Was the Med really a waste??

[Salvadoreno]

After doing a bit of research and getting some good info, i believe that if the med was commited to faster, Rommel and his Afrika Corp might have been saved. With more effort from the Italians to open ports and workup facilities even a small commitment of uboats could have done some considerable damaged in mid 1940s. Just look what happened when the uboats were sent to the med, it was always seen as a "diversion"of boats but in a matter of a few weeks, a battleship and important carrier were sunk. Of course a few uboatts were lost in the crossing of gibratlar, for the most part the boats made it safely. The North Atlantic at the time was a losing battle, coastal command and escorts were growing stronger and stronger and wolfpacks werent doing near as much damage as in the previous years.
Still with the 20 or so uboats in the med there was still enough in the North Atlantic to wage a decent war at sea. Plus with an earlier commitment of uboats in the med, churchill and king and the rest of the naval officers would have had to reorganize their strategies for escorts/commitment of warships/and allocation of resources. Eventually i believe the war in the med would have been lost, but it would hve taken some time along with resources from the "vital" North Atlantic run. Britian would have been strecthed BEYOND their limits with an earlier commitment of med boats. THe type IX in the south atlantic, the VIICs in the North Atlantic, the Ducks in the CHannels, and UBoats in the Med.
Im talking mid to late 1940s when there was enough uboats for this task. An allocation of 2-3 IXs in the South Atlanic, the 10-20 boats in the Noth Atlantic, the Ducks in the North Channel, the artic was absolutely useless and i believe a BIG waste of uboats-so none in the artic, and just a few uboats in the med, like 9-10. All together thats about 43 uboats casuing hell in all theatres. I believe that was about the # of combat ready uboats at the time. Specialy in the late 1940s.
I posted this because i was sick and tired of hearing every1 saying how uselss and worthless the Med War was. It ACHIEVED some GREAT results in the opening phase. Ark Royal the carrier in the med was destroyed, resulting in another group tasked to the Med just because the presence of uboots. More destroyers for escort in the mid 1940s late 1940s would take resources britian DIDNT have. Somewhere there would be a hole in the defense, wether in the NOrth Atlantic of Med, without the escorts uboots would cause utter havoc, as seen earlier in the war. Wutcha think??

[blue3golf]

Even if the tonnage was not massive in the Med just the fact that they were there meant stretching your forces beyond just the atlantic like you said and that is the key. Even if you don't win that portion of the war it makes the focus of the uboat campaign (the british lifeline from the rest of the world) a little easier to achieve while still getting results in that part of the world as well. Sometimes you have to give a little to get alot.

[Letum]

Talking about waste....you should really re-size you signiture pic

[lesrae]

Congratulations on the huge sig :lol:

[Salvadoreno]

Congratulations on the huge sig :lol:

nice... i try to argue a point.. and u talk about my sig.. nice...

[micky1up]

the answer to the question is yes it was if rommels afriika corp where available for the babarossa campaign instead of fighting in the med the outcome of babarossa may have been different im also sure that rommels tatical influence would have made a massive difference

[Dowly]

Congratulations on the huge sig :lol:

nice... i try to argue a point.. and u talk about my sig.. nice...

Sorry to continue about your sig, but it really is too big! :doh:

[STEED]

the answer to the question is yes it was if rommels afriika corp where available for the babarossa campaign instead of fighting in the med the outcome of babarossa may have been different im also sure that rommels tatical influence would have made a massive difference

Rubbish the situation in Russia would still had been the same result, it comes down to logistics at the start of Barbarossa only one third of the German army was motorised unlike the SS Einsatzgruppen which was fully motorised and the fact they failed to take Moscow. Hitler took over running the war doing it his way and lost the gamble.

Field Marshal-General Erich Von Mainstein, wrote about his defeat at Stalingrad after the war: “In winter 1942 I realized that we would not win in the war against the Soviet Union. We failed to maintain the far-stretching front in Russia. I understood the Soviet troops would finally crush us, moving step by step”.

Logistics again Russia has a massive man power.

