Jump to content

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,854
[RKLES]
Members
8,930 posts
10,828 battles

Got thinking about how much in the way of allied resources was expended over some of the Axis ships, that got me speculating if there was possibly more to the war that meets the eye as far as Axis strategies. Perhaps I am reading too much into possible strategies, but this is stil an interesting question.

Were some of the strategies of the Axis Powers, particularly those of Germany more efficient in an economics war? What I mean is were ships like Graf Spee, the UBoats, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and other Naval units effective resource drains against the allies in the way the allies had to expend so much time, fuel, money, and sometimes even lost ships and men? And German tanks lost vs allied tanks lost ratio was ofyennfavorable in terms of numbers for Germany as well.

I know Allies had superior amounts of resources to channel into such a war, but if say the allies had a fixed amount of resources and if Axis powers also had fixed amount of resources while much lower than allies. Was the war being more efficiently fought by the Axis based on strategies used if the goal were to try and deplete the resources of the other side for some reason? I could be wrong though since maybe the allies throwing everything they could manage to send in despite high losses was the more efficient idea?

You ended up with so many ships and planes hunting the commerce raiders, attacking ships at anchor, or having to send extra warships and cargo ships out that it must not have been cheap by any means?  But at least some of the German raiders had to have been an interesting cost for Germany vs higher costs for allies, but not sure where to get such data from. But it would be of interest to know since while Axis certainly made mistakes, had flawed leadership that we can all be grateful did not stay in power, but were some of the strategies totally flawed, or were some of the ideas on to something but just not enough put into them to achieve the intended results?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
584 posts
3 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Got thinking about how much in the way of allied resources was expended over some of the Axis ships, that got me speculating if there was possibly more to the war that meets the eye as far as Axis strategies. Perhaps I am reading too much into possible strategies, but this is stil an interesting question.

Were some of the strategies of the Axis Powers, particularly those of Germany more efficient in an economics war? What I mean is were ships like Graf Spee, the UBoats, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and other Naval units effective resource drains against the allies in the way the allies had to expend so much time, fuel, money, and sometimes even lost ships and men? And German tanks lost vs allied tanks lost ratio was ofyennfavorable in terms of numbers for Germany as well.

I know Allies had superior amounts of resources to channel into such a war, but if say the allies had a fixed amount of resources and if Axis powers also had fixed amount of resources while much lower than allies. Was the war being more efficiently fought by the Axis based on strategies used if the goal were to try and deplete the resources of the other side for some reason? I could be wrong though since maybe the allies throwing everything they could manage to send in despite high losses was the more efficient idea?

You ended up with so many ships and planes hunting the commerce raiders, attacking ships at anchor, or having to send extra warships and cargo ships out that it must not have been cheap by any means?  But at least some of the German raiders had to have been an interesting cost for Germany vs higher costs for allies, but not sure where to get such data from. But it would be of interest to know since while Axis certainly made mistakes, had flawed leadership that we can all be grateful did not stay in power, but were some of the strategies totally flawed, or were some of the ideas on to something but just not enough put into them to achieve the intended results?

You need to think of it from a business perspective.  Because the Germans were not gaining resources from the international shipping lanes, they were not gaining any "profit" from the endeavour.  Any German Naval Operation that was not getting resources through to Germany can be see as operating at a "loss".  The Kriegsmarine was only able to secure the Norwegian Corridor and the Norwegian Eastern Route to get shipments of iron ore. 

 

Every Kriegsmarine ship that raided enemy commerce could not replace itself via ocean-based commerce while the ships and planes that hunted the commerce raiders could be replaced via ocean-based commerce.  Think of it as a for-profit business protecting itself using its own funds against a terrorist organization that can only destroy.  Commerce destruction is not a viable economic model, there's no profit in it.  But a profitable business protecting it's assets is a viable economic model because the "protection" is being paid for by the profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,221
[WOLF3]
Members
19,351 posts
17,682 battles

The fundamental flaw was going to war against the major powers of the world that had all the playing cards.

