my stance perfectly well. I CAN in fact source them. I choose not to for you, for the reasons I have mentioned before. I in fact laid them out and numbered them.

If you have no sources, then I am forced to assume you actually are lying as well as posting logically-flawed nonsense.

Oh wonderful. Is that supposed to scare me?

Again, I already listed the reasons why I have sources and will not list them to you, ONE OF THEM BEING that they are so widely available. If you somehow did not read what I posted, than I am forced to assume you really are either epically lazy or borderline illiterate in addition to undereducated, illogical, irrational, and biased.

And finally, what does it matter to me if you "suddenly" decide to assume anything? Your arguments are wrong, your behavior is atrocious, your sourcing is worse, and you have been unable to carry any argument or *part* of an argument you have contested. You have zero chance of affecting the overall truth of this discussion, so it does not matter to me what you do or do not assume, dream, think, or fantasize about anything. You are not only wrong in this thread, you are irrelevant.

Once again, I am quite willing to share my sources with any who are actually sincere in their desires to learn. Just drop me a PM and I will do whatever I can to assist you. I just beg your tolerance and understanding for why I refuse to do so for reasons as vapid as this.

6) Wow, so you are

a) Denying that Vladivostok is surrounded by Axis forces (yes, surrounded as in it can easily be cut-off from supplies)? I don't know about hoi, but even a child would understand how ridiculously easy it would be for a Japanese attack from Manchuria to cut Vladivostok off.
b) Failing at comprehending the central differences between the situations in Sevastopol, Odessa and Vladivostok (sea-supply/evacuation/reinforcement)? rofl
c) Claiming that solid defences and coastal forts (vast majority built during the Czarist era, when, you know, Vladivostok wasn't surrounded on 3 sides) are somehow supposed to stop the Japanese from simply cutting the city off and taking it 2 months later when everybody have started 2 death?
d) Claiming I'm taking your astoundingly nonsensical "position" by saying the Soviets would leave some men to cover the retreat? Do you comprehend the concept of "rear-guard"?

Yes, I am denying all of the above. Because I am right to do so, and you are wrong.

A. Again, you are wholeheartedly ignoring the limitations of Japanese military performance and mobility against solid opposition. It took them ages to cut off Port Arthur when the situation favored them due to effective tactical and technological parity. How do you think they will fare in the 1930's against the Red Army (and Navy, and VVS)? A handful of Australian Militia routed an IJN task force when they tried to conquer Milne Bay and Port Moresby, and while they were probably at least as well trained and led (if not more) than the Soviets, that still exposes the fundamental flaws of the Japanese military's capacity for rapid movement and encirclement.

B. No, you seem to be forgetting the most important similarity between all three, which is in fact tied to the "difference" you cite: THE ABILITY TO REINFORCE AND RESUPPLY PERIOD. Whether by land or by sea. Just because the sear route isn't an option for Vladivostok does not mean the land suddenly becomes untentatble, or that the Soviets cease to benefit from their infrastructure or interior lines in the Far East, hence allowing them to reinforce, resupply, and concentrate forces where they are needed against the even more plodding Japanese war machine.

C. Yes. Given that they will reduce the forces needed to HOLD the city itself, and will free up other forces to fight the Japanese in the maneuver warfare they are so totally incapable of. It's called a force multiplier. Look it up.

D. Yes, considering you moved from saying how Vladivostok could never be held and would be abandoned *straight away* to saying how Vladivostok could be defended (if only as part of a rear guard action). Sorry, but I do not have the memory of a goldfish. You are being disingenuous, no matter how you try to conceal it.

So yes, I am denying all four of the above, and I am doing so happily *and* accurately.

The amount of fail is simply amazing.. Why do you persist?

You know what? Sometimes I wonder that myself.

But I think that with the amazing amount of fail, it would be a shame if nobody were around to catalog and explain all the problems with it. Hence what I am doing. It's a thankless job, buut......

7) The BEF was completely ravaged everywhere, losing at every turn. The only reason it survived, was due to luck (Germans not realizing just how weak it was, and stopped at Dunkirk) and because it could be evacuated by sea. No Soviet divisions caught by surprise, and with no fuel or supplies, had such luxuries.

Endless repetition does not make it any more true. I've already debunked this wholeheartedly, given that a "completely ravaged everywhere" force does not have some crowning glories like Arras. No matter how much you try, the BEF's performance was and is still vastly better than that of the Soviet military, precisely because it was not run by sociopathic tyrants like Stalin who allowed it to be caught in such a situation as being surprised, with no fuel or supplies. Which was precisely why the Soviet Union's preformance in the war improved vastly when Stalin and his careerist morons like Budy took a backseat. In trying to indict the BEF, you only condemn the Soviet military and government.

This is also why just about no French units were caught similarly with no supplies, even if their cohesion made sure they were unable to take advantage of said supplies or fuel, especially given their command/control problems. The only Western Allied units caught in such a woefully bad position were either those that ran out after a considerable time, or were so thoroughly unprepared for war they had no chance (like Denmark or the Netherlands).
Nice try, Roll Again.

8) There were 2 relatively weak Italian divisions accompanying Rommel's Africa corps. Are you suggesting this means every attack carried out by the Africa corps was spearheaded by Italians? sigh stop the nonsense already.

This isn't an argument. This is a stupid strawman. YOU were the one arguing that every attack was spearheaded by units of one nationality (in this case, German). I debunked that and did so handily. And now you are trying to *again* steal my position by claiming that *I* was the one advocating your position that every attack was spearheaded by units of one nationality (only this time, Italians).

And this is before I go over the fact that there were vastly more than "2 relatively weak" Italian divisions with the Africa Korps.
Stop it. Your arguments are nonsensical, dishonest, and Not going to go anywhere. Why do you persist?

