Did the Axis have any chance at all in WWII?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Cavalcadeus
I know the local librarian fairly well. I'll try to talk her into finding me a copy.

How far are you willing to go to get a copy from her?

[David Floyd]

And is she hot??

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, if we assume 100-200,000 more Russian losses in 1941 (in Typhoon), and Moscow falling, these attacks are probably repulsed by the Germans.

I recommed you to read the memouirs of German generals who fought there, to understand the situation better. Tounderstand why they didn't won this battle.

Yes, and IMO the Germans had a much better grasp on fluid, mobile battle, hence their successful battles of Vernichtungsgedanke (encirclemant/annihilation) on the Eastern Front throughout the war.

Again, superior armies usaly won the wars not otherwise.

[David Floyd]

I recommed you to read the memouirs of German generals who fought there, to understand the situation better. Tounderstand why they didn't won this battle.

They didn't win for a variety of reasons, mainly (IMO) stemming from not taking Moscow in 1941and being ill prepared for Winter.

Again, superior armies usaly won the wars not otherwise.

The Russians won because of Lend-Lease, a second front (Africa, Italy, and France, emphasis on, believe it or not, Operation Torch), and superior numbers, in that order.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


They didn't win for a variety of reasons, mainly (IMO) stemming from not taking Moscow in 1941and being ill prepared for Winter.

Not only, read the books to understand the situation, the morale of German troops and the reasons of their defeat.

The Russians won because of Lend-Lease, a second front (Africa, Italy, and France, emphasis on, believe it or not, Operation Torch), and superior numbers, in that order.

Lend-Lease? As I said 3-5% of war material overall.
Second front?
Just compare the numbers:

November 1941. North Africa, Tobruk. Operation “Crusader”.
Offence- British forces: 6 divisions and 5 brigades. 118 000 soldiers overall.
Defense- AXIS forces: 3 German divisions 7 Italian divisions about 100 000 soldiers overall.

June 1941. Operation “Barbarossa”
Offence- German forces: 191 divisions, 5.500.500 soldiers overall, 4500 tanks, 47 200 artillery, 5000 planes and 192 ships.
Defense- Soviet forces: 179 divisions 3 000. 000 soldiers overall, 8800 tanks, 38 000 artillery, 7500 planes, 182 ships.

December 1941. Russia. Moscow’s counter-offense.
Offence Soviet forces: 1 100 000 soldiers, 774 tanks, 7 700 artillery, 1200 planes.
Defense German forces: 1 708 000 soldiers, 1170 tanks, 13 500 artillery, 700 planes.

It was the first big defeat of Wermacht. After successful Moscow’s battle and overall major counter-offence German forces lost 832 500 soldiers.
The harm done by Red army to Nazi in this ONLY ONE BATTLE is several times more then harm done by USA army during all war.

October 1942, Russian front.
German forces: 6 200 000 soldiers, 5080 tanks, 51 700 artillery, 3500 planes and 194 ships. Overall it was 71% of ALL German forces.
Soviet forces: 6 600 000, 735 tanks, 78 000 artillery, 4544 planes and more then 300 ships.
Within 6 month of Stalingrad’s battle (June 1942- February 1943) Nazi lost 1 500 000 soldiers.

October 1942 North Africa. Al-Alamen.
German forces: 80 000 soldiers, 540 tanks, 1200 artillery and 350 planes.
British forces: 230 000 soldiers, 1400 tanks, 2300 artillery and 1500 planes.
German casualties 55 000 soldiers.

I might continue this list but it’s too long, below the overall stat.
Within four years of war on Russian front Hitler’s army lost:
607 divisions more then 10 000 000 soldiers. It’s 80% of overall casualties.
48 000 tanks, 167 000 artillery and 77 000 planes. It’s 75% of overall military units lost.

About 27 millions of Russians sacrifice their lives for this victory, more then a half were civilians.

[David Floyd]

That's nice, but it's all irrelevant if Germany was able to take Moscow in 1942.

And, FYI, "Torch" had the effect of drawing German reserves and transport aircraft away from Stalingrad, where they were needed most. Without Torch, I think Manstein's nearly successful relief operation would have succeeded.

serb, no offense, but your main problem is judging the war in terms of numbers, when, quite frankly numbers had very little to do with it, at least before 1944-1945. It was a much closer run thing than you might think, and most serious students of history would agree.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's nice, but it's all irrelevant if Germany was able to take Moscow in 1942.