 

For the Germans, pound for pound, their U-Boats IMO were the most valuable and actually were a concern.  Everything else was wasteful, inefficient, complicated and poorly maintained.  Their tanks in particular.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
167
[FTH]
Members
967 posts
13,755 battles

Considering the fact that Tirpitz, just as a "Fleet in Being" kept off the top of my head atleast 1 CV, 2 BB's from the USN, and 2 Brit BB's as well, plus more cruisers than I can think of...tied up in port waiting for it to sortie...not to mention the fact that just thinking it would show up caused the disaster of PQ-17...yup, from some standards, the losses were vastly different from what they achieved.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
584 posts
1 hour ago, Purg473 said:

Considering the fact that Tirpitz, just as a "Fleet in Being" kept off the top of my head atleast 1 CV, 2 BB's from the USN, and 2 Brit BB's as well, plus more cruisers than I can think of...tied up in port waiting for it to sortie...not to mention the fact that just thinking it would show up caused the disaster of PQ-17...yup, from some standards, the losses were vastly different from what they achieved.

But the Germans gained nothing from the Tirpitz.  They destroyed some of the enemies resources but they never used Tirpitz to gain any resources so the Tirpitz was always a drain on German resources.  Yes Tirpitz tied down Allied resources, but the Allies gained resources by committing to trapping the Tirpitz.  The resources the Allies used to trap the Tirpitz paid for itself by keeping most of their convoys protected.  The Soviets desperately needed resources and they got resources, while the Germans who desperately needed resources didn't.

Edited by Royeaux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,221
[WOLF3]
Members
19,351 posts
17,682 battles
1 hour ago, Purg473 said:

Considering the fact that Tirpitz, just as a "Fleet in Being" kept off the top of my head atleast 1 CV, 2 BB's from the USN, and 2 Brit BB's as well, plus more cruisers than I can think of...tied up in port waiting for it to sortie...not to mention the fact that just thinking it would show up caused the disaster of PQ-17...yup, from some standards, the losses were vastly different from what they achieved.

Tirpitz and the Kriegsmarine did nothing.  The US & RN weren't exactly short on ships, either.  They can camp the ships and it didn't hurt the war effort.  It sure as hell didn't scare the Allies:

Operation Torch

Image result for operation torch

Operation Husky

Image result for operation husky

Operation Overlord

Related image

Operation Dragoon

rivieraddayships.jpg

And no resistance by the Axis navies.

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,658
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,460 posts
12,810 battles
9 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

The fundamental flaw was going to war against the major powers of the world that had all the playing cards.

 

For the Germans, pound for pound, their U-Boats IMO were the most valuable and actually were a concern.  Everything else was wasteful, inefficient, complicated and poorly maintained.  Their tanks in particular.

That's gonna trigger some wehraboos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,032
[STW-M]
Members
2,967 posts
7,026 battles

Simply put, the Axis kind of were crippled economics-wise.

In regards to Nazi Germany's war machine, Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction does a fine job of deconstructing the German economy under the Nazi regime and how it was really like a house of cards. Simply put, it was built upon a war production economy that was unsustainable without conquering and looting other countries, and once Nazi Germany started losing the war, their economy also began to crack (and Allied bombing obviously had its effects).

Italy came into World War 2 severely underprepared in multiple ways stemming from economic depression, which translated into military deficiencies across multiple fields. This video does quite well at explaining it: 

As for Japan, although they didn't suffer as badly from the Great Depression, the fact that they were an island nation dependent on overseas holdings for natural resources was always a big weakness. Once the Allies started taking back Japanese holdings like the Philippines, interdicting Japanese merchant ships, and bombing Japan proper, their economy suffered accordingly.

When you're fighting three of the major world powers, one of which has a higher GDP than all three of your own alliance's biggest powers combined with these sort of weaknesses...let's just say it won't end well for you. Take Japan's ship construction rate against America's, and you can see how this disparity translates on the battlefield: 

 

 

Edited by Avenge_December_7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,221
[WOLF3]
Members
19,351 posts
17,682 battles
6 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

That's gonna trigger some wehraboos

It's the truth.  It didn't seem like a problem when they were using the Pzkpfw III and earlier models, but in the mad rush to push out Panthers and Tigers they were unreliable.  Then you had the sheer variety of AFVs needing all these different components, complicating maintenance and stressing an industry that already was way behind the power curve.  With the "Big Cat" Panzers, it all went to sh*t.

 

In contrast, the Soviets were relying a lot on the T-34 as a base for their tank forces.

The Allies made extensive use of the M4 Sherman, pumping out large numbers not only for American use, but for the rest of the Allies.  You even had Shermans being sent to the Soviets.

Spoiler

Image result for red army sherman

The Red Army had a few quibbles with the Sherman but they made good use of them.

Meanwhile you had broken down Panzers with no parts and sh*tty reliability.

 

People like to wank on the fantasy of a Tiger or Panther single-handedly destroy the Allied Armies, but the reality was there never was enough of them due to losses from combat and sh*tty maintenance.  Then there's the fuel issue on top of that.

