Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WHAT IF THE ALLIES HAD NEVER INVADED?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Hitler's War = from Magenheimer, besides, the strength from the WM outside the Soviet front is common knowledge .

    And yes, the units I have mentioned were the only who were sent to Tunesia : 5th PzArmy had only the strength of a AC .

    Between april and may 1943 the Germans lost 130000 men in NA : LW not included, but the units of Rommel were included .

    And yes : Superga was the only Italian division of the 5th PzArmy :this is mentioned in a lot of sources .
    It's "common knowlege", yet you appear not to know it. So you now claim that the Germans lost 130,000 men in Tunisia, not including Luftwaffe, but "the units of Rommel were included". Below you claim that the strength of the 5th Panzer Army was less than 60,000. So you're claiming that "the units of Rommel" amounted to over 70,000 German troops? That's rather surprising, considering that he retreated from El Alamein with only about 5,000. So according to you 65,000 reinforcements were sent to "the units of Rommel" somewhere along the way from El Alamein to Tunisia.

    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    From WW2 Stats

    Strength of the units of the 5th PzArmy on 1 april 1943 (including reinforcements sent later) : 58834.

    The units of the 5th PzArmy were

    10 PzD

    334 ID

    von Manteuffel (some 5000 men)

    999 (some 6000 men)
    Yes, however you're completely ignoring the Italian 1st Army, which also fought in Tunisia.


    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Wrong : 1O PzD belonged to OBW and if there was no Torch, it would remain in the West.

    The same for the German forces sent to Italy before and after the Allied landing : essentially they belonged to OBW.The SS PzKorps was sent to the north of Italy after the allied landing and as soon as possible it returned to the east .

    Even without Overlord,the division stationed on the Anglo-Norman islands (319 ID) would remain there .

    If there was an influence of a ToO on an other one ,it was that of the east on the west,and this also was very limited .
    The 10th Panzer fought in Poland 1939, France 1940 and Barbarossa 1941. It was then sent to France to act as reserve and recover from heavy losses it suffered in the east. It was then sent to Tunisia after Torch where it eventually surrendered. So basically it was moved around to various fronts, where it was needed. Yet you claim that it would have remained in the west (which it did at no point during the war) regardless of the fact that there were no Allied invasions in the west and regardless of what was happening on the eastern front.

    So according to you, the Germans, and Axis allies, would simply have accumulated massive numbers of reinforcements and replacements, fuel and ammo that were historically expended / lost fighting against the Torch, Husky, Avalanche, Shingle, Overlord, Dragoon et al landings and stockpiled them there while the Soviets defeated German armies in the east and occupied Germany. The Germans (nor their allies) would not at any point have sent any of those additional forces or supplies to the east to help stave off defeat. Really, your facts are in error, your logic flawed so it should not come as any surprise that your conclusions make little sense.

    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Thus the usual claim that ....
    You've repeated accused me of not addressing the question in the OP, and now you finish with a rant about what you claim is "the usual claim". In other words another strawman you've constructed, which you then address with your usual sweeping inaccurate statements. Congrats?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
      It's "common knowlege", yet you appear not to know it. So you now claim that the Germans lost 130,000 men in Tunisia, not including Luftwaffe, but "the units of Rommel were included". Below you claim that the strength of the 5th Panzer Army was less than 60,000. So you're claiming that "the units of Rommel" amounted to over 70,000 German troops? That's rather surprising, considering that he retreated from El Alamein with only about 5,000. So according to you 65,000 reinforcements were sent to "the units of Rommel" somewhere along the way from El Alamein to Tunisia.








      The 10th Panzer fought in Poland 1939, France 1940 and Barbarossa 1941. It was then sent to France to act as reserve and recover from heavy losses it suffered in the east. It was then sent to Tunisia after Torch where it eventually surrendered. So basically it was moved around to various fronts, where it was needed. Yet you claim that it would have remained in the west (which it did at no point during the war) regardless of the fact that there were no Allied invasions in the west and regardless of what was happening on the eastern front.

