Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:24 am Post subject: kursk,if hitler had kept his nerve
this is a good read about the battle of kursk reconsidered about a what if. what would of happened if hitler had agreed with manstein and carryd on with citadelle attacks
Rufus, unfortunately for Adolph, it wouldn't have made one miligram of difference to the outcome of the war if the Germans had somehow won at Kursk. Germany was fighting it's war on three fronts (East, west and south! luckliy for them the Eskimos didn't invade from the north to take advantage of the situation). Germany had neither the manpower or resources to sustain such an effort on three fronts so defeat was a foregone conclusion for them, a German victory at Kursk would have only delayed the inevitable. Hitler and the nazis made many mistakes during WW2 which, fortunately for all of us, cost them the war.
1) Not finishing off Britain thus leaving their western flank exposed and leading to the Normandy invasion. Added to this was the Germans allowing the BEF to escape at Dunkirk.
2) Not committing enough resources to the North African campaign first so that they could have secured the oilfields there (Which were much closer than the oilfields in the southern USSR at Baku, which Hitler was aiming for. Germany was desperate for petroleum products to make fuel and chemical explosives for it's weapons. Most of the aviation fuel the Luftwaffe used in the Battle of Britain came from the USSR as part of the The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.
3) Delaying Operation Barbarossa until June 1941 to help out the Italians in Greece by invading the Balkans. They were due to invade the USSR in April so that most of their objectives could be achieved before winter set in.
4) Not equipping the German army with adequate winter clothing, winter weapons and are far too little logistical support (Trucks, transport aircraft and the such). Most of the German army in Operation Barbarossa either marched or used horse-drawn transport. Also very little resources were stockpiled for the invasion as they expected a Soviet collapse resulting in a quick easy victory. To quote Hitler "We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down"! Then again, the USSR would have absolutely struggled to defeat the Germans without logistical support from the allies (Food, weapons, aircraft and most importantly trucks) via the Artic convoys in the north and the supplies sent up from the south through Persia.
5) Not co-ordinating Operation Barbarossa with the Japanese, their supposed allies. If the Germans could have convinced the Japanese to avoid a war with the USA and instead attack the USSR from the east, that could have been the end of the USSR. However the Japanese army was less mechanized than the Whermacht was and was also even less unsuited to a winter war than the Whermacht was (As well as being over-commited in their war on China). Japanese occupation of Siberia and Eastern Russia would have given the Japanese economy the raw resources it needed.
6) Hitler interfering in the running of the war and not letting his generals undertake the finer details of the campaigns themselves. Internal divisions between the Whermacht, the Waffen SS and the Luftwaffe also contributed to this. Hitler had only ever been a corporal in the army and so was never trained in the fine art of higher military command, he failed to comprehend the many tactical and logistical complexities of staging a major offensive that was Operation Barbarossa. Also Hitler's military decision making skills were not helped by his addiction to methamphetamines.
7) Finally, and the most important reason of all, Hitler's absurd decision to declare war on the USA on the 11th June 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. There was no real reason for it, America would not have joined the war against Germany as they believed in their "Isolationism" or "Non-interventionism" policy.
I'm sure, Rufus, that the book "Kursk Reconsidered: Germany's Lost Victory" is an excellent read, but victory at Kursk would not have changed the outcome of WW2.
Last edited by God4Saken on Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:57 am; edited 1 time in total
Very interesting God4Saken. We both know who's the expert here (i.e. you) but what I 'know' suggests that USA would have entered the entire war sooner or later regardless of Germany's 1941 dow??
America entered the war with its decsion to supply the allies and embargo the axis, from there it was a small political move to encorage an overt reaction, the japs provided some endorsement for the public, but the Goverenment was already, actively working against the germans....American shipping was being attacked long before Pearl Harbour
I'm sure, Rufus, that the book "Kursk Reconsidered: Germany's Lost Victory" is an excellent read, but vicory at Kursk would not have changed the outcome of WW2.
War would have be longer if Hitler didn't attack there, cause he lost a great number of good panzer division for nothing.
G'day Mik, how's it going? Still using those river destroyers and creek corvettes?
mikwarleo wrote:
Very interesting God4Saken. We both know who's the expert here (i.e. you) but what I 'know' suggests that USA would have entered the entire war sooner or later regardless of Germany's 1941 dow??
