Quoted: Was their any one person who devised this new strategy? Or did a group of generals pretty much have a round-table talk and realize there was a better way than sitting in trenches?

They read up on the Tactics from the British....


John Fuller, was born in Chichester in 1878. After Sandhurst College, Fuller was commissioned in the Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Light Infantry in 1898 and the following year took part in the Boer War. This was followed by service in India (1903-06). While adjutant with the Middlesex Regiment he began writing about military tactics and weapon training.

In the first two years of the First World War Fuller was mainly involved in training officers. This included the creation of an Officers' School for the Third Army and the BEF Senior Officers Course. In December, 1916, he became the first Chief General Staff Officer of the Royal Tank Corps.

Initially, Fuller was not a great supporter of tanks, however, he soon grasped their significance for modern warfare. Aware of the tank's early problems, Fuller argued that they should only be deployed when the terrain was appropriate. At Amiens (late 1918) he managed to persuade General Henry Rawlinson to use 412 tanks followed by soldiers and supported by over 1,000 aircraft. The strategy worked and the Allies managed to breakthrough the German frontline.

Fuller was disappointed with the way tanks were used during the war and afterwards he produced Plan 1919. The plan called for long-range mass tank attacks with strong air, motorized and artillery support. The plan was ignored by the British Army but was studied in Germany and became the blueprint for what became known as blitzkrieg tactics.

Fuller retired in 1933 and became known for his military writings, including Reformation of War (1923), Foundation of the Science of War (1926) and Memoirs of an Unconventional Soldier (1936).

Fuller developed extreme right-wing opinions and joined anti-Semitic organizations such as The Link and the Nordic League. In April 1939 travelled to Nazi Germany with Duke of Beccleuch and Lord Brocket to celebrate the fiftieth birthday of Adolf Hitler.

Sir John Fuller died in 1966.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWfuller.htm

Quoted: Two things: 1.  The Germans were good. 2.  Everyone else sucked.

3. Then everyone learned from their mistakes.
4. Then the Germans got PoWn3d

Quoted: Early on I think it's a very open question if the russinas could hve held on without our lend-lease support.  And if they didn't have a 2 front war - very iffy for the russians.    IIRC we, and the british, sent the russians more tanks and trucks/jeeps than the germans produced for the entire war.   This kept them in the fight until 1944 when their re-located industry and new designs for tanks and planes really started to show up. There are many what-ifs that are intriguing, like: - the luftwafffe had the RAF on the ropes by bombing their airfields - then switched to cities in ratalaition for raids on berlin.   With the RAF destroyed, would they have tried a cross channel attack? - in july 1941 in russia the way to moscow was wide open after the smolensk battles, but hitler diverted the panzers to encircle the ukraine.   Hence the drive to moscow was delayed until october when mud and eventually the worst winter in 40 years hit early and hard.   the russians were given that extra time to relocate their government and a lot of industry to the urals. - in north africa 1942, what if the planned invasion of malta had taken place after Rommel took tobruk and defeated the 8th army.  Instead Rommel diverted these resouces to his pursuit to alamein where he stalled and eventually was defeated.   Malta's resurgence crippled his supply line for fuel then for the 3 months prior to alamein - what if hitler hadn't declared war on the US thsu insuring an eventual full scale 2nd front

Hmmmm.....


The Luftwaffe never had Fighter Comand on the ropes... The best the Luftwaffe achieved was to temporarily disable a few front line airfields on the coast. RAF Fighter Command never lost air supriority, it even retained it over the beachead at Dunkirk. 80% of Britain and RAF airfields was outside of the range of Luftwaffe fighters. The RAF always had the option of falling back to the Thames/Portsmouth line and declining combat except on it's own terms. During the entire period of the Battle of Britain, fighter production was never curtailed, in fact, their was always more planes than pilots.

This is covered in greater depth in  this book; Strategy for Defeat, highly recommend reading.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9997393481/103-9822342-3547024?v=glance&n=283155

Which brings me on to another point.... The RAF was never short of pilots, it was however short of trainee pilots, but only because a decision was made in mid 1941 to keep back a strategic reserve of combat exprerienced pilots in case of an Invasion. At the higth of the Battle of Britain the RAF had 1,200 pilots with 100+ hours of combat flying held back in reserve. The majority of the fighting was done by Hurricanes with new aircrews, Spitfires were plentiful but most were being kept back.

The Luftwaffe never closed the Channel to the Royal Navy at any time. Even in September, the RN was sending heavy surface units, including a Battleship on a number of occassions, into the Channel at night to bombard German invasion barges in France.

An invasion was an impossibility for the Germans even if they had destroyed the RAF. The Kriegesmarine had 10 destroyers and two cruisers in 1940 to support Sea Lion. The RN had earmarked approxiamately 150 Sloops, Destroyers and Cruisers all within 3 hours sailing time of the likely invasion beaches to counter them, not including the entire Home Fleet with it's Battleships and Aircraft carriers within 24 hours saling time.