      So according to you, the Germans, and Axis allies, would simply have accumulated massive numbers of reinforcements and replacements, fuel and ammo that were historically expended / lost fighting against the Torch, Husky, Avalanche, Shingle, Overlord, Dragoon et al landings and stockpiled them there while the Soviets defeated German armies in the east and occupied Germany. The Germans (nor their allies) would not at any point have sent any of those additional forces or supplies to the east to help stave off defeat. Really, your facts are in error, your logic flawed so it should not come as any surprise that your conclusions make little sense.

      1) I see : At Alamein Rommel had 4 divisions : 15 and 21 PZ and 90 and 164 ID and you are saying that he escaped with 5000 men only ?

      You also fail to understand a basic factor,which is that the forces at Alamein were only a part of the Afrika Korps,a big part of the AK were supply units stationed far away from the front . Without these supply units,Rommel never could have retreated to Tunesia with 5000 men .

      2) YES : the forces outside the east were needed to prevent a succesful allied landing,without these forces the allies would walk to Berlin .

      Between june 41 and june 42 the strength of these forces remained essentially stable, they did not decrease,and between june 42 and june 44 the strength of these forces increased .

      Before Overlord,the strength of the Westheer was increasing .Before = without .

      Comment


      • #33
        German strength at Alamein bis : 50000 (source :Playfair P 30) ,losses : 13000.

        This means that Rommel escaped with 37000 men,not 5000.The 5000 is probably a combat strength

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ljadw View Post
          German strength at Alamein bis : 50000 (source :Playfair P 30) ,losses : 13000.

          This means that Rommel escaped with 37000 men,not 5000.The 5000 is probably a combat strength
          You're talking about the immediate battlefield losses. When Rommel retreated a great many troops could not get away due to lack of transports. However, even if one were to accept your figure of 37,000 you're still way off from your claim above of 130,000 Germans lost in Tunisia and the 5th Panzer Army having fewer than 60,000. That and you've still failed to count the Italian 1st Army in Tunisia. What actually got away from El Alamein made up only a small portion of what was ultimately lost in Tunisia. But then you've got this simplistic view of 'units' as fixed blocks that don't change over time. If a 1,000 man cadre was all that was left of a division when it retreated to Tunisia, and it was brought back up to near full strength with replacements sent to Tunisia then those are still forces that were sent to Tunisia and would still not have been lost if there had not been a Tunisian Campaign.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
            1) I see : At Alamein Rommel had 4 divisions : 15 and 21 PZ and 90 and 164 ID and you are saying that he escaped with 5000 men only ?

            You also fail to understand a basic factor,which is that the forces at Alamein were only a part of the Afrika Korps,a big part of the AK were supply units stationed far away from the front . Without these supply units,Rommel never could have retreated to Tunesia with 5000 men .

            2) YES : the forces outside the east were needed to prevent a succesful allied landing,without these forces the allies would walk to Berlin .

            Between june 41 and june 42 the strength of these forces remained essentially stable, they did not decrease,and between june 42 and june 44 the strength of these forces increased .

            Before Overlord,the strength of the Westheer was increasing .Before = without .
            "You also fail to understand a basic factor,which is that the forces at Alamein were only a part of the Afrika Korps,a big part of the AK were supply units stationed far away from the front . Without these supply units,Rommel never could have retreated to Tunesia with 5000 men ."

            So now you're claiming that Rommel had an additional 35,000 German troops that were part of the Afrika Korps but not at El Alamein? I'd have to see some evidence (not Irving) to back up that incredible claim.

            "Between june 41 and june 42 the strength of these forces remained essentially stable, they did not decrease,and between june 42 and june 44 the strength of these forces increased ."

            Well, from June '41 to June '42 there were no Allied invasions that would change the historical to the alt scenario. The only difference then would be supplies historically delivered to the Soviet Union during that period would not be in the alt scenario. But then no one has claimed any radical change would have taken place during that period in the alt. scenario.