Ah!  Fuel!  Some video about a German POW from the Afrika Korps that was taken to America.  He escaped and was at large for decades but he kept on living in the US.  Anyways, regarding fuel...

 

The Luftwaffe was decent off because they had 2 workhorse platforms, the Bf109 and the Fw190 and were producing them in good numbers for what their industry could do.  The Panzerwaffe was a wasteful black hole.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,747
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,557 posts
11,568 battles
17 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Were some of the strategies of the Axis Powers, particularly those of Germany more efficient in an economics war?

I don't really understand the question. Some individual strategies were more effective than others out of the 'economics war', overall whether waging war on economic systems was worthwhile is a difficult question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[FLS]
Alpha Tester
676 posts
3,111 battles

The Luftwaffe was the world's finest Air Force by the late 1930s and it was the Luftwaffe more than anything else that allowed Germany to steamroll Europe. They were building fighters and bombers by the hundreds before the western allies had even decided that Uncle Adolf wasn't going to hold up his end of the Munich agreement. The Luftwaffe and (to a lesser extent) the U-boat fleet were Germany's strongest strategic assets by far in 1939. Unfortunately for Germany, Uncle Adolf found fun and engaging ways to misuse both of them.

German tanks were overengineered, especially the later ones. While the Tigers and the Panther were technologically advanced, they were also complicated and expensive to build and, at least in the case of the panther, rather cramped and inefficient inside, which made it difficult for their crews to get the most out of them. The Panzer IV was the best German tank of the war, not the Panther, and certainly not either of the Tigers. But even the IV was not produced in nearly great enough numbers to combat the massive Allied armor superiority. The virtue of both the M4 and the T-34 was their relative simplicity and, in the case of the Sherman, excellent maintainability.

--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
584 posts

I mean, I'll ask the obvious question, why would Britain be in danger of losing WWII to U-Boats when the Japanese Navy was practically already at the bottom of the Pacific and Japan completely cut off from oversees trade (and thus the country was unable to feed itself) and yet the US still had to plan for Operation Downfall, 

bj5zk0.jpg

with estimated casualties between 1.7–4 million American casualties?  Why would Britain fold from a lack of supplies when it took nuclear weapons to get Japan to throw in the towel?

usmc-museum-map-wwii-operation-downfall.

Edited by Royeaux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,658
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,460 posts
12,810 battles
2 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

It's the truth.  It didn't seem like a problem when they were using the Pzkpfw III and earlier models, but in the mad rush to push out Panthers and Tigers they were unreliable.  Then you had the sheer variety of AFVs needing all these different components, complicating maintenance and stressing an industry that already was way behind the power curve.  With the "Big Cat" Panzers, it all went to sh*t.

 

In contrast, the Soviets were relying a lot on the T-34 as a base for their tank forces.

The Allies made extensive use of the M4 Sherman, pumping out large numbers not only for American use, but for the rest of the Allies.  You even had Shermans being sent to the Soviets.

  Reveal hidden contents

Image result for red army sherman

The Red Army had a few quibbles with the Sherman but they made good use of them.

Meanwhile you had broken down Panzers with no parts and sh*tty reliability.

 

People like to wank on the fantasy of a Tiger or Panther single-handedly destroy the Allied Armies, but the reality was there never was enough of them due to losses from combat and sh*tty maintenance.  Then there's the fuel issue on top of that.

Ah!  Fuel!  Some video about a German POW from the Afrika Korps that was taken to America.  He escaped and was at large for decades but he kept on living in the US.  Anyways, regarding fuel...

 

The Luftwaffe was decent off because they had 2 workhorse platforms, the Bf109 and the Fw190 and were producing them in good numbers for what their industry could do.  The Panzerwaffe was a wasteful black hole.

Oh I know.  I don't worship at the nazi altar like wehraboos do.  Did Germany have some good kit?  Yeah they did.  They also had some pretty poor kit.  For the war they ended up fighting, the money invested in tanks would have been better spent on StG44's.  BF109s are good, as are 190s.  I might rather /dogfight/ in them rather than a P51, but I am not certain I'd make that choice.  I wouldn't pick either one of them over a Spit.  Stuka was good in 1940.  I'm not certain I'd take it over an SBD, but for what it was it was OK.  In fact I am pretty sure I will take the SBD.