The Russian utterly defeated the Germans at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942. They had received no Lend-Lease aid at that point.

Winter did not save the Russian in 1941. The Japanese decision not to attack Russia did. The Russian knew from their spy Richard Sorge that the Japanese were not going to attack the Russian Forces ijn Manchuria in Dec 1941. This allowed the STAVKA to transfer Zhukov and his battle hardened Siberian Army to to defence of Moscow.

Hitler had ruled out any further Airborne Operations after the huge losses the FalschmirJeager suffered in Crete. The airborne operation against Malta was stillborne from that date.

Even if Hitler had not declared war on the US, the US would have declared war on him. It had already been agreed upon by Roosevelt and Churchill that Hitler was the great threat and US policy throughout late 1941 had been heading towards open conflict as soon as a suitable casus beli had presented itself.

Andy

The Germans did great till they ran up against someone who could out Blitzkrieg them.....

I give you scourge of the Wehrmacht in the West....

Quoted: Quoted: Russia is what stopped Germany. The U.S. and Britain helped. Russia barely had the manpower to take Berlin at the end of the war.  Without US aid they'd have folded. Patton had the right idea, rearm the regular German divisions and finish the Soviets...  they were so bled out from fighting the German rearguard into Berlin they wouldn't have lasted long.

Huh?

If they Russians had decided to advance to the Rhine they would have gone through the Allies like shit through a goose!  Have you ANY idea how much manpower, airpower, artillery power and tank power the Russians had in just the Central Beylorussian Front?

For Operation Bagration of 22 June 1944, the Russian pitted over 1,700,000 Soviet soldiers in 200 divisions with 6,000 tanks and massed artillery against the 34 German divisions of Army Group Centre. The defeat of this force resulted in the death or capture of nearly 350,000 German troops.

The capital of Belarus, Minsk, was taken on July 3, trapping fifty thousand Germans. Ten days later the Red Army reached the prewar Polish border. Overall the annihilation of Army Group Centre cost the Germans 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. German losses are estimated at 300,000 dead, 250,000 wounded, and about 120,000 captured; overall casualties at 670,000. Soviet losses were 60,000 killed, 110,000 wounded, and about 8,000 missing, with 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 aircraft also lost.




Two and a half million Red Army troops, 6000 tanks and over 40,000 artillery pieces were deployed for the final onslaught against the German capital which cost the Russian 70,000 dead.

Yep, the Germans were really 'bleeding out' those Ruskies!


ANdy

One of the main things they did was to concetrate moblie, powerful forces on a single point and make a breakthrough.  Once in the rear it is usually over.

The French tanks forces were larger and the individual tanks were better.  But they were stretched all along the front.  Just a few to a battalion.  The Germans put a whole panzer division into an area covered by a regiment and broke through.  Then it is just rolling the line up.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If they Russians had decided to advance to the Rhine they would have gone through the Allies like shit through a goose! No, they wouldn't. They'd get their butts kicked by our air power when we strafe their supplies. Then we'd Nuke 'em just for good measure. Then we'll take the Russian women back to the USA as war brides and tell the Arabs to pound sand as we developed Russia's petroleum deposits. US and British Air power would have crippled them. The Soviets would have tried it if they thought they could have succeeded. But the US and Britain were not going to be able to invade the USSR proper… Being able to stop a Soviet advance is not the same thing as being able to take the offensive.

Notice I did say 'to the Rhine'. There really wasn't much to stop them in May 1945. We had  relatively few forces over the Rhine and the majority of Tac Air was operating from rough fields.

If the Russians had stuck out for the Rhine it would have taken them little more than a few days to reach it. Agreed, we would have been pissed as hell, but Ivan would be sitting on his side of the Big River and we'd be back on the other. The Russian were not going to be a sitting duck for our Tac Air like the Germans were who were down to a handful of fighters in 1945. They had enormous numbers of quite good high performance fighters to support them and carry out counter air operations.

Although we had a huge advantage in Heavy Bombers, pretty much the entire area of Eastern Europe was out of reach. Western Poland was  as far as B-24's and Lancasters could reach. The Russian rear echelon would have been able to feed in men and materiel unmolested. And remember, Nukes were still  4 months away.

ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: Thank you Vito113 and OlyM4gery, I was going to rebut but you have done so quite nicely and accurately. Official Russian histories and troop strength numbers have never been remotely accurate.  Believe what you like, though. As long as the hive mind marches in step alles ist schon.

A 'rebuttal' with zero facts or figures to support your case hardly counts.... wishful revisonist German  history is not a substitue for facts.

ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: yes, if we could hold out for 4 months, the first nukes would have been used against the USSR instead of japan, which was largely contained by that point.  and the soviets would have had little choice but to surrender when their divisions started disappearing under mushroom clouds.

The problem was that it would have ended 15 weeks previously.

ANdy