            As for June '42 to June '44, the Germans suffered heavy losses in Tunisia, Sicily, Italian mainland and subsequently in Normandy (and later, i.e. August, in South France) fighting Allied invasions which would not be taking place in the alt scenario. Those losses were made good, and then some, historically. Given that in the alt scenario those losses would not be suffered, all of those forces that replaced and reinforced the German forces in France, Italy and Tunisia would be saved, and available to be employed elsewhere. That is the huge flaw in your argument, which you appear incapable of comprehending.

            Comment


            • #36
              These forces would not be available to be used elsewhere .

              There was no allied landing in Norway and yet there were 13 German divisions in Norway.

              There was no allied landing in Yugoslawia and Greece and yet there were in the autumn of 1943 10 German divisions in the Balkans .

              There was no allied landing in Normandy in may 1944 and yet in may 1944,PL,HJ,2 Pz were stationed in North West France;if there was no allied landing in june,these 3 divisions still would be stationed in France, if there was no landing in september,october,november,etc,these divisions still would be in France .

              There was no allied landing in the South of France in may 1944 and still there were German divisions in that region .

              There was no allied landing in Sicily in june 1943 and still there were in that island several German divisions .

              Etc

              Conclusion : the stationing of German forces outside the SU was independent from an allied landing .

              No allied landing does not mean that the west will lose forces to the benefit of the east,and an allied landing will not mean that the east will lose forces to the benefit of the west .

              In both cases everything will remain as it was in the OTL .

              An other exemple : my house is secured by an alarm and locks, not because I have had the visit of a burglar,but to prevent the visit of a burglar,if next year I still will not be visited by a burglar,I will not throw away my alarm and locks.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                "You also fail to understand a basic factor,which is that the forces at Alamein were only a part of the Afrika Korps,a big part of the AK were supply units stationed far away from the front . Without these supply units,Rommel never could have retreated to Tunesia with 5000 men ."

                So now you're claiming that Rommel had an additional 35,000 German troops that were part of the Afrika Korps but not at El Alamein? I'd have to see some evidence (not Irving) to back up that incredible claim.

                Why do you refuse to believe this ?

                On 31 may 1944,the US had 640.635 field forces (20 divisions) in the UK and 366310 service troops:field forces : 64 %,service forces : 36 %

                Why would the German supply forces not be 40 % of the total (35000 of 85000) ?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                  These forces would not be available to be used elsewhere .

                  There was no allied landing in Norway and yet there were 13 German divisions in Norway.

                  There was no allied landing in Yugoslawia and Greece and yet there were in the autumn of 1943 10 German divisions in the Balkans .

                  There was no allied landing in Normandy in may 1944 and yet in may 1944,PL,HJ,2 Pz were stationed in North West France;if there was no allied landing in june,these 3 divisions still would be stationed in France, if there was no landing in september,october,november,etc,these divisions still would be in France .

                  There was no allied landing in the South of France in may 1944 and still there were German divisions in that region .

                  There was no allied landing in Sicily in june 1943 and still there were in that island several German divisions .

                  Etc

                  Conclusion : the stationing of German forces outside the SU was independent from an allied landing .

                  No allied landing does not mean that the west will lose forces to the benefit of the east,and an allied landing will not mean that the east will lose forces to the benefit of the west .

                  In both cases everything will remain as it was in the OTL .

                  An other exemple : my house is secured by an alarm and locks, not because I have had the visit of a burglar,but to prevent the visit of a burglar,if next year I still will not be visited by a burglar,I will not throw away my alarm and locks.
                  Again you're simply counting divisions as if they're fix 'blocks' that don't change and don't require resources regardless of what they're doing or what happens to them. If a division sits in garrison, doesn't fight or move around much and doesn't suffer combat casualties, then it requires one level of resources (food/water, routine replacement parts etc.). If a unit is manoeuvering in combat, expending ammo and suffering heavy losses which need to be replaced then it requires a much higher level of resources. You are simple mindedly claiming that there's no difference between the resources because in each case there's 1 division involved.