ME262 is not the world beater that wehraboos like to claim.  it was good in Early 1945, but had the war dragged on P80 will contest superiority.  The British Vampire was ordered into production in 1944, and would also give 262 problems.

German kit gets hyped a lot, but when you look at the details, you can usually see why the hype is misinformed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,747
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,557 posts
11,568 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

They also had some pretty poor kit.

Definitely. I find the saga of destroyer Z-15, Erich Steinbrinck from Koop and Schmolke to be a particularly bad example of reliability issues:

Spoiler

CO7kWWg.png

rOp1Cr0.png

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
335
[REVY]
Members
1,220 posts
8,781 battles
On 5/5/2019 at 1:53 AM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

The fundamental flaw was going to war against the major powers of the world that had all the playing cards.

 

For the Germans, pound for pound, their U-Boats IMO were the most valuable and actually were a concern.  Everything else was wasteful, inefficient, complicated and poorly maintained.  Their tanks in particular.

 

On 5/5/2019 at 11:14 AM, crzyhawk said:

That's gonna trigger some wehraboos

 

23 hours ago, thehelmsman said:

The Luftwaffe was the world's finest Air Force by the late 1930s and it was the Luftwaffe more than anything else that allowed Germany to steamroll Europe. They were building fighters and bombers by the hundreds before the western allies had even decided that Uncle Adolf wasn't going to hold up his end of the Munich agreement. The Luftwaffe and (to a lesser extent) the U-boat fleet were Germany's strongest strategic assets by far in 1939. Unfortunately for Germany, Uncle Adolf found fun and engaging ways to misuse both of them.

German tanks were overengineered, especially the later ones. While the Tigers and the Panther were technologically advanced, they were also complicated and expensive to build and, at least in the case of the panther, rather cramped and inefficient inside, which made it difficult for their crews to get the most out of them. The Panzer IV was the best German tank of the war, not the Panther, and certainly not either of the Tigers. But even the IV was not produced in nearly great enough numbers to combat the massive Allied armor superiority. The virtue of both the M4 and the T-34 was their relative simplicity and, in the case of the Sherman, excellent maintainability.

--Helms

^^  pretty much this.

The German tanks were very advanced and in most cases superior to anything the Allies had. The problem is that the Germans, essentially, tricked out their tanks. They had all sorts of bells and whistles and became complicated to build, and to maintain.

Soviet tanks, in comparison, were fairly simple to build, operate, and maintain. Most Soviet Tankers, even those from the farms, could repair their tanks and keep them mobile. The Germans really couldn't do that. US Tanks, like the Sherman, rolled off production lines in quantity. The German industry never really went to a full on war production like the US and UK. They were still churning out planes and tanks as if it was peacetime.

Then you had Hitler. Probably the greatest distraction to German war production there was. He wanted bigger, better tanks. Instead of simpler designs, they became larger, more complicated and consumed lot more resources building prototypes that would turn out to be duds.

Let's not forget about the Ratte. It was basically a land cruiser armed with a large twin 283mm gun turret, the same type of gun the Scharnhorst carries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
584 posts
4 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

 

^^  pretty much this.

The German tanks were very advanced and in most cases superior to anything the Allies had. The problem is that the Germans, essentially, tricked out their tanks. They had all sorts of bells and whistles and became complicated to build, and to maintain.

Soviet tanks, in comparison, were fairly simple to build, operate, and maintain. Most Soviet Tankers, even those from the farms, could repair their tanks and keep them mobile. The Germans really couldn't do that. US Tanks, like the Sherman, rolled off production lines in quantity. The German industry never really went to a full on war production like the US and UK. They were still churning out planes and tanks as if it was peacetime.

Then you had Hitler. Probably the greatest distraction to German war production there was. He wanted bigger, better tanks. Instead of simpler designs, they became larger, more complicated and consumed lot more resources building prototypes that would turn out to be duds.

Let's not forget about the Ratte. It was basically a land cruiser armed with a large twin 283mm gun turret, the same type of gun the Scharnhorst carries.

It's extremely easy to fall into the trap of developing a superior weapon instead of a war winning one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
217
[WOSV]
Members
578 posts
2,930 battles
On 5/5/2019 at 4:10 PM, Royeaux said:

I mean, I'll ask the obvious question, why would Britain be in danger of losing WWII to U-Boats when the Japanese Navy was practically already at the bottom of the Pacific and Japan completely cut off from oversees trade (and thus the country was unable to feed itself) and yet the US still had to plan for Operation Downfall, 

bj5zk0.jpg

with estimated casualties between 1.7–4 million American casualties?  Why would Britain fold from a lack of supplies when it took nuclear weapons to get Japan to throw in the towel?

usmc-museum-map-wwii-operation-downfall.