9) Gibraltar was easily surrounded and could easily be shelled to hell, and supplies cut-off by artillery and aircraft - something impossible during the musket-age. I thought this went without saying and thus didn't bother explaining it - but I guess I was wrong.

No, I thought this would be obvious but I guess I was wrong. I hate to tell you this, but the Bourbons tried that with the technology available to them (such as the floating batteries). It. Didn't. WORK. for them due to the interventions of the Royal Navy, the strength of Gibraltar's fortified defenses, and the skill of its' defenders (and especially their artillery). Now, in case you didn't know, Gibraltar didn't rest on its' laurels. It was modernized, and revamped, and fortified. Including with harbors to hold modern ships and Anti-Aircraft fire.

Your Argument Is False.

10) 7 million Soviets dead, 4.5 million Axis dead. I don't need to use calculus to see that this is roughly a K ratio of 1.5 for the Axis - how is this "not even in the Western Fronts of World War *ONE* did a ratio like this pop up."? How about at the Battle of Somme, were the Brits were slaughtered by the dozen? Or during the battle of France, where the Axis had a KDR between 2:1 and 3:1 against the French and British?

Yes, exactly. Even factoring in those bungles and missteps and fiascos, the Western Allies of WWI still fared far better than the Soviet Union of WWII did. Because in case you were too daft to notice, battles go on beyond just the first day of combat. The Western Allies regrouped and continued to fight. And fight they did, far better than their antagonists. Look, I KNOW you're so fond of skimming Wikipedia for casualty counts when they don't make sense, so how about skimming them when they DO make sense?

Why don't you go onto the Wikipedia page for the Western Front or Italian Front or Macedonian Front or Middle Eastern Front Of WWI and THEN calculate the casualty ratio. And learn that even under the most ugly of opening circumstances, the Western Allies of THIRTY YEARS AGO still out-preformed the Soviet Union.

Go on. Calculate them. I will wait.

11) Are you denying the Soviets had the capability to retreat from the Ukraine, now? Are you joking? The Soviets retreated on plenty of occasion, and could easily go by rail or road. Hell, they retreated a major part of the industry from there BEFORE the Germans managed to surround it - are soldiers harder to transport than factories?

No, I am denying that Kirpanos etc. al. could be retreated TO MOSCOW. Which is what you yourself claimed earlier. Do you want a quote? Because I can and will give you a quote.

Yes, the forces in the Ukraine could theoretically have been retreated to *somewhere*, but not to Moscow. And certainly not in time to make a difference in Operation Typhoon like you were positing. But keep up the dis-ingenuity and the spin. I'm sure it will help you next time!

12)

And here is a great example of your misguided tenacity. Do you know how many rivers go eastwards and into Siberia? Pretty much one: the Volga. Do you know how you're going to get factories from Belarus, Ukraine and so on to the Volga? By railroad. As I said, the bulk of the industry was evacuated from Belarus and Ukraine by RAILROADS, not barges or ships.

Now, before you start crying about obscure rivers going through Ukrainian villages - I'm not denying barges were used for evacuation. I'm saying that due to the geography, their use was marginal compared to railcarts.

I don't even need to refute this one. You've done it for me. Though you have left out the use of waterways like the White Sea and the effing Volga tributaries in the West AND the Yenisei, Ob, etc. and their tributaries in the East to move to move equipment Eastward (do you really think that's an accurate map of all of Russia's water systems? HAH.). So your entire angry, raving post about how I am misguided merely proves how thoroughly you are. I must say it's much less work this way, so please keep it up.

As for the roads: The Soviet roads were complete crap, and 30's trucks would be completely incapable of efficiently hauling heavy machine-tools over long distances, especially with the fuel-situation collapsing. And that's why they used RAILORADS to evacuate the factories.

Again, Roads and Roads are Roads are Roads. And Beggars can't be choosers. Yes, it is true that by and large most of the moving (especially where possible) was done by railroads (and this was probably a contributing reason to half the rail stock vanishing along with good chunks of Soviet industry: all the Germans had to do was hit one train to write off a train *and* a factory or two). Now, I don't think anybody denies the problems with Soviet roads, but I also don't think anybody would ever accuse Soviet infrastructure or government of being efficient. Just because the trucks weren't efficient doesn't mean using them to haul the material isn't more efficient in and of itself than letting said factory fall into enemy hands.

Now, a time ago you posted some logically incoherent nonsense about half the rolling stock being gone after Barbarossa - how is that possible when so much industry was so swiftly evacuated by the limited available amount of rolling stock in Belarus and the Ukraine, with industry being far more difficult to move than rolling-stock?

Because it wasn't the only means of moving the industry. And often times it WASN'T so swiftly evacuated. It got captured when those districts were overrun, frequently still packed in the rolling stock that was also marked as captured. Or destroyed to keep it out of Axis hands.

This "argument" reeks of desperation.

Please stop the nonsense. And source your blabberings.

Just because it is nonsense by your standards does not mean it is so by any sane person's, and I have already explained in great detail why I will not go to the time and effort of sourcing for you, why I do not give a flying damn what you assume because of it, and why I am happy to help any of the sincerely curious if they reach out.

13) "Economists sometimes speak of a law of diminishing marginal utility, meaning that the first unit of consumption of a good or service yields more utility than the second and subsequent units"

- This is the core of what marginal utility is about, and it completely supports my point and pisses on your garbage.

So much so that you never bother to explain how, unlike I have. In case you haven't noticed, Lend Lease lessened the burden of the Soviet Union by reducing how much it had to provide and support. By relieving the need to produce trifling things like FOOD and ship them to the Murmansk Front or the Far East, the marginal utility cost became favorable to producing other things. Like tanks. Ergo shortening the war and saving lives.