                  The better example is if your house is burglarized, and many of your possessions stolen, you take money out of your bank account and buy new possessions. You're burglarized again, more money out of the account and you replace everything again. Now you're claiming that there is no difference whether or not the burglaries occurred because your house is still there full of your possessions. But your bank account tells a different story. Further, you claim that if the burglaries had not taken place you would have just left the money in your account and never spent it on anything else. So for example if your car was written off in a collision, you would not have spent that money on replacing your car.
                  Last edited by deadkenny; 15 Jun 15, 13:07.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                    Why do you refuse to believe this ?

                    On 31 may 1944,the US had 640.635 field forces (20 divisions) in the UK and 366310 service troops:field forces : 64 %,service forces : 36 %

                    Why would the German supply forces not be 40 % of the total (35000 of 85000) ?
                    Well, the Germans did not have the same level of logistical support as the US. Certainly not all of them, not even a tiny proportion, would have been in North Africa. The UK was not the end objective for the US forces, it was a staging base for the invasion of France. But it is interesting that you apparently believe that it is true that the DAK had as many as 35,000 additional German troops in Libya when second El Alamein was fought.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Neither of you fellas ...

                      ... are taking into account, the number of SS men taking the Prinz-Albrecht-Straße junket to Tunis, to learn belly dancing from the pros! Widely endorsed by German Health Care professionals, the health benefits of Belly Dancing were well known, it was all the rage in the Wehrmacht at the time as well, but absenteeism due to belly dance training at the best Sousse Dance Clubs was particularly rife throughout the Schutzstaffel!


                      "I am Groot"
                      - Groot

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                        Well, the Germans did not have the same level of logistical support as the US. Certainly not all of them, not even a tiny proportion, would have been in North Africa. The UK was not the end objective for the US forces, it was a staging base for the invasion of France. But it is interesting that you apparently believe that it is true that the DAK had as many as 35,000 additional German troops in Libya when second El Alamein was fought.
                        It is very simple to calculate the "non 5 PzArmy " forces :

                        before Alamein : field forces : 50000,minus the Alamein losses (13000) = 37000.

                        These 37000 men suffered also losses between Alamein and april 43,of which there are no figures available,but a minimum would be 2000.

                        Remaining in april : 35000

                        In april the army forces (without the LW/KM) were 130000 of which 63000 of 5 PZA,THUS 67000 for "Rommel",of which 35000 field forces and 32000 forces of supply .

                        If there were in april 32000 non combat troops ,there were in november 35000 non combat troops .

                        QED

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                          Again you're simply counting divisions as if they're fix 'blocks' that don't change and don't require resources regardless of what they're doing or what happens to them. If a division sits in garrison, doesn't fight or move around much and doesn't suffer combat casualties, then it requires one level of resources (food/water, routine replacement parts etc.). If a unit is manoeuvering in combat, expending ammo and suffering heavy losses which need to be replaced then it requires a much higher level of resources. You are simple mindedly claiming that there's no difference between the resources because in each case there's 1 division involved.

                          The better example is if your house is burglarized, and many of your possessions stolen, you take money out of your bank account and buy new possessions. You're burglarized again, more money out of the account and you replace everything again. Now you're claiming that there is no difference whether or not the burglaries occurred because your house is still there full of your possessions. But your bank account tells a different story. Further, you claim that if the burglaries had not taken place you would have just left the money in your account and never spent it on anything else. So for example if your car was written off in a collision, you would not have spent that money on replacing your car.
                          NO : the OP was : what would happen when the allies never had invaded? (insinuating that more men and resources would have gone to the east).The OP is not :what was the effect of the allied landings on the eastern front ?

                          The answer on the OP is : when there was no allied landing ,there was a buil-up to prevent an allied landing and if the allied landings never had happened,there still would be a build-up:if Overlord had not happened,the build-up in France would continue ,the PzD would not go to the east .

                          Thus : landing or not,in both cases the east would not benefit

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                            It is very simple to calculate the "non 5 PzArmy " forces :

                            before Alamein : field forces : 50000,minus the Alamein losses (13000) = 37000.

                            These 37000 men suffered also losses between Alamein and april 43,of which there are no figures available,but a minimum would be 2000.

