Who here wants the German's to win? I have not seen a single person to indicate they wanted that.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Amazing the number if people who want Nazis to win WWII. Mindboggling.
And you can try and get your point across without being an ass. Knock it off with the snide and snarky comments.
Japan was even more fanatically resistant.
The article only lists the US Merchant Marine deaths. Germans ran out of supply capacity in 1942, which is not the same as running out of fuel. The 15,000 aircraft strength Luftwaffe is supposed to consume 60% of 2 years of world oil supply, if this consumption were true there is no way the USAAF and RAF could have reached their wartime strengths. Try 60% of world aviation fuel production in a peacetime situation.Source: Oil and War | Defense.info).
From Carey Sublette on Nuclear weapons. Shipment for a third bomb core for use against Japan began shipment (but was recalled before leaving Los Alamos) on 11 August 1945, before the Japanese surrender. A fourth core might have been available before the end of the month. There were a couple of thousand tons of unprocessed ore on hand, and Canadian mines were going in to production, so that nothing could have interrupted U.S. supply.It took me about an hour to dig up the declassified report from the British intelligence about the effectiveness of the nuclear bombs that the British were building in 1950, and I also provided statistics.
Napoleon found Germany a simple place to invade. After that the German military went through significant changes and created system that was much better at finding and using better ideas. There has always been a shifting balance between the power of defence and offence and remember WWI on the eastern front saw a lot of movement, in the west the rail system meant troops could be sent from long distances to plug gaps. In WWII the Heer understood decision times had to be improved to match the faster speeds of motorised troops, for much of the war it could take action much faster than opponents. In the east this was compounded by the Red Army's lack of radios, try fighter combat without a radio versus a force that has them, tanks similar, stories of Germans dropping in behind formations and working their way up to the leaders. The German system was brilliant at tactical and grand tactical, and way behind in strategic, including logistics, not surprising given the geographical situation, lots of possible enemies close by.Why was the German military so effective against enemies that outnumbered and outgunned them?
Using the USSBS German Avgas consumption by the military in the second half of 1941 was over 100,000 tons per month on average, from around 140,000 tons in July to 80,000 tons in December and above production from March to November. Military petrol consumption was over 150,000 tons per month on average, from around 250,000 tons in June to 110,000 in November.Then I reiterate in 1941 Keitel wrote that the Wehrmacht would require 400,000 tons of fuel more to run at full strength. In that year they consumed 9,997,051 tons, so 400,000 x 12 = 4,800,000, so the demand was for 14,8 million tons. This means even in 41/42, when they still thought they were winning, they only had 67% of the oil they needed to run at full capacity.
Luftwaffe training times were superior to the RAF to sometime in 1942, fell behind the western allies in 1943 and became about half the time 1943/44 and more significantly a third to a fifth on operational types. It became worse from mid 1944 on. Part of this was fuel but most to mid 1944 was due to the losses being taken, including aircraft, remember the early Luftwaffe idea was the fourth Gruppe in each Geschwader was operational training and attrition in the east was low enough flying there could substitute for final training in theory.This lead to cut backs, so pilots and tanks drivers got less training hours, aircraft only flew when absolutely necessary, and horses were used instead of trucks.
All sides came up with better designs during the war, along with some really bad ones, picking out the best of one side without noting the failures does not help. The Tiger tank was not a quick to produce item, the Panther seems to have been cheaper than the Panzer IV, the V-1 highly cost effective, the V-2 a near total waste. Implying the situation in late 1944 into 1945 applies to earlier time periods destroys the claims. There was a lot of waste in the early war aircraft production system, including senior pilots being able to ask for custom fittings.Let's go back to production. What the Germans tried to do was to 1) build weapons that were highly effective & quick to produce like the Panzerfaust 150/250, the MG 45 or the Sturmgewehr, or 3) build equipment that was of such high quality (or effectiveness in a combat situation) that one unit would be worth several units of the enemy.
No I posted General Halder's report on German casualties and Krivosheev's figures for prisoners taken by the USSR. The US Army in the ETO reports 552,117 casualties June 1944 to May 1945. So you want to increase the effectiveness of the German resistance by at least 4 times. By the way 100% of the German tank force was lost, similar for aircraft. I have never tallied the percentage of aircraft in the RAF or USAAF lost in the war but it will be large, similar for their tank forces. Like all statistics be sure about what is being counted.But here I was reacting to you asking "How exactly does the western front get to millions of U.S. casualties?". Well, by being more sucessful on the battlefield. Remember that "casualties" doesn't mean "soldiers killed".
Speaking about "soldiers killed" G Geoffrey Sinclair posted Krivosheev's numbers for Red Army-soldiers killed.
The Japanese super cabinet, the "Big Six" split in half from early 1945 over whether to continue the war, no one changed their votes, by custom the Emperor did not speak at the meetings, but at the key meeting the Foreign Minister asked for an opinion, which was for peace, and the people present obeyed though parts of the army tried its usual armed rebellion.I am not familiar with the japanese ideology in WW2, but I doubt Hirohito was more fanatical than Hitler.
That's a very unamerican thing to say
Pretty simple, have them discover Matzen and Schoonebeek oil fields before or early in the war. Combined they had a peak output of something like 4.5 million tons of oil per year.Many moons ago, @davebender made a thread about alleviating the German fuel situation. Perhaps we can give it a second look now?
Of interest is the avgas, gasoline and diesel fuel for military trucks, subs and cars, as well as what to do with fuel required for civilian use (industry, transportation, agriculture).
A realistic approach is appreciated, ie. no 'future sends to Germans 100 fuel-laden tankers in 1939' etc.
The issue with mining more coal was lack of food due to the blockade of Europe. The Germans noted that worker productivity in those heavy labor jobs fell directly due to calorie intact going down. All the coal in the world isn't going to help without sufficient labor or labor fed well enough to work hard. And of course you need some method to convert it to useful fuel if it won't be burned as is. Steam power add ons for motor vehicles takes resources and things were already quite zero-sum.One can try to make comparison with jet-powered aircraft and their fuel consumption (not that I'm claiming that a methanol-fueled piston engine can match a half-decent ww2 jet in propulsive power and other advantages). Eg. Me 262 carried about 1000-1250L (about 250-300 US gals) of fuel per engine, it was still a fairly short-ranged fighter. Or, the Fw proposal jet conversion of the Fw 190, whose obvious addition was a new fuel tank with almost 900 L of fuel, in order to cater for 1170 L/h fuel consumption (endurance of 1.2 hr).
Methanol is also less flamable than gasoline, something that matters in military operations.
However, main German fossil fuel was coal - perhaps jumping on the steam-powered trucks bandwagon for non-combat transport applications would've released a lot of fuel to the combat units? There was a good deal of coal was also abundant in most of the countries that bordered with Germany, like Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, let alone in Ukraine (far easier to capture than the oil fields of Baku).
I've seen it elsewhere and I tune it out. I have not seen it here.Who here wants the German's to win? I have not seen a single person to indicate they wanted that.
The issue with mining more coal was lack of food due to the blockade of Europe. The Germans noted that worker productivity in those heavy labor jobs fell directly due to calorie intact going down. All the coal in the world isn't going to help without sufficient labor or labor fed well enough to work hard. And of course you need some method to convert it to useful fuel if it won't be burned as is. Steam power add ons for motor vehicles takes resources and things were already quite zero-sum.
At the margins perhaps using more wood in aircraft pre-war to lower fuel consumption and increase speed? Perhaps they figure out densified wood production?
New densified wood is as strong as steel
ENGINEERS at the University of Maryland have developed a way to make wood more than ten times stronger, creating a low-cost and lightweight alternative to most metals and alloys.www.thechemicalengineer.com
Then I reiterate in 1941 Keitel wrote that the Wehrmacht would require 400,000 tons of fuel more to run at full strength. In that year they consumed 9,997,051 tons, so 400,000 x 12 = 4,800,000, so the demand was for 14,8 million tons. This means even in 41/42, when they still thought they were winning, they only had 67% of the oil they needed to run at full capacity.
I am not familiar with the japanese ideology in WW2, but I doubt Hirohito was more fanatical than Hitler.
Reducing Horses in Agriculture and elsewhere, frees up around 1/3 of the acreage used for Fodder to be repurposed for Food crops.Pretty simple, have them discover Matzen and Schoonebeek oil fields before or early in the war. Combined they had a peak output of something like 4.5 million tons of oil per year.
The issue with mining more coal was lack of food due to the blockade of Europe. The Germans noted that worker productivity in those heavy labor jobs fell directly due to calorie intact going down. All the coal in the world isn't going to help without sufficient labor or labor fed well enough to work hard. And of course you need some method to convert it to useful fuel if it won't be burned as is. Steam power add ons for motor vehicles takes resources and things were already quite zero-sum.
At the margins perhaps using more wood in aircraft pre-war to lower fuel consumption and increase speed? Perhaps they figure out densified wood production?
New densified wood is as strong as steel
ENGINEERS at the University of Maryland have developed a way to make wood more than ten times stronger, creating a low-cost and lightweight alternative to most metals and alloys.www.thechemicalengineer.com
But here I was reacting to you asking "How exactly does the western front get to millions of U.S. casualties?". Well, by being more sucessful on the battlefield. Remember that "casualties" doesn't mean "soldiers killed".
Btw, we are talking about oil here.
Whenever I see an opening line like that, with none of the data I presented refuted I know I am inconveniently correct. And there is no fact checking, instead extension of the prisoner take numbers into the post war period, when they were no longer classified as PoW.Just a short message, you bring up some numbers that need "fact checking".
So 7,590,000 in the Wehrmacht on 1 May 1945, and the western allies end up with 9 million prisoners, remembering they shipped many earlier prisoners to North America, where to the extra 1,400 personnel come from?"Eisenhower had anticipated capturing 3 million German soldiers on the continent. The actual total was as many as ca. 5 million in American hands in June (7,6 million in allied hands in north-western Europe alone, not counting the 1,4 million in Allied hands in Italy). "
On page 141 Rüdiger Overmans writes "Drafted into the Wehrmacht (including Waffen-SS): 17,893,200. Wounded and sick in military hospitals: 700,000. Discharged for employment in weapons industry: ca. 2,000,000. Permanently unfit for service: 438,000. Discharged for miscellaneous reasons: 1,630,000. Dead up unti Nov. 30 1944: 1,911,000. Missing or POW: 1,714,000. Wehrmacht, including Waffen-SS, as of May 1, 1945: 7,590,000"
The short version of what the German strength in Ob. West was. Two data points exist for 1 March:The reason why I brought up the numbers of POWs taken was that Germany still had a substantial force. So "how would they have quadrupled the US losses" - by putting up a fight.
Good to know you want me to go away.You bring up a lot of interesting info, but for the discussion here a lot of it is minutiae, and if you start arguing over details, you tend to lose the thread.
I post a list of problems with the report, a reply comes 3 hours later ignoring the problems, So if 15,000 aircraft did really need 2 years of world oil supply how did the USAAF and RAF individually operate those sorts of numbers, 4 plus years of world oil production which meant around 5 years of allied controlled production, each year? Personally I prefer the economics presented by Williamson Murray.Here's the thing: look at the resumee of the author of the defense.info article. Sorry, I don't have any reason not to believe him.
As for Keitel what is the break down between the various arms of the Wehrmacht, how does having more fuel help the maintenance situation? And how do the Heer tank status and Luftwaffe aircraft status reports fit in with the idea of more fuel, versus more spare parts, replacements and mechanics?I don't have any reason not to believe Keitel, or the branch of the British intelligence agency that write the report I copied.
Perhaps it would be good then to note almost none of the people you are quoting nor yourself satisfy your criteria, meantime I am quoting contemporary documents..When it comes to making a choice who to believe, then I prefer those that actually lived through WW2.
The Germans were doing scorched earth as they retreated, including in Germany. Then comes what happened in the final days, were the routine orders continued but largely not done (like the orders to destroy Paris), a special order was issued but ignored, a special order was blocked by Speer, no special order was issued. Your idea of proof is nothing in the final testament, which means only things mentioned in that document actually existed or happened. Hitler is considered to have written that comprehensively, do not consult other sources.I don't know why you bring up the "Nero order", but it is 100% nonsense, probably made up by Albert Speer. Nothing of that is mentioned in Hitler testament, which is confirmed as 100% authentic:
And the majority of those as defined by the Nazis were German speakers once you take out Britain.The "master race" were neither Germans nor "blond people", but Aryans.
You devoted an entire message without mentioning it, coming up with criteria for credibility which you and most of the sources you quote fail.Btw, we are talking about oil here.
All the coal in the world isn't going to help without sufficient labor or labor fed well enough to work hard. And of course you need some method to convert it to useful fuel if it won't be burned as is. Steam power add ons for motor vehicles takes resources and things were already quite zero-sum.
I've seen it elsewhere and I tune it out. I have not seen it here.
Now some more about the effectiveness of weapons. The US military adopted the M1 Garand because they found out that a semi-automatic rifle is 2,5 times more effective than a bolt action rifle. Soldiers were ordered to shoot for 4 minutes at a target which was 25 yards away. Soldiers with an M1 Garand fired on average 689 times and hit 576 times (83,6%), and soldiers with a Springfield 364 times and scored 246 times (67,58%) . . .
You get it. They had a lot figured out.
A major problem was morale. A lot of German soldiers thought "they have tanks that drive, we don't, they have aircraft, we don't, this sucks, let's surrender". I studied history and something which is a combination of sociology, political science and economics, so I tend to always look at the human factor. I am not an engineer, for me a firearm or a machine is a tool. An army with a low morale but top tier weaponry will lose against an army with worse weapons but a great morale. There are many stories of German tankers who were hiding their tanks because they were afraid of getting a bomb on their roof as soon as they revealed their position. So there you go, tanks and airplanes also have a psychological effect. The mass surrender and also the lack of the "fanaticism" that Hitler imagined is a result of the lack of morale, and this saved American and British lives.
I don't care if you are a moderator. I haven't insulted anyone and nobody feels insulted. If you want to ban me because you are on a power-trip, go ahead, I'll be fine.
El grande moderatore will probably ban me now anyway.
This actually true.more guns does NOT necessarily equal more impact.