The German Army...

[stona]

I think that is a very valid point. Whilst the Germans were seeking to develop a mobile form of offensive warfare, avoiding the pit falls of WW1, their principal continental opponent, which was of course France, not Britain, was developing almost the exact opposite, based on a defensive mind set.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Marcel]

True. I would have used 'a movement for appeasement' rather than 'pacifist movements' but I know what you mean and English is my first language

You're right, especially with the British, but pacifism was also a big part in many countries. Here in the Netherlands we had "het gebroken geweertje" (the broken little rifle) en "geen cent voor defensie" (not a penny for defence) movements. People didn't want the army and detested the ones that served. This led to cutting on army funds until right into 1937, after which only sparsely money could be made free for rearmament. By then it was too late and we only could try to get what others didn't want to have. Also many years people were hardly trained, so our whole army was a big club of untrained amateurs. The groups that were good, like our airforce were far too small and usually had second rate equipment. No wonder we only lasted for 5 days. I'm pretty sure it was the same with many other countries like Belgium, Norway and others.

 

[parsifal]

This last bit is debateable and I'd have to look at the figures. The actual German submarine fleet never came close to sinking enough shipping to cause that, I remember posting the figures a while back, despite Churchill's much quoted view.

As for the rest I pretty much agree.

Cheers

Steve

There are not direct correlations I agree, because the laws of diminishing returns apply. However, with an average at sea force of just 6 boats in the western approaches in the Summer and autumn of 1940, the Germans were able to sink (from memory, ill stand corrected), about 400000 tons of shipping per month. They had managed to save or enlist about 4.5 million tons of neutral shipping from occupied Europe since the beginning of the war, but these sources were drying up.

To survive, and maintain a minimum defensive capability at home the British needed 10 million tons. thats debateable, but its the figure generally acceptedby by most people. However, to retain the economies of her allies, and retain a presence in north Africa and overseas, she needed another 7 million tons. this was still a minimal, defensive level. . To retain good relations with the south Americans and other neutrals, she needed about 1 million more tons. these figures are based on the excellent work done by SG Sturmey on Allied Shipping in WWII. Its not based in any way on Churchills questionable comments.

From the above, we have a minimum figure of shipping for defensive operations of 18 million tons. as the war progressed, things did change. for instance, the Americans made availble greater and greater proportions of their merchant fleet for operations in the Atlantic, the Pan American defensive arrangements, decreased the needs of the neutrals on shipping and other similar arrangements. but in the dark days of 1940, the British needed a minimum figure of about 18 million tons, just to maintain their then current world situation.

By Summer 1940, the British had already lost 850000 tons of shipping but had acquired about 4.5 million tons. Thus, on the eve of the first critical offensive, they had access to about 26 million tons of shipping. that is a comfortable margin, but it rapidly got worse. In the period September 1940 to March 1941, they managed to lose about 4 million tons, with the average U-Boat number on station never exceeding 12 boats. that does not include U-Boats deploying or returning. To maintain 6 Boats on station, they needed about 27 boats in commission. With larger numbers in commission the numbers on station appear to have increased, not in a linear fashion, but more as a curved shapoed graph (increasing efficiency with greater numbers). With 90 Boats in commission (roughly the number available at the beginning of the second happy time) , the Germans were able to keep on station about 30 Boats. However with that average of 30 boats, sinkings increased from 564 ships (in 1940, to just under 1500 ships in 1942, and tonnages increased from 3.5 million tons to about 8 million tons. The US entry affceted this greatly, but in 1940, the Brits had problems of their own, which meant that every U-Boat added to the fleet at that time would more or less be a direct correlation in terms of tonnage increases.


if the Germqans had entered the war with 100 boats instead of 57 in 1939, and added 100 additional boats by the end of 1940, instead of 35 that they did (give or take....Ive lent my copy of Sturmey), one can reasonably expect tonnages to increase to June 1940 to around 1.5 milion tons, and tonnages to March 1941 to around 9 million tons. That reduces tonnage availablity to a dangerous level. About 14 million tons. Thats not enough to retain even minimum defensive needs, though Britiain itself would not yet be starving. RN overseas deployments are at risk, middle east deployment levels by that stage would be in crisis. the econoimies of Austalia, NZ, the Far east, and India are all in crisis. There would be absoulutely no chance of aid to Russia once she entered. Australia, for example would be unable to maintain their military committments. Britain, in fact is now in an untenable position

There are a lot of variable difficult to quantify, but saying or claiming the U-Boats were not a serious threat, to the point of being able to win the war, is just the stuff of misinformation. And is im afraid, in direct contradiction to some very well placed opinions and forecasts, and smacks of post war revisionism to me.

