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

[Salvadoreno]

Originally Posted by lesrae

Congratulations on the huge sig

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]

Originally Posted by Salvadoreno

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!

[STEED]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by micky1up

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]

Originally Posted by Torpedo Fodder

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

Well Said

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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.