BUT they didn't took it. This is the most important thing. The rest is just speculations and Bullsh!t theories.

And, FYI, "Torch" had the effect of drawing German reserves and transport aircraft away from Stalingrad, where they were needed most. Without Torch, I think Manstein's nearly successful relief operation would have succeeded.

Then explain to me what is the meaning of military aliance in your difinition. As for me, allies should fight against the common enemy.
As for Africa, I read the memoirs of Rommel and his officers and I'm pretty sure that he was in hopeless situation. He cannot win there, because there was no proper support of his army, no fuel and reinforcements in needed numbers.

serb, no offense, but your main problem is judging the war in terms of numbers,

The explain to me how anyone can judge about the scale of war if he don't know the numbers?

when, quite frankly numbers had very little to do with it, at least before 1944-1945.

May be it's for you numbers was not important until you entered the war. For us numbers were important. In 1944 Germany lost majory of its manpower, lost on Russian front.

It was a much closer run thing than you might think, and most serious students of history would agree.

Agree with what?
That Hitler conqured France within 40 days and almost entire Europe within short period of time, but failed to conqure SU and was destroyed within 4 years? Which means that Red army was a crap as you beleive? To agree with that?
NEVER.

[DanS]

]"The rest is just speculations and Bullsh!t theories."

You were expecting something else on Apolyton?

serb, no offense, but your main problem is judging the war in terms of numbers, when, quite frankly numbers had very little to do with it, at least before 1944-1945."

Err... I have one word for you, DF. "Stalingrad"

[Az]

David Floyd: another interesting point is a theory by some Russian historians that Stalin was preparing to attack , himself, a fact tha could explain the construction of a number of airfields relatively very close to the 1941 border. If Hitler's attack was delayed for a couple of weeks, we could see a totally different picture now, with the Axis falling by 43'. again, This would depend on how things were on the diplomatic , amd military front in the west. and would the brits want to assist the SU. I am inclined to think so , after the fall of France , and , generally , western Europe, but Churchill's natural hatered towards communism could have offset it under certain sircumstances.

I want to ask you this : what were the numbers of soldiers and equipment that landed on D-Day , and the following week , including all allied units?

[Ramo]

As far as a German victory goes, I'd say that the surest bet would be conquering neutral Turkey, and then going after the Middle East. Avoid war with Russia as long as possible, and when you do, don't get yourself caught up in the Caucasus.

In the Britain campaign, Germany should've refrained from civilian bombing as much as possible. The highest priority is to knock out the RAF.

And don't declare war on the US!
______________

As far as Barbossa went, the Eastern war was probably lost by late '42. The the war degenarates that far, Germany's best bet was to cede much of what it annexed from Russia back to the Motherland and concentrate on the West.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Japan had a small conflict with Russia before WWII and were defeated

When?

Dammit! Would you read some related threads so I don't have to post the same info several times? Grrrr!

From May to September 1939, somewhere around the border of Outer Mongolia and Manchuria, the Soviets clashed with the Japanese. The result is the Japanese lost almost 20,000 out of 100,000 men committed to the campaign. The IJA got scared ****less by the Soviet military from then on.

[Az]

never heard about it . but from what I've seen from japanese ground military equipment , they had a good reason to be afraid.

[Serb]

Halkin-Gol 1939 god, pervaya pobeda Zhukova, chto pravda nikogda ne slyhal?

[Akka]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's nice, but it's all irrelevant if Germany was able to take Moscow in 1942.

And, FYI, "Torch" had the effect of drawing German reserves and transport aircraft away from Stalingrad, where they were needed most. Without Torch, I think Manstein's nearly successful relief operation would have succeeded.

serb, no offense, but your main problem is judging the war in terms of numbers, when, quite frankly numbers had very little to do with it, at least before 1944-1945. It was a much closer run thing than you might think, and most serious students of history would agree.

Your main problem is judging the war from such a caricatural american point of view.
As I already said : from the winter 1942-1943 to the end of the war, Russians rolled back Germans. Opening a new front was important, but even without it USSR would have crushed Germany. Torch and the same were marginal, and just ensured a faster collapse of Germans.

[Urban Ranger]

Yeah, the 1939 campaign marked the rise of Zhukov, who was the commander of the Soviet forces.


DF,

Quantity becomes a quality in itself in the harsh streets of urban warfare. There, determination to kill the enemy is just as important as experience on the battlefield.