 

[silence]

Jim Dunnigan some years ago did a study on motivation. Why is it that the german Army, was so successful when armies like the Italians, which had a very similar military sytem for mobilzation and training , was so unsuccessful. Nationalism, and propaganda has very little to do with it. Those issues get people into the army, it doesnt make them good soldiers. At the end of the day, the important manpower issues psychologically are the desire to survive, and trust you have in your leaders. In the Italian army there was this enormous gulf between the men and their officers. Trust was zero. The soldiers were trained okay, but they just didnt believe the army would save them. the result is that they tend3ed to throw their arms up in surrender a lot. The heer did not suffer from this. Their soldiers were better educated, which in itself made them more effective, but there was not a huge gap between officers and their men. The men believed in their officers, and the ratio of officers (including NCOs) to enlisted ranks was fairly high. This meant the unit retained cohesion even when under stress, and the men kept fighting even when taking casualties.

What's the title of that book? It could be a very significant source for my planned master's thesis.

 

[silence]

One of the earliest mistakes made by the Germans was in their Naval Construction. They set their sights on a massive building plan that in the end came to nothing, because war came too early, and in any event was still not enough to overtake the British Navy. Building submarines, prewar, instead of the Heavy Cruisers, Battlecruisers, and the two dreadnoughts was a better optioon. And permissible under the Anglo German Naval Treaty of 1935.

Clause 6 of the treaty stipulated that "In the matter of submarines, however, Germany, while not exceeding the ratio of 35:100 in respect of total tonnage, shall have the right to possess a submarine tonnage equal to the total submarine tonnage possessed by the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The German Government, however, undertake that, except in the circumstances indicated in the immediately following sentence, Germany's submarine tonnage shall not exceed 45 percent. of the total of that possessed by the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The German Government reserve the right, in the event of a situation arising, which in their opinion, makes it necessary for Germany to avail herself of her right to a percentage of submarine tonnage exceeding the 45 per cent. above mentioned, to give notice this effect to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and agree that the matter shall be the subject of friendly discussion before the German Government exercise that right".

in 1921 the Royal Navy had 83 submarines. by 1935, only 23 of these remained in service, but by 1939, the RN had 103 subs in commission. If the Germans had not built their cruisers, Battleships and aircraft carriers, they would have freed about 300000 tons of naval construction and around 15000 naval personnel afloat. Roughly, that would have given them the tonnage to build and man up to 300 subs. if they had elected to not build the aircraft carriers (alone), they would have freed sufficient tonnage to build another 60 subs. 60 subs was well within their treaty obligations. If they had not built the carriers or the heavy cruisers, they could have gone to war with 120 subs, and have had about 80 additional subs being completed 1939-40. A submarine fleet of those proportions would have destroyed the British ability to resist, and forced them to th peace table

I think this treaty was later amended to allow Germany 100% of the RN Sub force, but I may be wrong.

As mentioned previously the KM surface fleet was more of a fleet-in-being, and the enemy originally envisioned was France, not the RN (don't ask me how they planned to pull that off). The Dunquerkes were built to counter the Deutschlands, the Scharnhorsts to counter the Dunquerkes, etc. The Z-plan, while not being of a size with the RN, would have been an all-modern fleet with a (necessarily) huge range advantage over the RN capital ships save perhaps the planned Lions (not sure and too lazy to look it up). Even as a fleet-in-being look at what the RN kept ready in case Tirpitz tried to break out, or the size of the force sent to take Scharnhorst a Christmas present. Heck, look at what was sent out against Bismarck. Overreaction or just stacking the deck?

But had the KM focused on subs, then the RN would have been free to focus on ASW ships rather than perhaps upgrading the QEs and Rs and building the KGVs. I can well imagine the RN having many more destroyers and small carriers with the tonnage freed up from not building the KGVs. Also a lot of money could have been saved by simply NOT having to develop the 14/45 gun. Maybe this money could have gone towards RN Aviation. On the flip side, a focus on subs may mean that when war kicked off the German torpedoes would already have been troubleshot and worked as intended from the start.

And I'm gonna stop now before I do any more what'ifs and counter-what-ifs.

And who knows? Maybe Hood would now be a museum ship; that would be quite grand.

 

[parsifal]

What's the title of that book? It could be a very significant source for my planned master's thesis.

Its not a book as such, though I think he later wrote a book and included his study in that publication.

It was a military simulation called 'Campaign For North Africa" written by Al Nofi, Richard Berg and Jim Dunnigan. It is a simulation used at Sandhurst andf Duntroon until fairly recently and fights the North African campaign at company level. It takes 10 participants more than two year to fight 2.5 years of actual fighting.

The actual article that this appears in is some of the supporting material. Its an essay entitled "Historical Notes", 16 pages.

Nofi has gone on to work for a Defence think tank in the US , and Dunnigan I believe worked for many years for the Pentagon as a senior analyst. Not exactly sure what Bergie is doing these days


Some links thqat might be helpful

James F. Dunnigan

Richard Berg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.russgifford.net/MovesScans/Moves49/CNAGPM49.pdf

Albert Nofi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over the years ive met and spoken to these guys a number of times. Whilst the material they produce are often referred to as games, and in reality they are games, to be played, it is a better description to call them Simulations I think, and the research they do to underpin their sims is as good or better than most publications. these giys are at the cutting edge of military theory and military history, or were....they are getting on a bit now......

 

[fastmongrel]

It takes 10 participants more than two year to fight 2.5 years of actual fighting.

I hope thats a typo

 

[silence]

Its not a book as such, though I think he later wrote a book and included his study in that publication.

It was a military simulation called 'Campaign For North Africa" written by Al Nofi, Richard Berg and Jim Dunnigan. It is a simulation used at Sandhurst andf Duntroon until fairly recently and fights the North African campaign at company level. It takes 10 participants more than two year to fight 2.5 years of actual fighting.

The actual article that this appears in is some of the supporting material. Its an essay entitled "Historical Notes", 16 pages.

Nofi has gone on to work for a Defence think tank in the US , and Dunnigan I believe worked for many years for the Pentagon as a senior analyst. Not exactly sure what Bergie is doing these days


Some links thqat might be helpful

James F. Dunnigan

Richard Berg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.russgifford.net/MovesScans/Moves49/CNAGPM49.pdf

Albert Nofi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over the years ive met and spoken to these guys a number of times. Whilst the material they produce are often referred to as games, and in reality they are games, to be played, it is a better description to call them Simulations I think, and the research they do to underpin their sims is as good or better than most publications. these giys are at the cutting edge of military theory and military history, or were....they are getting on a bit now......

Cool! Thank you!

BTW, have you read "A Genius for War" by DuPuy?

 

[parsifal]

I hope thats a typo

Nope thats correct. calling this a game doesnt do it justice. its about as close as commercial stuff gets to the military sims used to work out actual tactics. And really, unplayavle to be honest, unless the people are just about certifiable.

ive played it.

 

[parsifal]

Cool! Thank you!

BTW, have you read "A Genius for War" by DuPuy?

No, i havent. but books by Trevor Dupuy that i have read...

Understanding War: Military History And The Theory Of Combat, New York, 1986
Understanding Defeat: How to Recover from Loss in Battle to Gain Victory in War, New York, 1990
Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties And Equipment Losses In Modern War, Virginia, 1990
If War Comes, How To Defeat Saddam Hussein, Virginia, 1991; issued as a paperback with the title How To Defeat Saddam Hussein
Future Wars: The World's Most Dangerous Flashpoints, New York, 1992


The guy Im talking abouyt was a decorated retired US Colonel.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That was not the question and the intention of the thread!
The thread starter asked explicit after the german military.
As always, if the topic German pop up, you always will foward your agenda of anti german biases, equal of the thread intention, essential anti-german!
Perhaps you should sit in a plane and visit this country, but I bet you don't have the nuts to do it, because your biases and view of the world got crashed!

Here we go again, same old **** again.

Jesus Christ this is getting old.

Don't even bother with another whining PM either.

 

[DonL]

Here we go again, same old **** again.

Jesus Christ this is getting old.

Don't even bother with another whining PM either.

I'm sick of this, I have never whined!
Read the thread from the beginning and the questions of the thread starter!


Ich habe echt die Schnauze voll!
Lies bitte den ersten Post, die Fragen und was Lucky 13 wissen wollte.

Ich heule nicht, ich bin es nur schrecklich leid, dass Parsifal jeden Thread so gestalten kann wie er es gerne möchte, und die Regeln interessieren ihn einen Scheissdreck, Hauptsache er kann seine übliche Agenda ablassen. Es ist vielleicht besser, dass ich gehe, weil anscheinend bin ich hier der Störenfried.

Bevor du mich rügst, oder beschimpfst/lächerlich machst, solltest du mich entweder rausschmeißen, oder nachprüfen was ich geschrieben habe und warum!