In 1943 when the German army was on the defensive and what dose Hitler do he launched that debacle operation at Kursk. As for Rommel he would have been sacked just like all the rest, Hitler wanted yes men not thinkers.


Salvadoreno interesting article but the U-Boat was lost before it started and Hitler made sure of that by declaring war on USA.

[micky1up]

no steed its not rubbish with the extra corps involved it may have been enough to tip the scales when the german army approached moscow . manstien was right when he told hitler the objective must be to take moscow as soon as possible and even if logisticaly the edge was in favour of the russuians the are no absolutes in warfare 300 spartans held off a million strong persian army logistically the falklands war should have been in the bag for the argentines but it wasnt there are other examples vietnam is one logistically the usa had it in the bag but it didnt turn out that way did it there are far more variables involved that can be easily expressed such as morale courage quality of arms training and many more in 1941 stalin was very close to abandoning moscow as the german army army approached and im dame sure rommel would have been able to get hitler to stop swaping and changing orders and objectives on the russian campaign

[STEED]

when the german army approached moscow .

Let's suppose Army Group Centre keeps pushing against Moscow. The logistical crisis, the losses in men and equippment, Soviet hardening resistance, the rain and snow, occassional command stupidity, halt Von Bock's divisions a few kilometres from the Soviet capital in late November or early December, nearly as it really happened. Then, Zhúkov launches his winter counter-offensive and smashes the German lines, only this time the exhausted Army Group Centre has a vulnerable 400 km southern flank and 1.000.000 more Soviets in Kiev.

Yes Kiev had to be by passed to stay on course!!!

Just 150 miles... So no chance of worn out tank tracks and overstreching the supply chain?

And only 90,000 Soviet soldiers willing to defend Moscow to the last bullet when you get there?

With a dodgy and unsecure supply line?

How much more do I have to say I am well up on this subject.

Hitler lost from day one.

[Torpedo Fodder]

If the Germans had suceeded in taking Moscow, it would have only been a symbolic victory, and most certanly would not have broken the USSR. The Soviets had moved many of their government ministries out of the city, and other than it's beauracracy (much of which was moved out of the city anyway), it was not strategicly vital. The only way to beat Russia is to swiftly encircle and destroy all it's forces near the border, and given the vastness of the the Russian front, the Wehrmacht simply wasn't big enough to accomplish that. A mad dash for Moscow from the outset would likely have turned out even worse than historically, because it would leave the German supply lines wide open to counterattack.

No matter how the Germans handle Operation Barbarossa, they still lose in the end.

[STEED]

No matter how the Germans handle Operation Barbarossa, they still lose in the end.

Well Said :up:

[micky1up]

steed you dont get the point all im saying is its not as clear cut as u make it out to be russia is bigger therfore they win although history did prove that correct what i proposed was speculation on a question was the med campaign a waste and yes it was . would the men wasted in the afrika campaign make a difference possibly . we could argue all day about the pro's and cons of what may have happened . russia won yes its easy to say they would have won all the time but superior numbers and equipment dont always win .

a few examples
israel 1967 ,73
falklands 1982
Thermopylae 480 bc
Rorke's Drift, 1879

i have no doubt of your well presented and studied answers to the speculation but the are no absolutes in war or the special figures in formulating the possibilties of victory there are far to many variables to say any army will definately win or lose,we in the military have a special saying to help its called KISS (keep it simple stupid) and invariably the most simplest of plans are the most fool proof but to have some jumpped up corporal stick his fingers in every plan made it hard for the plan to be simple



p.s and for all our arguing the too and fro of logistics we forget that the weather played a major part in the outcome

[STEED]

The logistical crisis, the losses in men and equippment, Soviet hardening resistance, the rain and snow.

Did you see this in my case? micky1up

Still no change to the outcome in your case. But hey I give you credit. :up:

[Torplexed]

An old grizzled German veteran summed up the defeat on the Eastern front in three simple sentences:

Russia was too big.

It was too cold.

And there were too damn many of them.

[STEED]

An old grizzled German veteran summed up the defeat on the Eastern front in three simple sentences:

Russia was too big.

It was too cold.