Now, isn't that so much more illustrative than needless profanity?

14) Sigh your limited understanding is starting to tire me.

Drop the false act, because I will not. Your jabbing and unlimited *lack* of understanding has already tired me when you first made the mistake of picking a fight with myself and my arguments. And I feel no compulsion against being honest. The fact that you are resorting to personal attacks and needless and gratuitous profanity in absence of a real argument shows that I've clearly gone well beyond "starting" to tire you. So give credit where credit is due, if that is possible at all.

Obviously they'd refrain from mining the southern approaches - you know, the approaches close to the massive German naval artillery positioned in the channel, and ready to blow any larger allied ship to dust.

A: Then why did said naval artillery fail to deliver.

B: This is in DIRECT contradiction of what you said earlier on THIS VERY POST, claiming that the Kriegsmarine mined *ALL* the approaches. So, which is it?

As for the Luftwaffe - it was perfectly capable of sinking allied ships. Just ask the ghosts of thousands of British seamen.

The Ghosts of thousands of British seamen are not a citable source, and given that most of them were killed by U-Boats, the Italians, or the Japanese, it's easy to see why you would not want them to. The Luftwaffe was capable of sinking allied warships, but it was hardly capable of doing so *readily.*

Oh yes, and also, it's WARships specifically, not ships period. No passing off merchant ships as somehow proving your point; those weren't what the defenses of the Channel against invasion rested on

Anyway, I suggest you stop the spam and calm down. Only then can you start to think clearly and actually make posts that make sense.

And I suggest you stop spamming yourself, calm down, and leave this thread. Only then can you cool off, think clearly, and live a happier, longer lasting life.

Until then, I will not relent.

In early September the RAF was losing more than 12% of their strength per week - a few weeks like that and they would be out of action unless they retreated northwards, regardless of how many raw-recruits you shove into airplanes. If Hitler had just kept his mouth shut and let the luftwaffe keep pounding the Fighter command, they would eventually be broken and forced back.

Categorically false. Particularly since it fails to note how that strength loss was calculated (which is obviously different from what you're hoping for). In case you haven't noticed, for the RAF and other Western Allied forces aircraft losses far outpaced crew losses for pretty much the entire BoB.

That was my point. I don't disagree that, on average, the RAF grew from July to October. I am merely saying it is a gross simplification to just assume therefore the RAF was never in danger of collapse.

I would be inclined to agree, were it not for your previous track record of dis-ingenuity in regards to the meaning of the "RAF collapsing."

I would like a source for the pilot count - the Luftwaffe was far bigger than the RAF in 1940.

Well no kidding. That's like saying that the Royal Navy and the USN were far larger than the IJN (as the Japanese militarists whined about). Ignoring the fact that the USN and RN were global forces while the IJN was purely a Pacific Ocean force. It's called FORCE CONCENTRATION. Another mark of some truly basic military illiteracy.

No, the figures weren't worse for the Luftwaffe: the Luftwaffe were losing far less fighters than the British in all stages of the BoB.

Endlessly repeating the same damn stuff does not make it true. There were certainly times when Luftwaffe fighter losses were considerably lesser than RAF ones, but on average? Not really. Especially when you factor in the "wider" BoB that was happening on both sides of the Channel.

Most of the Luftwaffe manpower casualties were bomber-crew.

Well no kidding. How is that supposed to support your point?

I also disagree that bombers are useful without fighters - the British and Americans sent bomber-formations unescorted quite often against Germany,

During which they at least initially tended to take moderate to heavy casualties for dubious gain. And that was because they were actually using VERY solid bombers and crew, like the B-17. Compare the Heinekl-111, which only could survive through sheer numbers (too many targets to shoot and bring down properly). Similar to the B-17 and other bomber raids, except that the concentration of German planes had to be FAR higher.

and the German bombers often lost their escorts as well.

No kidding, especially since the Bf-109s had a far lesser operating range than most German bombers. However, it was also recognized to be a generally bad sign, given the exceeding high rates of casualties.

As for the pilots: I find it hard to believe the RAF had twice the amount of combat-pilots than the Luftwaffe in September (can you give me a link?)

It's called force concentration. The Western Allies didn't have twice the amount of combat pilots in September, they had twice the amount of combat pilots IN THE THEATER OF OPERATIONS than the Germans did.

At the start of the BoB, there were significantly more German fighterpilots, and they were far better in terms of training and experience.

False about the training, otherwise agreed.

While the RAF had a huge advantage with their pilots being able to bail over friendly ground, it still doesn't change the fact that the situation was absolutely critical in late august-early september. Even Churchill himself said the fighter command was being beaten down. If casualties like 300 experienced fighter-pilots per week (being replaced by a few hundred raw recruits) persisted for too long, the RAF would NOT be able to resist the German bombings anymore, regardless if the Germans take a bit higher casualties.

Which doesn't change the fact that "absolutely critical" means having to go North for a few weeks to regroup and rebuild the experienced corps and manpower/material pools while letting the Luftwaffe run riot ineffectively. You like to act like the Luftwaffe forcing the RAF to withdraw North would be tantamount to a death blow ensuring Seelowe could go ahead, but it really, REALLY isn't. For the reasons we have spent far too much time mentioning before.

What changed the tide was Hitler's fury at British bombings of Berlin - he ordered the swap from bombing airfields (ie, destroying British planes on the ground as well as their support) to pointlessly bombing civilian cities.

Fury at the bombing of Berlin AND fury at the (apparent) lack of effect the German offensives were having on Fighter Command (due to faulty intel, he vastly overstated the capabilities of the RAF and British manufacturing). As well as the uncomfortable facts of the pending North American mobilization and entry into the war proper (both with the Canadians stepping up deployment and America at an undeclared naval war with the Reich and gearing up to enter a declared one under FDR's aegis). It's a combination of factors, mate. Which you seem to be happy to simplify.