Er hat hier Narrenfreiheit, egal was er schreibt und in welchem Thread er es schreibt.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'm sick of this, I have never whined!
Read the thread from the beginning and the questions of the thread starter!


Ich habe echt die Schnauze voll!
Lies den ersten Post, die Fragen und was Lucky 13 wissen wollte.

Ich heule nicht, ich bin es nur schrecklich leid, dass Parsifal jeden Thread so gestalten kann wie er es gerne möchte, und die Regeln interessieren ihn einen Scheissdreck,
Hauptsache er kann seine übliche Agenda ablassen. Es ist vielleicht besser das ich gehe, weil anscheinend bin ich hier der Störenfried.

Bevor du mich rügst, oder beschimpfst/lächerlich machst, solltest du mich entweder rausschmeissen, oder nachprüfen was ich geschrieben habe und warum!

Er hat hier Narrenfreiheit, egal was er schreibt und in welchem Thread er es schreibt.

Jemand könnte furzen, und Sie würden denken, es ist ein Anti Deutsch Agenda.

So viel wie Parsifal kotzt mich an, das einzige, was falsch mit seiner Beiträge waren die Tatsache, dass Sie dir nicht gefahlen haben. Alles nur, weil Sie denken, alles ist ein Angriff auf Deutschland.

Sie sind von allem beleidigt.

Die Tür ist offen, wenn es dir nicht gefaehlt.

Excuse my German, it has sort of gone down hill since moving to the United States and speaking English all day.

 

[DonL]

Das ist eine völlig falsche Interpretation!

Ich habe nicht die geringsten Probleme mit Parsifals Argumenten, sie sind richtig!

Nur waren sie in diesem Thread nicht gefragt!

Lucky 13 wollte wissen warum das deutsche Militär am Anfang so erfolgreich war und nicht warum sie den Krieg verloren haben

It is a wrong interpretation.

I have not any problems with Parsifals argumentation, they are mostly correct and I have written it more then one time.

The problem is, this arguments were not ask at this thread.

Lucky wanted to know, why the german Army was such successfull at the beginning of the war and not why they lost the war.
That's are totaly different questions and issues.

 

[pattle]

Order Gentlemen please!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lucky wanted to know, why the german Army was such successfull at the beginning of the war and not why they lost the war.
That's are totaly different questions and issues.

It is a fricken discussion! How many discussions stay completely true to the question??? That is what happens on a forum. One question or discussion leads to a complete other one. Get over it!

Don L, you obviously don't understand how a forum works. People discuss topics, they are not going to always stay on the exact form or topic. As long as they are relevant, we let the discussion continue. YOU DONL DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION, AND THEN GET IN A TEMPERTANTRUM LIKE A KINDERGARTNER.

If you don't think it is relevant, then just ignore it and don't respond to it. You attacking them over it, just destroys the whole thread, which is exactly what has happened now. Instead of discussing the topic, you have a person who is offended by anything they don't agree with just arguing with a moderator! Great addition to the topic huh? I bet everyone is learning something...

1. This argument is over. Period!

2. If you don't like it, then move on!

This thread has been detracted enough! Get back on topic, or get out. Simple as that. It is always the same two people. Parsifal likes to bait people in the hope of drawing them into an argument (Which pisses me off, and will get him banned eventually. He knows it as well...), You whine because someone is anti German just because they don't think everything German was gods greatest thing since sliced bread and butter.

Quit it!

Now, get this thread back on topic, everyone quit your bitching. Damn it feels like a Kindergarten in here.

And another thread is ruined! Thanks...

 

[DonL]

You are partly right!

I have a real problem with your claim that I'm a real and only german biased bonehead.
You have written in an other thread about the german USA friendship at Stuttgart, I was part of it at the end of the 1990's begining 2000's, through my friendship with Mr and Mrs. Griesinger (perhaps you know them) and I don't want to be only german biased.

I thought I have read many history books; I thought I'm not a german bonehead, but certain people aggravate my trigger points and things get out of control through my temper.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Did I not say, the argument was over? To get back on topic? You are bone headed!

If I have to go over this again, you will be shown the door.

 

[pattle]

Did I not say, the argument was over? To get back on topic? You are bone headed!

If I have to go over this again, you will be shown the door.

I don't want to take sides here but the way you are speaking to DonL is bloody shocking, you are supposed to be a moderator but yet you resort to personal insults and have also contradicted yourself in a number of areas. Just because you are a moderator it does not give you the right to speak to people as though they are dirt and act like a tyrant.

 

[GrauGeist]

Hmmmmm