Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could the British and Soviets have defeated the Germans alone?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    El Alamein pretty much demonstrated that the Axis could not build a line strong enough to hold 8th Army.
    IMO it just demonstrated that the Axis could not build a line strong enough to hold 8th Army... at El Alamein. Which was very far from Axis supply ports and very close to British supplies.
    It does not tell anything about a defence line some 2000km further west...
    One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hanov View Post
      IMO it just demonstrated that the Axis could not build a line strong enough to hold 8th Army... at El Alamein. Which was very far from Axis supply ports and very close to British supplies.
      It does not tell anything about a defence line some 2000km further west...
      Being far away from their ports also means keeping the British far away from their ports.



      As you can tell (Dicembre) Tripoli was not enough to keep the Axis supplied.

      Montgomery paused for about 4 weeks at Agheila to ensure he had the supplies to get through to Tripoli. Rommel, wisely, decided to retire to Tunisia first.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by KDF33 View Post

        No, it had five. Besides, AFAIK British bombing caused little problems to Axis port operations. Do you have any evidence contradicting this?
        Wellington Squadrons, RAF Middle East October '42:
        38, 221, 458 (RAAF), 37, 70, 104. 148, 40, 104
        So nine squadrons (and a couple of detachments). But also two squadrons of Liberators, a squadron and a detachment of Halifaxes and the USAAF had the equivalent of 3 squadrons of Liberators.

        The Italians wanted to Rommel to stop using Tobruk as a port because of the air attacks, does that count?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
          The Axis position in Africa was doomed. Being able to use the ports of Tunis and Bizerte extended their hold but only for a couple of months tops.
          Yes. Quite simply the Italian Navy's fuel supply precluded using Tripoli as a significant destination port after December 1942. Sadkovich's book has a table of Italian naval fuel stocks and delivery. In January 1942 they had 141,000 tons and received enough (~700,000 thoughout the year) tons to keep Libya supplied. In January 1943 they only had 57,000 tons of stock. 60,000 tons a month were required for convoy duty when Libya was a destination.

          The ability to use Bizerte and Tunis as destinations and the shorter shipping distance and corresponding fuel savings is what saved the Axis position from collapse in early 1943.

          The idea that "massive reinforcements" as well as sufficient supplies could be poured into Libya in late 1942/early 1943 is laughable.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by KDF33 View Post
            Yet again, you brush aside the fact that the RAF interdiction campaign never stopped Axis supplies from reaching North Africa. You are seriously overestimating it's effects.



            Do you know how far Tobruk is from, say, El Agheila or Sirte? In the latter case, it's comparable to the distance between Benghazi and Alamein.



            No, it had five. Besides, AFAIK British bombing caused little problems to Axis port operations. Do you have any evidence contradicting this?



            The context between the two operations is so different that this basic comparison between outcomes is worthless.



            Actually, it didn't. What it did show is that an Axis army stretched out into the desert, starved of supplies and facing a more numerous opponent couldn't hold. A larger force, fighting close to it's supply bases, wouldn't face the same problems.



            Apart from mere opinion, do you have any data to support this assertion?

            Regards,

            KDF
            Hi KDF & Gooner

            Both of you have overlooked the desert railway, which was extended from its terminus (approximately Mersa Metruh) to almost Tobruk during the course of the desert campaign. While it suffered some damage during the seesaw campaign of 1942, it was repaired and extended at a phenomenal rate once the British began advancing again. It was the principal logistical umbilical for the eighth army.

            Comment


            • The desert railway was expanded past Tobruk during the British advance of late 1942?

              I didn't know that.

              Thanks,

              KDF

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                This for the Exorcist.

                This issue hasn't been raised, but if you read the last line (bolded and blue), and that is CAN British and Soviets defeat GERMANY and its ALLIES to me and anyone else this must include THE JAPANESE EMPIRE (sorry for the shouting) as Japan was a full ally, she must included so how in the hell can the British waging war against the European Axis and on top of that against the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy , if you thought it is worse with Toch and the lack of ships without the USA it is bloody catastrophic when the Imperial Japanese Navy destroys the Royal Navy without any interference from the USA.

                Also once the Japanese has the Dutch East Indies oil under its control, how much would be diverted to Rommel in North Africa, several million barrels i would gather, not only that but imagine two or three Imperial Japanese Carrier taskforces in the Indian Ocean, cutting off all supplies to the British in the Middle East. The British are screwed.

                Then progressively the Suez Canal becomes open for the IJN and then what, i'll tell you what happen the IJN will eventually operate in the North Atlantic with 6 Fleet Carriers and Battleships, Heavy Cruisers and dripping with covering destroyers interdicting convoys, the Entire Axis batters the British into Unconditional Surrender by mid 1942, Britian loses all her empire in the Asia Pacific region (Australia and New Zealand are German protectorates).