[Nikitn]

Turtler, I'm sorry, but your posts are simply not worth responding to as they are such utter garbage. First you refuse to post sources because we both know you didn't properly understand what you read/or you lie, then you whine that *somehow* half the rolling-stock of the USSR was lost in Barbarossa (despite the fact the great majority of arms-factories were evacuated from the West), that barges from the Volga tributaries which start a few dozen kms west of Moscow can swiftly evacuate of industry from the Ukraine and Belarus, that the Japanese army isn't competent enough to grab/bomb a few roads to Vladivostok (despite the Manchurian border being right at the city) and so on.

Sorry. My head hurts of the nonsense spewed already.

[Turtler]

Turtler, I'm sorry, but your posts are simply not worth responding to as they are such utter garbage.

False. The fact that your posts are utter garbage hasn't stopped me from responding to them (for the sake of any innocent or unknowing minds). You're passing off frustration and incompetence as a twisted form of "benign neglect." Only after reading for dozens and dozens of posts, nobody is even fooled in the least. You've lost because you are unable to argue your points with any cohesion or coherence; you just want to attribute the defeat to something else.

Oddly like the Vichy French government tried to at Riom. Perhaps that is why you have so persistently ignored the findings of it: residual sympathy for a group in a similar situation?

First you refuse to post sources because we both know you didn't properly understand what you read/or you lie,

Wonderful. Ad-Hominem. I have already listed and re-listed the reasons why you are not worth my time, which you just want to ignore. Again. I even per-empted this little whining fit by adding in how no accusations or assumptions you make or throw at me matter, because at the end of the day you are simply incapable of any scholarly research.

then you whine that *somehow* half the rolling-stock of the USSR was lost in Barbarossa (despite the fact the great majority of arms-factories were evacuated from the West),

Which is true and false, respectively. There was no such thing as the "great majority" of arms-factories being evacuated from the West. Particularly since we actually now have access to the Soviet archives, and as you yourself so kindly noted, even though the Soviet archives lied like a rug about production figures they couldn't conceal or try to conceal the rough magnitude of Barbarossa.

that Volga tributaries which start a few dozen kms west of Moscow

Never said that. You are just stuffing words into my mouth. Again.

are viable routes for evacuation of industry from the Ukraine and Belarus,

Which is a half-truth from you. They clearly are viable routes for evacuation of industry, just obviously *Not the whole way.*

that the Japanese army isn't competent enough to grab/bomb a few roads to Vladivostok (despite the Manchurian border being right at the city) and so on.

1. I never said that they *couldn't* or that it was impossible. Just that conventional military logic- no matter HOW you look at it- would indicate that Vladivostok is hardly something that is going to get swept away in an onrushing tide from day one.

2. The Japanese military's dubious record in Manchuria was the subject of SEVERAL posts from you, claiming that even when facing a two front war from both West and East *and* without Western aid, the Soviet Union could win. Now you somehow want to change the picture from that of the Japanese as blundering, outclassed fools to the Japanese as superhuman fortification stormers? Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.

3, It doesn't matter how close the Manchurian border is. It just matters how close the JAPANESE MILITARY is, and how strong said units are. Even by the time of the Border War's height, the Japanese formations on the frontier with the USSR had issues keeping cohesion, getting sufficient supplies, and so on and so forth. The fact that you are positing they suddenly shrug off these problems, leap on Vladivostok and cut through dedicated Red Army resistance to encircle and conquer Vladivostok is ludicrous. The fact that you then apparently expect them to falter again and eventually give the victory to the Soviet Union just compounds the surreality of your predictions.

I

t's sad, but I simply cannot teach you anything, as you simply aren't capable of learning. Sorry. My head hurts of the nonsense spewed already.

I'm not capable of learning from what you've tried to "teach" me, because I have nothing to learn from you, as I have repeatedly shown in this thread. I am not sorry in the least, and the only sad thing is how you continue to try and wheedle and spin your way through the tangled web you have weaved.

If your head hurts, get it checked out; if need be step away from the computer and enjoy the rest of your vacation.

And when you come back, Then see if you can finally start learning and listening to reason.

That is all.

[Nikitn]

Turtler, your posts are continuously getting more and more worthless. Now because I claimed the Japanese wouldn't be able to sustain a serious war in Siberia against the USSR, it means I also meant they aren't capable of advancing 20 kms east to the sea (or the other way around) to simply cut Vladivostok from supplies (and render these fortifications you whine about worthless), even while having complete air-support from carriers if necessary? And you even mention supply issues around Northern Korea, while the Japanese were supplying entire armies in combat as far north as Mongolia in 1939?

Maybe you should further "educate" on how the White Sea is a good route to evacuate industry from Western Russia, or how important barges were to getting industry away from the Germans in Western USSR,,, lmao. I've debunked pretty much everything you wrote 3 times over, and now I am tired of this nonsense.

[Turtler]

Turtler, your posts are continuously getting more and more worthless.

No, yours are. Now, while I admit that this is far easier from my perspective (it always has been shooting fish in a barrel, but now there are so fewer fish!), it is probably not something that bodes well for your arguments. The fact that you are reduced to ranting and raving about how my posts are getting "more and more worthless" while offering only the barest minimum of argumentation to support such a claim is ironclad proof.

Now because I claimed the Japanese wouldn't be able to sustain a serious war in Siberia against the USSR, it means I also meant they aren't capable of advancing 20 kms east to the sea (or the other way around) to simply cut Vladivostok from supplies (and render these fortifications you whine about worthless), even while having complete air-support from carriers if necessary? And you even mention supply issues around Northern Korea, while the Japanese were supplying entire armies in combat as far north as Mongolia in 1939?