Well, if U-Boats did effectively cut off Britain from the rest of the world they would basically be a lame duck in the War effort, save for efforts by the RAF. It's not enough for surrender. Armistice, maybe, but nothing short of a successful invasion would trigger surrender. (yeah, this seems like a pretty obvious answer, doesn't it?)

However, if such an invasion were to happen, the Brits would be more likely to throw in the towel when they know they're beat. Japan wouldn't, and almost didn't. Britain still had a pretty healthy Air Force, and her citizens had only been bombed a short while. Also keep in mind that most of Britain is intact they still have a means of feeding their people and surviving. Japan was burned to the ground several times over by Summer of '45, and had almost nothing left to use. Because Imperial Japan was fanatic to a suicidal degree a full on invasion may have been necessary to end the war, or even complete annihilation. They routinely chose death (either direct suicide or suicide via American Soldier) over surrender. Now I have no doubt Britain would put up one helluva fight before throwing in the towel, but they would have done it sooner, as to preserve their people and culture. Something much of the Japanese High Command was more than willing to sacrifice to preserve their personal honor.

Heck, if Britain were in Japan's shoes, they would have said enough by late spring. Maybe even after the loss of the Philippines. No Navy, a shattered Air Force, and an exhausted Army against an enemy that now outnumbers you in equipment by a ridiculous margin, yeah, they'd have saw they were toast, and cut their losses.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that it's tricky comparing any other countries' decisions (especially a modern western country) to Imperial Japan. Nobody was like Japan at that time, and nobody even now is even remotely similar. No other country, if put in Japan's shoes in the Pacific War, would have let it get to the nukes. Not even close. Germany eventually quit when they lost their leader, but most of the troops were ready to call it quits. Japan would have still fought. If a losing scenario can possibly lead to annihilation, Japan would be the only one to get it there.

Edited by Halonut24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[FLS]
Alpha Tester
676 posts
3,111 battles
On 5/6/2019 at 4:55 PM, Lord_Slayer said:

The German industry never really went to a full on war production like the US and UK. They were still churning out planes and tanks as if it was peacetime.

German industry started to transition to war-time production in the mid 1930s; funding for this was provided by the MeFo bills (basically war bonds) passed in 1934. By the late 30s they had openly defied the restrictions of the Versailles treaty in order to gear up for the invasions of Poland and France. That's how they were able to build up the Luftwaffe in time to use it to dominate Europe. Even then, the vaunted German Panzerwaffe was still largely a myth at that point; the German tanks were of relatively small number and mediocre capability compared to even to those of the French, who, on paper at least, had the finest tanks (and the most formidable army in general) in the world in 1939. However, what the Germans did have in 1939 was the world's largest, and most experienced (courtesy of the Condor Legion) and modern air force, as well as an advanced (if unproven) armor doctrine which allowed them to exploit the tanks they had to great effect; the combination of these things allowed them to dictate the course of a new type of mobile warfare that, until that time, had never been seen. Even so, the victory in Europe came as much a surprise to the Germans themselves as anyone else; they had planned for the war against France to last for many months, if not several years. At any rate, the German tanks didn't really come into their own until the summer of 1941 and the invasion of the USSR, by which point the Germans' hold on western Europe, with its industry and resources, had solidified. By the end of 1941, their offensive in the USSR had been blunted, the Soviets had rallied, and the USA had declared war. After that, they were fighting a long, slow war of attrition.

When the USA entered the war at the end of 1941, we had almost no army, a large but relatively antiquated navy (bolstered by the construction of a few modern capital ships and escorts in the late 30s and early 40s), and a sliver of the air combat capacity that even Britain, which by that point had been at war for a full two years, could muster. The big question at that point was how the USA would go about transitioning to a wartime economy to equip its own armed forces for the task of defeating the Axis powers, in addition to serving as Roosevelt's "arsenal of democracy." What production we had going on at that point was mostly for allied nations anyway; P-40s, P-39s, M3 Lees, M3 and M5 Stewarts, early Shermans, etc were used in great numbers by the commonwealth nations and especially the Soviets while they waited for the US to commit to the war. Once we did, the task of rapidly creating a war-time manufacturing base was truly herculean; it was the greatest mass-mobilization in the history of the world, by far. By mid-1943 were out-producing the Germans in literally everything. Able to draw on huge manpower reserves, industrial expertise, and vast natural resources, and also able focus on raw production rather than needing to defend our factories (which were protected from our enemies by oceans), we were churning out tanks, small arms, ordnance, ships and planes in ever-increasing numbers while strategic bombing gradually wore Germany's and subsequently Japan's industrial base down to nothing.