                Seeing this the US annexes the Carribean into the Commonwealth of the USA, Canada will most likely break up with Quebec being the first province to break away and declare its allegiance to France, territorially the USA comes out better with many of the Canadian provenices seeking to join the Union.

                Not a very good outcome.
                I read the title of the thread "Could the British and Soviets have defeated the Germans alone " the scenario was expanded by stating that participation of the Japanese Empire could be disregarded as they had completed a modus vivendi with the USA and therefore the attack on Pearl Harbor did not take place.

                Therefore the Tokyo was not allied to Berlin and Rome:- unless of course, I've missed a modification of this scenario in the interim.

                Given this misreading of the terms of the argument, I will press the debate in the other direction by reviving the British /Japanese pact of 1902 . Therefore, Japanese troops would be invited to assist with the security of Hong Kong and Singapore, thus releasing British, Indian and ANZAC forces for the war in Europe.
                Last edited by BELGRAVE; 14 Nov 13, 18:04.
                "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                Samuel Johnson.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                  I read the title of the thread "Could the British and Soviets have defeated the Germans alone " the scenario was expanded by stating that participation of the Japanese Empire could be disregarded as they had completed a modus vivendi with the USA and therefore the attack on Pearl Harbor did not take place.

                  Therefore the Tokyo was not allied to Berlin and Rome:- unless of course, I've missed a modification of this scenario in the interim.

                  Given this misreading of the terms of the argument, I will press the debate in the other direction by reviving the British /Japanese pact of 1902 . Therefore, Japanese troops would be invited to assist with the security of Hong Kong and Singapore, thus releasing British, Indian and ANZAC forces for the war in Europe.
                  Their are two issues that need to considered.

                  1, Britian turns a blind eye at what is happening in China and Manchuria.

                  2, Prime Minister Billy Hughes racist conduct after the war concerning the Japanese where he blunderbusted that the Japanese were racially inferior to the whole white race. Which was echoed by the British and USA post WW1 in dealings with Japan.

                  Unfortunately this is not gonna happen and the status quo still prevails.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by KDF33 View Post
                    Your interpretation of the bolded part of Philip's text is invalidated by it's non-bolded part.

                    Regards,

                    KDF
                    The way i see it is two ways Japan and the British Empire are at war, or they aren't. Either way it still correct

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                      Wellington Squadrons, RAF Middle East October '42:
                      38, 221, 458 (RAAF), 37, 70, 104. 148, 40, 104
                      So nine squadrons (and a couple of detachments). But also two squadrons of Liberators, a squadron and a detachment of Halifaxes and the USAAF had the equivalent of 3 squadrons of Liberators.

                      The Italians wanted to Rommel to stop using Tobruk as a port because of the air attacks, does that count?
                      So take out the three squadrons of USAAF Liberators and their Escorts.

                      Can you please list where those Wellington Squadrons were based and also can you provided the % of sevicable aircraft.

                      Thanx

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by KDF33 View Post
                        The desert railway was expanded past Tobruk during the British advance of late 1942?
                        It wasn't AFAIK.

                        The railway shifted an expected average of 2,200 tons a day to Tobruk. Benghazi was expected to handle 2,380 tons a day but due to terrible weather averaged only 1,800 tons a day in January '43.

                        The army possessed 52 General Transport companies each of 300 tons lift. Of these 13 were carrying supplies from Tobruk to Benghazi, 27 were stocking roadheads west of Benghazi and the remainder were serving the Corps directly or on misc. duties.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                          Their are two issues that need to considered.

                          1, Britian turns a blind eye at what is happening in China and Manchuria.

                          2, Prime Minister Billy Hughes racist conduct after the war concerning the Japanese where he blunderbusted that the Japanese were racially inferior to the whole white race. Which was echoed by the British and USA post WW1 in dealings with Japan.

                          Unfortunately this is not gonna happen and the status quo still prevails.
                          1.So Britain turns a "blind eye to what is happening in China and Manchuria". There's little that could be done about it anyway.

                          2. The extension of the Anglo-Japanese Pact is no more a fantasy than the Japanese NOT attacking Pearl Harbor.
                          "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                          Samuel Johnson.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                            The way i see it is two ways Japan and the British Empire are at war, or they aren't. Either way it still correct
                            No, sorry. The "Terms of Reference" of this thread specifically excludes participation by the Japanese Empire. The goalposts can't be moved just to suit the convenience of a particular point-of-view.
                            "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                            Samuel Johnson.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                              No, sorry. The "Terms of Reference" of this thread specifically excludes participation by the Japanese Empire. The goalposts can't be moved just to suit the convenience of a particular point-of-view.
                              Ah crap, you are right, how could i miss that, facepalm on it's way.

                              Thanks for the correction.

                              Cheers mate.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X