And there were too damn many of them.


True :up:

[Salvadoreno]

i agree. rigth when hitler ordered operation barb it was over. His assets should have been dedicated to the war in the west. More uboats and more resources westward would have definately hindered the early sucesses of the British Army. If operation barb was postponed to the late years of the war, (1943-1944) i believe the British could have been delt with. In Africa Rommel would have overthrew the British and the Atlantic would have turned out results similar to those sucesses of the germans earlier in the war.

[STEED]

One Problem Hitler declared war on America.

[Salvadoreno]

One Problem Hitler declared war on America.

america was already involved in the battle of the atlantic before germany considered america to be involved in the war. Roosevelt was inching america closer and closer with propoganda and false records of german brutality.

[bradclark1]

An old grizzled German veteran summed up the defeat on the Eastern front in three simple sentences:

Russia was too big.

It was too cold.

And there were too damn many of them.

That was it to a tee.

[bradclark1]

In 1943 when the German army was on the defensive and what dose Hitler do he launched that debacle operation at Kursk.
Kursk would have worked but for one thing. The russians knew it was coming because of a spy in Hitlers headquarters. Nobody knows who the spy was to this day. People say Stalingrad was the turning point of the war when in fact it was Kursk.

[STEED]

Kursk would have worked but for one thing.

Apart from the Lucy spy ring, even if the Germans had won half their armour would had been destroyed they would still had to face the Soviet Reserve force which was even greater. The result all for nothing, the time of offensive operations was over for Germany, and the battle of Kursk was waste of recourses which they needed in 1944 when the Soviets launched their massive operation Bagration.

Lucy- The code name for a group under Sandor Rado which transmitted information to Russia from a base in Switzerland until the Swiss authorities broke it up in 1944.

Battle Line up Kursk July 1943

German

Men 900,000
Tanks 2,700
Guns 10,000
Aircraft 2,000

Soviet

Men 1,300,000
Tanks 3,600
Guns 20,000
Aircraft 2,400

[bradclark1]

No, it wasn't the Lucy spy ring. I'll have to pull out my books and do some research.
That what I'm saying the russians knew about the Kursk offensive thats why they had that quantity of forces there, let alone the millions of mines, tank ambushes etc.
Von Manstein figured out they were waiting (not hard to do) and tried to call the offensive off but Hitler said it was too late and it had to go.
If things had of gone according to plan the russians would have been in a pincher and destroyed in detail thus eliminating a large part of the russian army which Hitler figured they couldn't recover from.
Course all that would have happened was the war would have been slowed down but the USSR would have recovered. Bodies was the cheapest commodity USSR had. The loss or capture of equipment would have been the worst hit.

[bradclark1]

Hitler lost from day one.

Yes. Hitler and his staff underestimated everything the USSR had. Hitler and Stalin both knew they would end up in a war at some point and Hitler struck when least expected expecting an easy victory.
Russia did badly at first because for a large part the peasants didn't give a damn about the Soviet. That changed however when Stalin changed his propaganda from protecting the soviet to protecting the motherland.
That is what made the USSR start digging in it's heel and things started to go wrong for Germany.

[Type XXIII]

Roosevelt was inching america closer and closer with propoganda and false records of german brutality. (emphasis mine)

Wait a second, he had to make up stories about German brutality?

[Torplexed]

Roosevelt was inching america closer and closer with propoganda and false records of german brutality. (emphasis mine)

Wait a second, he had to make up stories about German brutality?

Yeah...I wondered about that too.

Another factor that lulled Hitler into thinking that all he had to was " break in the door and the whole rotten structure will come falling down" was the dismal performance of the Russians against Finland during the Winter War of 1940. The Red Army was essentially a headless giant after the purges of the 1930s and commanders were chosen for their spineless obedience to Moscow, not for personal initiative. This situation was starting to be rectified in 1941 with war looming but it was still too late. The Russians were really fortunate that Zuhkov and some others who could still think on their own without a commissars gun to their head had survived.