                            Remaining in april : 35000

                            In april the army forces (without the LW/KM) were 130000 of which 63000 of 5 PZA,THUS 67000 for "Rommel",of which 35000 field forces and 32000 forces of supply .

                            If there were in april 32000 non combat troops ,there were in november 35000 non combat troops .

                            QED
                            What you stated previously was : "Strength of the units of the 5th PzArmy on 1 april 1943 (including reinforcements sent later) : 58834."

                            So previously you had the 5th Panzer Army at under 59,000, "including reinforcements sent later". However I note that you now have it at 63,000 in your post above. So there's +4,000 for the 5th Panzer right there. However, you're still left with finding another 67,000 German troops from Rommel's force to make up the remainder of the 130,000 Germans who surrendered at the end of the Tunisian Campaign. So you take the 37,000 supposed left at the end of El Alamein and simply conjure a completely fictitious figure of 2,000 losses as Rommel retreated from El Alamein to Tunisia and conjure an equally fictitious figure of 32,000 additional German "supply" troops already in Libya / Egypt but not at El Alamein.

                            What this clearly demonstrates is that you have zero credibility in such matters, and are simply making up completely ridiculous figures in order to avoid admitting that those additional forces were in fact sent to Tunisia, not already in North Africa with Rommel's forces. There were additional Italian forces, but certainly no where near that number of additional German troops. And the figure you give for Rommel's losses in the pursuit from El Alamein of 2,000 is equally ridiculous (although exact figures are hard to get, it is clear that the actual figure is much higher). The simple fact is, easily verifiable from any reputable source, that over 100,000 German troops were sent to Tunisia. Rommel's forces retreating from Egypt / Libya did not contribute anywhere near the numbers you've claimed.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                              NO : the OP was : what would happen when the allies never had invaded? (insinuating that more men and resources would have gone to the east).The OP is not :what was the effect of the allied landings on the eastern front ?

                              The answer on the OP is : when there was no allied landing ,there was a buil-up to prevent an allied landing and if the allied landings never had happened,there still would be a build-up:if Overlord had not happened,the build-up in France would continue ,the PzD would not go to the east .

                              Thus : landing or not,in both cases the east would not benefit
                              No the question was (quoted from the OP):

                              Originally posted by EastFront View Post
                              ...I have a related QUESTION (sorry if it's been debated elsewhere): What if the Allies had not invaded Nazi territories? Would the Soviets STILL have been able to beat them head-to-head?....
                              Only you, in your bizzaro world fantasy land believe that the absence of any Allies invasions of Nazi (occupied) territory would have no effect on the course of the war in the east. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Germans would have prevailed, but your argument of no impact at all, no additional resources etc. is non-sense pure and simple.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                                What you stated previously was : "Strength of the units of the 5th PzArmy on 1 april 1943 (including reinforcements sent later) : 58834."

                                So previously you had the 5th Panzer Army at under 59,000, "including reinforcements sent later". However I note that you now have it at 63,000 in your post above. So there's +4,000 for the 5th Panzer right there. However, you're still left with finding another 67,000 German troops from Rommel's force to make up the remainder of the 130,000 Germans who surrendered at the end of the Tunisian Campaign. So you take the 37,000 supposed left at the end of El Alamein and simply conjure a completely fictitious figure of 2,000 losses as Rommel retreated from El Alamein to Tunisia and conjure an equally fictitious figure of 32,000 additional German "supply" troops already in Libya / Egypt but not at El Alamein.

                                What this clearly demonstrates is that you have zero credibility in such matters, and are simply making up completely ridiculous figures in order to avoid admitting that those additional forces were in fact sent to Tunisia, not already in North Africa with Rommel's forces. There were additional Italian forces, but certainly no where near that number of additional German troops. And the figure you give for Rommel's losses in the pursuit from El Alamein of 2,000 is equally ridiculous (although exact figures are hard to get, it is clear that the actual figure is much higher). The simple fact is, easily verifiable from any reputable source, that over 100,000 German troops were sent to Tunisia. Rommel's forces retreating from Egypt / Libya did not contribute anywhere near the numbers you've claimed.
                                What is your reputable source ? An English one ?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X