*Eye roll.*

1. I never claimed that they couldn't take Vladivostok. I did point out that it is hardly impossible for the Soviets to defend it successfully or at least meaningfully enough to hobble the Japanese. Big Difference. One your arguments gloss over at every opportunity.

2. You seem to have very little knowledge about the value of fortifications, especially against the Japanese. Even if they were cut off, they would hardly be "worthless." Or perhaps you are forgetting the sieges of Port Arthur or Sevastopol?

3. The bottom line is that the Japanese Chosen Army couldn't successfully advance ON A NARROW FRONT with its' flanks protected by lakes on both sides against the Soviet border units at Lake Khasan, and having become bogged down was unable to hold back the tide. Again, in a linear battle that neutralized the Red Army's superior skill in maneuver warfare. Pray tell me what does that tell you about their likelihood for success against staunch resistance in the open field?

4. Supply Issues / = / Not supplying period. It means Not supplying them ADEQUATELY. You didn't see the occupation forces in Northern Manchuria and Mongolia melting away from lack of support like they did in the island hopping campaigns and in the Southeast Asian mainland, but you certainly saw lack of ability to transport reinforcements, ammunition, fuel, vehicles, and other crucial supplies. Are we really supposed to believe these already strained routes of resupply would *not* break down in the event of a further advance, at least without massive support?

5. Again, I feel this is worth stating: whether or not Vladivostok would have been defensible in the long run does not change the fact that the Soviet Union made the decision to hold onto it, and to defend it to the maximum degree they could. They had zero intention of turning Vladivostok into an expendable trinket to be given up to the advancing Japanese unless the situation went South a WHOLE lot more than they were planning for. A such, your arguments about them doing so are nothing more than sand in the wind.

Maybe you should further "educate" on how the White Sea is a good route to evacuate industry from Western Russia, or how important barges were to getting industry away from the Germans in Western USSR,,,

Gladly. They're called Ice Breakers. You might have heard of them. They're used to break ice, and they were frequently used to lead the way across the Arctic ice floes to the Far East when infrastructure and supplies allowed. You also seem to be forgetting about the number of trips the Soviet navy made using them, and the fact that there were more than a few cities that were put int he Arctic circle for God Only Knows Why, and which were often the beneficiary of supplies. Case in point: Norilsk.

lmao.

Your opinion is not a reliable source; in fact it is as biased and self-serving as any of your other arguments here.

I've debunked pretty much everything you wrote 3 times over, and now I am tired of this nonsense.

Oh really? Well, how do you think I feel about nonsense like you falsely claming this? For all your "humble opinions" and what they are worth, you have failed to debunk anything I have written ONCE. In fact, you have been getting steadily off-topic in doing so, moving from the subject of Western Lend Lease to Western vs. Soviet resiliency to the Battle of Britain and Gibraltar to this current fetish over Vladivostok and rhe Far East. Most likely because whenever you try to make a stand, your undereducated "efforts" are pulverized by people who actually know military science and can do research.

You dropped the kill ratio discussion covering the Western Fronts of WWI vs. the Eastern front of WWII, after gloating about various bungles like the First Battle of the Somme before I pointed out that only accentuates the weakness of your argument and *challenged* you to compare the Kill ratios on the Western Fronts to the Eastern Front using your favorite source, Wikipedia.

You dropped the issue of Gibraltar's defensibility after I pointed out that a seige from the age of musketry can still teach you a thing or two.

You dropped the issue of Lend Lease after it became clear that SpartanJKM's and Conan's posts were not going to vanish into the ether, and neither was I.

And now you are moving towards dropping the issue of the Battle of Britain, after I caught your arguments spinning in dishonest and even self-contradictory directions, and asked you the simple question of whether the Kriegsmarine actually mined all the approaches to the Channel (as you claimed at one point) or whether they left the Southern one(s) open (as you also claimed in the same post.

Unfortunately from your perspective, some of us have good memories.

You are unable to argue the point properly, so why don't you just concede the floor and stop futilely pounding away and insulting?

[Ciabhán]

Everyone needs to take a step back, relax, and play nice. This is supposed to be an intellectual debate not a mudflinging match. If this thread continues to generate a large amount of reports I'll close it for a while to give everyone a chance to calm down.

[Turtler]

Everyone needs to take a step back, relax, and play nice. This is supposed to be an intellectual debate not a mudflinging match. If this thread continues to generate a large amount of reports I'll close it for a while to give everyone a chance to calm down.

Agreed, and my apologies to everyone for my role in things. Thanks for that.
I also notice we've gotten considerably off-topic in the result of the defensive/argumentative drift....

But hopefully things will cool down now and we can get back on track.

[FarKenal]

I don’t see what all this recent talk on both sides about Operation Sea Lion has to do with the topic of this thread? Having said that though I think operation Sea Lion was more likely to fail than it was succeed (even though as you correctly pointed out that the British Home Guard was woefully equipped on equipment and ammunition).

US and russian propaganda always try to downplay the UK effort in the war. In reality most of the forces that landed in operation torch was actually british, those forces formed the First army, just check the OOB here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...le,_4_May_1943

That makes 7 Corps in total fighting in North africa (8th army and 1st Army), Five of them were british(and commonwealth), one was french and another was US... And yet i hear people sayign that if it wasnt for PATTON Rommel would have won in NA... That is just utter bollocks, Rommel was in full retreat after El Alamein, and in two months Tripoli was captured with NO US help whatsoever, the 8TH army was so succesful that it was it who captured Tunis and made 300.000 Axis forces surrender, not an US division.

And lets not forget the 120.000 italians who surrendered for a much smaller british force under O'connor in Operation Compass. AND lets not forget one of the fronts that usually is forgotten, East Africa, The British were, just like in north africa, really outnumbered, but again 230.000 italians surrendered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Af...orld_War_II%29

People like to mention that the only reason the axis lost NA was because the allies had much larger forces, in reality, the only reason the allies had more strenght was because of the initial victories such as Compass. And even with that, they were left understrenght after many divisions had to defend Greece. But Rommel coudnt have won, after the devastating defeat of Alam Halfa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alam_Halfa), in which Monty had less forces than the "mighty" Rommel, it was done for him, he had no supplies knowledge whatsoever, he overstreched his lines so much in order to attempt a easy victory that he gave the allies an easy victory.

And after that, at the invasion of Italy, most forces were in reality British, the 15th army group (8th army and us 5th army) had 3 British corps, one canadian corps, one polish corps and two US corps. The US only surpassed the british in division number in the western front in August 1944. And may i remind you guys that Overlord was actually planned by Montgomery, and not Eisenhower. And the only reason Cobra was succesful was also because of Goodwood (which captured Caen).

I also understand in that I too constantly read how the successful feats and performances of Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, South African & Indian soldiers are conveniently at times referred to as ‘British’ troops and hence downplaying the diverse Commonwealth’s accomplishments. At the same time though I too recognise the extreme importance that particularly Britain and to a lessor extent the rest of the Commonwealth served in providing by far the bulk of strength in Non-Eastern Front theatres and draining Germany of just enough resources during the crucial years of 1941-43, otherwise I think that Germany would have defeated the Russians (with or without the Japanese attacking from the East)

I saw your link about the British order of battle, but I’m not sure if that accurately estimates the strength of US forces that landed in Operation Torch, as I thought I recall reading (from 10+ years ago) that only 25% of the force was non-US (less than what your source implies), even though it was the non-US forces that stood firm and prevented Rommels attacks from overrunning the en-masse retreating US troops (particularly with a Scottish AT unit in a crucial action if I recall), and that the British Royal Navy provided two thirds of all the shipping for this task force (in addition to supplying the much larger 8th army already). In any event and as you correctly stated next, the proportion of these US troops compared to what was already in Africa was very small and should certainly dismiss any assertions that “if it wasn’t for Patton that the Allies would not have won in North Africa.”

Having said that though, I am in two minds about the overall effect as while it was the British & Commonwealth almost entirely responsible for the capture of so many Axis troops in Africa, the major bulk of these were however Italian (with only 90,000 of the 300,000 axis troops captured in Tunisia being German) (again read this 10+ years ago, so I don’t claim it be accurate for certain) and if you named any Italian units that could hold their head high, they’d certainly form a minority percentage. As you stated the British & Commonwealth performance in Operation Compass against the numerically superior Italian forces defies belief and make you seriously question their combat worth and contribution to the Axis war effort (add to this their efforts in East Africa and Greece…) some could say this sort of downplays Britain and the Commonwealths contribution by almost solely knocking Italy out of the war. Though it did then also force Germany to use its own troops to perform garrison duties the Italians were doing and opened a hole with the withdrawal of Italy’s own expeditionary 8th army from the Eastern Front. With hindsight the Axis probably should have swapped German troops on the Eastern Front with the Italians in North Africa so that Italians then would be fighting against an enemy that they wouldn’t be so eager to surrender to. Especially considering the death/surrender ratio’s of Italian troops in Operation Compass (North Africa) where less than 2% of troops lost were killed in action with the rest surrendering…. and compare that to the Italian expeditionary army on the Eastern Front at around the time of Stalingrad and Russia’s steam rolling counter offensive, yet of the Italian troops lost, the percentage of troops killed in action from the total lost was much higher at around 25%, which is a staggering difference and shows that they could at times put up a fight. But that of course would be a unacceptably humiliating situation for the El Duce Mussolini.

[Turtler]

In any event don’t see what all this recent talk on both sides about Operation Sea Lion has to do with the topic of this thread? Having said that though I think operation Sea Lion was more likely to fail than it was succeed (even though as you correctly pointed out that the British Home Guard was woefully equipped on equipment and ammunition).

For once, we agree in just about every word and point, FarKenal.

I also understand in that I too constantly read how the successful feats and performances of Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, South African & Indian soldiers are conveniently at times referred to as ‘British’ troops and hence downplaying the diverse Commonwealth’s accomplishments.

I fail to understand how this is relevant. The British Empire and its' Commonwealth were deeply diverse and each section had its' role to play, often times all but alone (for instance, South Africa in Southwest Afirca during WWI, Australia in New Guinea, etc). However, that doesn't change the fact that in the Middle East/North Africa theater, they were thoroughly mixed in with British units, and under British command, so the simplification is-if unfortunately- at least understandable. Furthermore, most of the literature I've seen tends to cite individual unit nationalities whenever possible (particularly for the "big" ones, like the Dominions, the Raj, etc) so the downplaying is rather odd. If anything, I'd say the French, Italian, and Soviet military coverage tends to be far worse in that regards, given that they tend to lump everything together as "French", "Italian", or "Soviet" (or worse, "Russian"), promptly ignoring how high a percentage of Algerians/Tunisians/Lebanese/Libyans/Eritreans/Ukrainians/etc there tended to be.

Again, it's understandable given the need to simplify, I just am a bit puzzled at why you reference this; all partisan knives put away.

Furthermore, I am a bit puzzled by your reference to At the same time though I too recognise the extreme importance that particularly Britain and to a lessor extent the rest of the Commonwealth served in providing by far the bulk of strength in Non-Eastern Front theatres and draining Germany of just enough resources during the crucial years of 1941-43, otherwise I think that Germany would have defeated the Russians (with or without the Japanese attacking from the East)

Another agreement from me, though it looks like you had a cutoff for some reason.

I saw your link about the British order of battle, but I’m not sure if that accurately estimates the strength of US forces that landed in Operation Torch, as I thought I recall reading (from 10+ years ago) that only 25% of the force was non-US (less than what your source implies),

It doesn't, and you are right. In actuality, the Eastern Task Force that was assigned to knock out Algiers was where most of the Commonwealth units were located amongst the forces landing at Torch, though air power and naval support were significantly more British. That said, it's not made easier by the fact that you'd have to factor in the Free French, either from partisans that went regular or defectors from Vichy.

even though it was the non-US forces that stood firm and prevented Rommels attacks from overrunning the en-masse retreating US troops (particularly with a Scottish AT unit in a crucial action if I recall),

Ehhh... more or less. It's a bit more complicated than that, but it was during the Thala phase- where Rommel really started to run out of steam- that the British took up the bulk of the front line fighting. Though they didn't do it alone, since they enlisted the help of a few of the US troops that could be brought back to order, and artillery was more or less split down the middle between the US and Commonwealth while air power was largely USAAF. In general it is true that US forces (especially infantry and armored) were a *very* big cut below their Commonwealth and Free French allies (The little zinger of "Our Italians" wasn't exactly *in*accurate) but Kasserine is a bit of a odd case since the units that got hit were largely under Fredernall, who was a royal moron and was a major contributing factor to the defeat being as bad as it was.

and that the British Royal Navy provided two thirds of all the shipping for this task force (in addition to supplying the much larger 8th army already). In any event and as you correctly stated next, the proportion of these US troops compared to what was already in Africa was very small and should certainly dismiss any assertions that “if it wasn’t for Patton that the Allies would not have won in North Africa.”

Agreed.

Having said that though, I am in two minds about the overall effect as while it was the British & Commonwealth almost entirely responsible for the capture of so many Axis troops in Africa, the major bulk of these were however Italian (with only 90,000 of the 300,000 axis troops captured in Tunisia being German) (again read this 10+ years ago, so I don’t claim it be accurate for certain) and if you named any Italian units that could hold their head high, they’d certainly form a minority percentage.

It would take me a while to dig up the actual source, but that number is more or less accurate IIRC; that said the overall number of German forces committed and lost (rather than merely the 90,000 we can trace) was considerable, especially since we're still sorting out the Italian/German issues given how Hitler would often disguise the latter as the former and the fact that An Army at Dawn gives the ratio of German to Italian casualties for Tunisia as actually higher for the former than the latter... suffice it to say the Germans suffered disproportionately heavy fighting and casualty counts given their overall number in the Axis military in North Africa. Another thing that does not speak well of the Italians.

As you stated the British & Commonwealth performance in Operation Compass against the numerically superior Italian forces defies belief and make you seriously question their combat worth and contribution to the Axis war effort (add to this their efforts in East Africa and Greece…) some could say this sort of downplays Britain and the Commonwealths contribution by almost solely knocking Italy out of the war. Though it did then also force Germany to use its own troops to perform garrison duties the Italians were doing and opened a hole with the withdrawal of Italy’s own expeditionary 8th army from the Eastern Front. With hindsight the Axis probably should have swapped German troops on the Eastern Front with the Italians in North Africa so that Italians then would be fighting against an enemy that they wouldn’t be so eager to surrender to. Especially considering the death/surrender ratio’s of Italian troops in Operation Compass (North Africa) where less than 2% of troops lost were killed in action with the rest surrendering…. and compare that to the Italian expeditionary army on the Eastern Front at around the time of Stalingrad and Russia’s steam rolling counter offensive, yet of the Italian troops lost, the percentage of troops killed in action from the total lost was much higher at around 25%, which is a staggering difference and shows that they could at times put up a fight. But that of course would be a unacceptably humiliating situation for the El Duce Mussolini.

Good points overall, but in Il Dunce's defense, there were *some* mitigating circumstances.

1. The Italians had been the colonial administrators of Libya for thirtysome years by the time war came in earnest. A lot of their senior officers (Graziani, Aosta, etc. al.) were not only trained and hardened at operating in Africa, they were integral to keeping the conquests running and managing PR. It would've been difficult to just uplift all of that, replace it with the Germans wholesale, and plomp them down in an entirely different kind of war in the Eastern Front. And as an addendum...

2. A lot of the Italian units were not "Italian." The Fascist regime was many, many things, but one thing Mussolini *had* managed to do was pull a rabbit out of the hat in terms of PR relations with the colonial population after some decades of the two killing each other. In fact, they'd managed to successfully recruit them and do so in considerable numbers, maybe *too* considerable given the fact that they were largely dependant on them. To zero back in on Operation Compass, the closest the Italians had to an elite unit in there- the Maletti Command/Group, the only mechanized unit they had in theater- was actually almost entirely native. Libya was their recruiting pool, their battlefield, their training ground, and their homefront. It would've taken a heck of a time to properly send all of them to Russia, and given the difficulties the entire sorry CIR ran into it was probably well outside of Italian ability (even with German support). The British, French, and Belgians might have been able to do so, but they were a lot better and more practiced at that than the Italians were.

3. Really, it's likely they'd have preformed even more miserably in Russia than they did in the West. Say what you will about the Western Allied and Soviet militaries, but one thing is pretty clear: the latter had vastly better tanks by this point, and better ways of dealing with said tanks. Italian armor was never going to be great, but it could occasionally eliminate a lot of Britain's mainstrays in terms of armor (the Cruisers in particular). If they were downright impossible to deal with the Matilda II effectively, pitting them against a KV or T-34 was asking for a massacre. Couple that with the fact that the Molotov Cocktail was a wonderful anti-tank weapon and something used to pretty devastating effect on the Eastern front, and this Italo-Libyan expeditionary force would find its' backbone being ripped to pieces very quickly.