[Type XXIII]

I don't think Hitler would have gotten away with not attacking the Soviet Union, either. The propaganda of the NSDAP pretty much made an attack on the Soviet Union unavoidable. If Germany had choosed not to attack the Soviet Union, I think the NSDAP would have quickly lost popular support.

But back to the Mediterranean and the forces deployed there. Would more German forces on the eastern front in 1941 meant that Moscow had fallen? Maybe, even probably if other events had been more favorable for the Germans. (Say, the Germans didn't have to save the Italian army's asses in Greece, and smaller losses during the Battle of Britain.)

But, had they done so, it would not have meant the fall of the Soviet Union. I think history would have repeated itself, and that the invaders would meet a burned-out city, and then be forced to retreat as a consequence of the winter and constant attacks from the Russians.

Then, later in the war, the Red Army would have had more to revenge and be even more brutal in their conquest of Germany.

[STEED]

No, it wasn't the Lucy spy ring.

The spy would had sent the info to Lucy? ("Werther", I believe?).

Soviet intelligence knew German intentions thanks to the Lucy spy ring and Zhukov and the Soviet General Staff believed that it would be wise to wait until after the German offensive was spent before launching their own.


Any way you forget the new Panther tank was rushed in to the front line more Panthers broke down due to the engine over heating than being destroyed by the Soviets and Operation Citadle for delayed by four months. Result a Soviet victory hands down plus they saw it coming what would had worked some months early would had been this -


Von Manstein pressed for a new offensive based on the same successful lines he had just pursued at Kharkov, when he cut off an overextended Soviet offensive. He suggested tricking the Soviets into attacking in the south against the desperately re-forming 6.Armee, leading them into the Donets Basin in the eastern Ukraine. He would then turn south from Kharkov on the eastern side of the Donets River towards Rostov and trap the entire southern wing of the Red Army against the Sea of Azov.



A better idea and less wastful.

[STEED]

Hitler didn’t trust his generals, so he gave orders a very bad move that turned out to be. And don't forget us the British we got every part of the plan the Enigma codes were broken at Bletchley Park and forwarded on to the Russians.

Another point was the 6 lines of defence, full of mines, AT-cannons and T 34 ´s. Very deadly. Also the soviet air force was rather well equipped now and Luftwaffe couldn’t take care of the tanks and other goals like 1941. As I stated, a waste of resources on an ill conceived battle.

[Oberon]

IIRC, Operation Barbarossa has originally meant to be launched slightly earlier, so that the predicted advance would reach Moscow before winter. Even so, and even with the 200 mile advance the Wehrmarcht made in the first week, there would never be enough forces in the world to invade and hold Russia. The fact that Stalin ordered 'Scorched Earth' only exaggerated this problem, and that Soviet armies were content to lose 10 men to kill 1 member of the opposition.
Hitler (as usual) didn't help with the matter by ignoring the advice of his commanders in the field, that IMHO was his greatest drawback, that and his conviction that 'big is beautiful' but I digress. Hitler insisted on a drive south over a central advance to Moscow, whether the capture of Moscow would have actually had any affect on the Eastern war is up to histories speculation but it certainly didn't do Napoleon any favours.
Russia is so vast and in many parts so desolate that keeping control of it and stamping out resistance would have been pretty much impossible, especially with the technology of the 1940s, in fact, I should imagine that even today an invading army wouldn't be able to hold Russia.
Sure, the Soviets had some major disadvantages, most of their armoured divisions were antiques and their military organisation mostly decapitated. Stalin's paranoia and conviction (like Hitler) that he knew better than his generals, were to dog even Zhukov.
The neutrality pact with Japan helped too, as it freed up the Siberian troopers (gotta love those guys on skis, remind me of something out of a Bond film).
So, to return to the original topic of this thread, I think that had the British have been driven out of the Med, then Rommel may well have had a greater chance to push the British out of Africa, but the sheer strategic position of Gibralter meant that the British had a chokepoint to easily control the Med and so getting any German forces in there was near on impossible.
Chances are though, even if they had have made significant advances in Africa, Hitler would have screwed it up some how. He may have been good at politics and rising to power but his sense of strategy was crap.

[STEED]

Oberon good post :up: