Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

German chances of actually winning

Discussion in 'Military Training, Doctrine, and Planning' started by GunSlinger86, Feb 28, 2016.

  1. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,047
    Likes Received:
    35
    The Americans had their amphibious landing doctrine used in the Pacific Theater, and the Americans and their allies had amphibious landings that were successful in the ETO as well. The logistics, planning, training and resources that went into these operations is extraordinary in order to be successful, and air power is key in this area as well. The Germans would have had to launch amphibious landings in order to win the war in regards to Britain and whatever other areas they could only reach by sea. I don't think the Germans had the logistics, planning, or resources to launch an offensive campaign, fight the type of fighting it took in the Pacific, and win like the Americans did in the Pacific or the Alllies did in the ETO. I can't see the Germans beating back the Japanese hopping island to island like the US did, or launching the massive invasions it took to win Europe back for the Allies. That's why I can't see Germany actually having a shot to win the war due to its lack of logistics, planning and resources.
     
  2. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,290
    Likes Received:
    1,858
    The Germans had 240 Divisions on the line when Barbarossa kicked off.
     
  3. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,047
    Likes Received:
    35
    True, but that was after almost ten years of build-up, and Barbarossa was a surprise attack on land in which they could move all their troops easily by land to the launching point because they now had the border with Russia after taking over Poland.

    I was referring to the point that I don't think Germany had the logistics, planning, or resources to win a war using all three forms of attack, nor the fight to win the type of battles and fighting the Americans did in the Pacific hopping from island to island and fighting the fanatical savage-style of the Japanese.
     
  4. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,047
    Likes Received:
    35
    Opana, out of those 240 divisions, weren't some of those other Axis divisions like Romania, Hungary, Italy, etc.?
     
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,275
    Likes Received:
    1,751
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Likewise, in the Pacific Japan had how many divisions tied down watching the Russians in Manchukuo, had how many divisions fighting the Chinese, and had how many divisions fighting against the Commonwealth forces in Burma/India.

    The island fighting was no more savage that that taking place on the Eastern Front.
     
  6. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,047
    Likes Received:
    35
    And in the Pacific, how many Divisions did the US have sent to Europe and the other theaters? We had the 6 Marine Divisions and only 29 of the Army's 90 divisions for land fighting in the Pacific.
     
  7. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,765
    Likes Received:
    188
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    zero chance once they went into Russia.....and the island hopping campaigns were totally different than jumping the channel.....the distances, logistics to build airfields from nothing, fuel depots, , supplying those areas, etc.....Europe was not a naval war, at all.. like the Pacific was....
     
  8. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    706
    209. Including the 32 of the 13., 14., and 15. Welle raised as occupation divisions on reduced establishments. And the 11 Security divisions.
     
  9. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,126
    Likes Received:
    570
    Germany winning what? Why are we talking about Island-hopping? Germany is a continental land-power, and has no need for a Grand Navy.
     
  10. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,240
    Likes Received:
    987
    Good point GS...my answer would have been:
    Her chances were excellent had they scaled back their plans to central and western Europe and sued for peace...
     
  11. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    IMO it all depends on when you assess the chances. If Germany can keep the UK out of the war I think they might have had a decent chance (likewise if they can settle with the UK fairly early on). Neither of these two were likely with Hitler at the helm. Once the UK is committed to defeating Germany they have little chance of winning because they don't really have a good way to force Britain out of the war. Once either the US or the USSR join in even that little chance is gone again IMO.
     
  12. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,141
    Likes Received:
    355
    Location:
    New England
    I agree. The plan at that time was not total war but quick territorial gains. If anything, Germany achieved successes in the early stages thy at could of extended their territory and create peace terms.
     
    USAAFson likes this.
  13. White Flight

    White Flight Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    33
    Hitler was noticeably weak when it came to anything navy. Their aircraft carrier was an engineered disaster, converted into a submarine parts repository. The battleships were misused and under used. Decisions were too often made on emotion rather than tactics. Wolf packs were misused, falling victim to the arrogance on venerability of the mighty enigma. The fleet strength was weak.

    Regarding the invasion of the UK, the means to land troops was in place. Crude, but in place. Failure to do so largely fell on the shoulders of Goring in my opinion.

    Agreed. Driven by the set objectives to be self sufficient in war materials and curtail imports, Hitler's plans to conquer the Soviet Union were already in place when Nazi foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop started his charades sales pitch of the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact. Hitler was delusional by the Soviets failures in their quest to conquer Finland. Hitler's pipe dream; any formidable dominating power would defeat the Soviet Union.

    Agreed.

    I don't necessarily agree with that view. Germany would have greatly benefited from a powerful navy with a strong infrastructure. Properly used, navy muscle would have bolstered port defenses, thwarted allied landings and furthered efforts on crushing supply convoys supplying England. Appropriate advances in air-power would have also been needed to support the said navy.

    Advanced landing capabilities would have opened more opportunities for offensive targeting and their fantasies for conquering England. Any conquest visions for the USA was incomprehensible without a robust navy and continued advancements in air-power. Advances in air-power were limited largely due to Goring's limited thinking, planning, and a laundry list of broadcast responsibilities that grew with time.

    With irreconcilable differences, Hitler had decided to defeat the UK before their spending and manufacturing was effectively shifted to military from depression/post depression.

    Fortunately Winston Churchill came to power.

    Agreed.

    Hitler was his worst enemy when it came to achieving the big picture.
     
  14. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,657
    Location:
    God's Country
    If the failure was Goring's, then that was a great service to the Reich. The amphibious invasion of England was one of Germany's greatest pipe dreams. It was a non-starter. They had neither the effective means, doctrine or training to pull it off. Most of their invasion force would never have made it across the channel and those that did could not have been supported. On the plus side the losses would have been so heavy they couldn't have invaded Russia.
     
  15. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,765
    Likes Received:
    188
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    yes, how much of the Winter War affected hitler's decision to go into Russia??
     
  16. White Flight

    White Flight Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    33
    Goring's short side performance and failure in forward thinking, the ability to, "Get it Right," prevented the opportunity for your bullet point listing of other failures to ever materialize. "Most of their invasion force would never have made it across the channel...." They would likely have needed calm seas for any success of their modified barges.

    "and those that did could not have been supported." Agreed due to the lack of a supporting navy and failures in and by air-power.

    Goring's prevailing spotlight failures:
    1. The grand error in classifying the radar towers as civilian rather than military. They should have been eliminated first.
    2. Switching from targeting England's air-power to the London Blitz. Eliminating the threat is the prevailing logic.
    3. Lack of advancing technology of four engine strategic bombers. General Walther Wever led advancing plans for such development. Wever proposed a bomber platform to reach Soviet aircraft factories relocated out of reach of existing bombers. The strategic bomber project died prematurely with him in June 1936. In his wake and under the authority of Goring, Albert Kesselring saw no need for such a force. Some sources directly blame Goring for canceling the project outright on April 27, 1937.
    4. Lack of advancing technology in fighter aircraft. Sending Me109's to escort Bf 110's in the wake of severe 110 losses rings a bell.


    Wasn't a weighing factor as Hitler did not anticipate a long campaign.
     
  17. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    These 4 errors are only imaginary:

    1)The importance of the Radar in 1940 is much exaggerated

    2)There was no switching till september : before september,British cities also were attacked and the air attacks on London in september were defensible ,because the other tactic had failed .

    3)The Germans had long range bombers,but there was no need for a four engine strategic bomber (Britain also had not such bomber) in 1940 and also not in 1941,besides Germany had not the means for a such bomber .

    4)There was no need for an advanced fighter technology in 1940, neither was it possible .
     
  18. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    The failure to land troops was not the fault of Goering (as mentionned in post 13) : it was the business (not fault) of the navy : Goering was commander of the LW and the invasion army would not be transported by aircraft ,but by ships .
     
  19. White Flight

    White Flight Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    33
    From my perspective:

    1. The radar invented by Robert Watson-Watt was invaluable to those who defended in the Battle of Britain. It allowed Britain to track incoming German planes and scramble their fighter aircraft to intercept. Göering's inability to grasp the vital role radar played in British air defense enabled the RAF to retain the advantage in the air.

    2a. "There was no switching till september" Agreed, phase three was August 13 - September 6, 1940. The objective was to force Fighter Command out of the South East corner of England within four days, and destroy the RAF completely within four weeks.

    _b. "before september,British cities also were attacked" Agreed, Phase one was June 26 - July 16; shipping, ports, towns and factories. Phase two was July 17 - August 12; shipping, ports RAF installations, aircraft industry and coastal airfields.

    _c. "air attacks on London in september were defensible ,because the other tactic had failed" " errors are only imaginary" Not imaginary as we are in agreement: Goering's tactic failed. Failed to destroy the RAF completely. Attacks on London were not only defensible, it took pressure off of RAF installations.

    3a. "The Germans had long range bombers,but there was no need for a four engine strategic bomber" Fortunately Goering and Albert Kesselring were in agreement with you. General Walther Wever was not.

    _b. "(Britain also had not such bomber) in 1940 and also not in 1941" Strategic/Heavy: Handley Page Halifax was a four-engined heavy bomber, first flight October 25, 1939. Introduced November 13, 1940. The first flight of the Boeing B-17 was in July 1935 and introduced in April 1938. In early 1940, 20 B-17 bombers were transferred to the RAF.

    _c. "besides Germany had not the means for a such bomber ." I disagree. As stated above: General Walther Wever led advancing plans for such development. Wever proposed a bomber platform to reach Soviet aircraft factories relocated out of reach of existing bombers. The strategic bomber project died prematurely with him in June 1936. In his wake and under the authority of Goring, Albert Kesselring saw no need for such a force. Some sources directly blame Goring for canceling the project outright on April 27, 1937.

    4a. "There was no need for an advanced fighter technology in 1940" My statement was reflecting on the use of the inferior Bf 110, a lumbering fighter that was slightly more maneuverable than the bombers they escorted. The need to send fighter protection to defend escorts presented the need for change. Such scenario reflects a broken system.

    _b. Note the development of the Focke-Wulf Fw190 was delayed in the mind-set absence of urgency with the Me 109 in place.

    "land troops - was the business - of the navy"
    "invasion army would not be transported by aircraft ,but by ships"

    Agreed. I was not reflecting otherwise. Goering failed to gain control of the skies for the invasion. As USMCPrice stated, the Nazi planned invasion would have failed regardless of Nazi control of the skies.
     
  20. LouisJ444

    LouisJ444 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    1
    The germans made the big mistake of attacking Russia.
    Because of that they opened a second front that Wehrmacht couldnt handle.

    The german tech was behind the rest in 1940.
    The spitfire was far more better then the Bf109 and the Bf110.
    The german Luftwaffe was heavily weakend after the battle of the low countries.

    The only thing what the germans could do to win the war was if Hitler listened to his generals.
     

Share This Page