--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
584 posts
8 hours ago, Halonut24 said:

Well, if U-Boats did effectively cut off Britain from the rest of the world they would basically be a lame duck in the War effort, save for efforts by the RAF. It's not enough for surrender. Armistice, maybe, but nothing short of a successful invasion would trigger surrender. (yeah, this seems like a pretty obvious answer, doesn't it?)

However, if such an invasion were to happen, the Brits would be more likely to throw in the towel when they know they're beat. Japan wouldn't, and almost didn't. Britain still had a pretty healthy Air Force, and her citizens had only been bombed a short while. Also keep in mind that most of Britain is intact they still have a means of feeding their people and surviving. Japan was burned to the ground several times over by Summer of '45, and had almost nothing left to use. Because Imperial Japan was fanatic to a suicidal degree a full on invasion may have been necessary to end the war, or even complete annihilation. They routinely chose death (either direct suicide or suicide via American Soldier) over surrender. Now I have no doubt Britain would put up one helluva fight before throwing in the towel, but they would have done it sooner, as to preserve their people and culture. Something much of the Japanese High Command was more than willing to sacrifice to preserve their personal honor.

Heck, if Britain were in Japan's shoes, they would have said enough by late spring. Maybe even after the loss of the Philippines. No Navy, a shattered Air Force, and an exhausted Army against an enemy that now outnumbers you in equipment by a ridiculous margin, yeah, they'd have saw they were toast, and cut their losses.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that it's tricky comparing any other countries' decisions (especially a modern western country) to Imperial Japan. Nobody was like Japan at that time, and nobody even now is even remotely similar. No other country, if put in Japan's shoes in the Pacific War, would have let it get to the nukes. Not even close. Germany eventually quit when they lost their leader, but most of the troops were ready to call it quits. Japan would have still fought. If a losing scenario can possibly lead to annihilation, Japan would be the only one to get it there.

The big difference is that Germany had no capability to sink the Royal Navy.  Even if they succeeded in sinking most of the merchant ships going to Britain, Royal Navy ships could just base elsewhere and return to smash up any kind of invasion attempt.  I get the impression the stakes of the Battle of the Atlantic have been greatly overblown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,858
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,277 posts
1,963 battles
On 5/7/2019 at 10:08 PM, thehelmsman said:

When the USA entered the war at the end of 1941, we had almost no army, a large but relatively antiquated navy (bolstered by the construction of a few modern capital ships and escorts in the late 30s and early 40s), and a sliver of the air combat capacity that even Britain, which by that point had been at war for a full two years, could muster. The big question at that point was how the USA would go about transitioning to a wartime economy to equip its own armed forces for the task of defeating the Axis powers, in addition to serving as Roosevelt's "arsenal of democracy." What production we had going on at that point was mostly for allied nations anyway; P-40s, P-39s, M3 Lees, M3 and M5 Stewarts, early Shermans, etc were used in great numbers by the commonwealth nations and especially the Soviets while they waited for the US to commit to the war. Once we did, the task of rapidly creating a war-time manufacturing base was truly herculean; it was the greatest mass-mobilization in the history of the world, by far. By mid-1943 were out-producing the Germans in literally everything. Able to draw on huge manpower reserves and vast natural resources, and focus on raw production rather than needing to defend our factories (which were protected from our enemies by oceans), we were churning out tanks, small arms, ordnance, ships and planes in ever-increasing numbers while strategic bombing gradually wore Germany's and subsequently Japan's industrial base down to nothing.

--Helms

The Americans benefitted from the needs of the British and French to make up shortfalls in their own industrial base, real or otherwise. 

This included the French funding of a new factory/production line for production of Curtiss H-75 fighter aircraft (much to the chagrin of French industry). Orders for the H-75 and other American aircraft that came to be in the last two years of the 1930s really helped the American aviation industry with regards to the coming war. 

Had things gone on longer, it is possible that other areas of American industry would have benefited too. For instance, the French were interested in ordering ~22 destroyers in order to make up their own shortfall in numbers of torpilleur d'escadre.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For security reasons, please do not provide your personal data or the personal data of a third party here because we might be unable to protect such data in accordance with the Wargaming Privacy Policy.

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×