Beyond that, overall the Soviet Union built to last, and built to preform even under the most unseeingly conditions. It'd be difficult, but I'd find it hard to see any single small arms category where the Soviets didn't have the advantage over the Italian military.

And thirdly and most importantly, the CIR historically took to the Eastern Front's weather like a bug to a windshield. The lack of acclimation killed thousands upon thousands of them since they made even Hitler look prepared for winter warfare. This would've been exponentially worse if they introduced the Colonial troops native to sunny Libya into-say- even the Ukrainian summer, much less the winter.

Yeah, there's some validity in putting them in a position where they were less likely to bolt, surrender, or defect ala Sun Tzu, but in all due likelihood that additional courage would have only gone so far, superior Soviet technology and leadership would've hit like a wrecking ball (like it historically did) and in the end the "upgraded" CIR would probably wind up being a disaster on par with Cannae. You're right that they really weren't that fit for war anywhere, but at the very least they were trained for war around the Med and against A: natives and B: the Western Allies. In all due likelihood it would've been more productive to keep them right where they were.

[Wulfburk]

I also understand in that I too constantly read how the successful feats and performances of Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, South African & Indian soldiers are conveniently at times referred to as ‘British’ troops and hence downplaying the diverse Commonwealth’s accomplishments. At the same time though I too recognise the extreme importance that particularly Britain and to a lessor extent the rest of the Commonwealth served in providing by far the bulk of strength in Non-Eastern Front theatres and draining Germany of just enough resources during the crucial years of 1941-43, otherwise I think that Germany would have defeated the Russians (with or without the Japanese attacking from the East)

I agree and i do not downplay the Commonwealth's war effort in general, and specially the Canadian involvement (and in a lesser extent Australia, NZ, South Africa and India). Actually the term "british" i was refering to was mostly a generalization to refer to the British Commonwealth (For instance, most brazilians tend to refer to the UK as England while talking in portuguese nowadays, even though such thing is unexistant and it is quite a mistake, not that we do not know about the UK, but just because people got used to say that)

I saw your link about the British order of battle, but I’m not sure if that accurately estimates the strength of US forces that landed in Operation Torch, as I thought I recall reading (from 10+ years ago) that only 25% of the force was non-US (less than what your source implies), even though it was the non-US forces that stood firm and prevented Rommels attacks from overrunning the en-masse retreating US troops (particularly with a Scottish AT unit in a crucial action if I recall), and that the British Royal Navy provided two thirds of all the shipping for this task force (in addition to supplying the much larger 8th army already). In any event and as you correctly stated next, the proportion of these US troops compared to what was already in Africa was very small and should certainly dismiss any assertions that “if it wasn’t for Patton that the Allies would not have won in North Africa.”

I think everyone should always be skeptic about wikipedia, but as you have stated, even if you take that source as wrong and consider a greater US assistance, it still ends up with the British leading the fight at this point of the North African campaign.

Having said that though, I am in two minds about the overall effect as while it was the British & Commonwealth almost entirely responsible for the capture of so many Axis troops in Africa, the major bulk of these were however Italian (with only 90,000 of the 300,000 axis troops captured in Tunisia being German) (again read this 10+ years ago, so I don’t claim it be accurate for certain) and if you named any Italian units that could hold their head high, they’d certainly form a minority percentage. As you stated the British & Commonwealth performance in Operation Compass against the numerically superior Italian forces defies belief and make you seriously question their combat worth and contribution to the Axis war effort (add to this their efforts in East Africa and Greece…) some could say this sort of downplays Britain and the Commonwealths contribution by almost solely knocking Italy out of the war. Though it did then also force Germany to use its own troops to perform garrison duties the Italians were doing and opened a hole with the withdrawal of Italy’s own expeditionary 8th army from the Eastern Front. With hindsight the Axis probably should have swapped German troops on the Eastern Front with the Italians in North Africa so that Italians then would be fighting against an enemy that they wouldn’t be so eager to surrender to. Especially considering the death/surrender ratio’s of Italian troops in Operation Compass (North Africa) where less than 2% of troops lost were killed in action with the rest surrendering…. and compare that to the Italian expeditionary army on the Eastern Front at around the time of Stalingrad and Russia’s steam rolling counter offensive, yet of the Italian troops lost, the percentage of troops killed in action from the total lost was much higher at around 25%, which is a staggering difference and shows that they could at times put up a fight. But that of course would be a unacceptably humiliating situation for the El Duce Mussolini.

I believe what made Compass so succesful was that the italians thought the british were outnumbering them, they thought its forces were bigger or at least the same size as of the italian forces, and they got quite skeptic in invading egypt, and by the moment of Compass when they were outflanked and surrounded they really thought they were fighting against a much bigger foe and saw no end but to surrender, i might be wrong though. But overall it is safe to say that the italian morale in all fronts was pretty much low and that gave the british a upper hand.

[FarKenal]

I agree and i do not downplay the Commonwealth's war effort in general, and specially the Canadian involvement (and in a lesser extent Australia, NZ, South Africa and India). Actually the term "british" i was refering to was mostly a generalization to refer to the British Commonwealth (For instance, most brazilians tend to refer to the UK as England while talking in portuguese nowadays, even though such thing is unexistant and it is quite a mistake, not that we do not know about the UK, but just because people got used to say that)

Sorry I didnt mean to suggest that you were referring to Commonwealth troops as British, as you actually took the time to mention and seperate countries involvement. I just meant that in quite a lot of published books that I've read, that they say "British troops" when I know full well that it was Commonwealth troops involved in a particular action. I agreed with just about everything you posted even though it goes against the grain of popular opinion and + rep'd you for it