Thanks Mik, I wouldn't say I'm an expert, just an arm-chair warrior who reads too much. Whether or not the USA would have declared war on Nazi Germany is a great debate. My opinion is that, unless Germany committed some major atrocity against the USA, then they wouldn't have gone to war. Pearl Harbour would still have occured, but the US would probably have concentrated her efforts there. If you look at WW1, Germany and America got on quite well up until 1917, there was a lot of support in America for the war against Britain (Especially from all the Irish immigrants), America openly sold raw materials to Germany and a large number of American volunteers were serving in the German armed forces. But two events in 1917 rapidly changed American opinion almost overnight.
The first was the so-called "Zimmerman telegram" which had been intercepted and decoded by British intelligence and its explosive contents passed on to the US government. It had been sent from the Imperial German Foreign Secretary, Arthur Zimmerman, to the Mexican government proposing an alliance in which Germany would provide military and financial assistance in return for Mexico (And possibly even Japan) to initiate a surprise attack on the US. As well, the telegram suggested that Mexico would regain territory lost almost 100 years before, including Texas and the Alamo (Just think, Texas could have been part of Mexico today and so we would never have heard of either George Bush's). The Mexicans declined for obvious reasons, plus with Germany blockaded by the British navy, no help would have been forthcoming. The second event was the sinking of the ocean liner RMS Luisitania, by a German U-boat, in which 1,198 people died (Including 128 Americans).
Come 1940, Germany and America were once again reasonable friends, lots of support for the Nazis in America from the Irish, German and Italian communities within (As well as all the "Good ol white boys" and KKK elements in the south). Plus there were organisations, like the America First Committee (AFC), who pushed the "Isolationism" or Non-intervention agenda. These groups were against any US involvement in Europe and accused President F.D. Roosevelt of being a "War-monger". The AFC had several celebrities within its ranks who publicly pushed their cause; the most notable was trans-Atlantic pilot Charles Lindbergh. They weren't pro-nazi, in fact the 1940 Blitzreig inWestern Europeand the speed which Germany defeated those countries was their primary concern. The AFC didn't want America involved in an European war, but they did want a significant increase in US defence spending, especially in the area of air-defence against long-range bombers.
Blackstump wrote:
America entered the war with its decsion to supply the allies and embargo the axis, from there it was a small political move to encorage an overt reaction, the japs provided some endorsement for the public, but the Goverenment was already, actively working against the germans....American shipping was being attacked long before Pearl Harbour
G'day Stumpy, you're right in some parts here. The US government under FD Roosevelt was sending all the aid it could to the beleagured British under it's "Lend-lease" scheme. But it could only send material aid, such as aircraft and destroyers, and had to be careful how it did it (The US could not send troops). FDR was in a slightly precarious position in 1941 when this all came about, he was under threat of impeachment procedings by some if he acted too aggresively against Germany. By 1940 he had already served two terms as President and, due to a long standing "Unwritten rule in US politics, was not expected to run for a third term. But he went against tradition, ran for President and won, albeit with a reduced vote, down to just 55%. His opponent in 1940, Wendell Willkie, ran on the "Isolation" ticket and won much support, especially as many in the US political circles resented FDR for running for an unheard of third term. There was also strong support in the US senate for Isolationism, so FDR could not just declare war on Germany to help out the British in what he saw in America's role as the "Arsenal of Democracy" (Sounds a bit like George Dubya Bush there, except he did declare war on Iraq in 2003 without much opposition, maybe FDR should have convinced Congress that Nazi Germany had WMD's). It would be no small political move to declare war on Germany, FDR would need a majority in Congress and the Senate to do that, something he didn't have. In 1935 the US Congress had passed the Neutrality Act, which applied a ban on the shipment of arms from the U.S. to any combatant nation. But FDR found ways around this to help Britain and China.
So in 1940 America found itself fighting a "Cold War" against the Germans, mostly in the North Atlantic between Iceland and the US east coast. The Germans were somewhat wary about antagonising the US, they didn't want a repeat of the Luisitania. But, as happens in war, lines were crossed and inadvertant conflict was unavoidable. However the first action between the German and US navies didn't occur until April 1941 when the US destroyer USS Niblack attacked a U-boat that had just sunk a freighter, for which the Niblack was picking up survivors from. Six monhs later in October, the destroyer USS Reuben James was sunk by a U-boat with the loss of over half it's crew.
However, despite the US history of using sunken ships as an excuse to declare war (Luisitania in WW1 and the battleship USS Maine in the Spainish-American War in 1898), the US did not escalate the situation (Nor did it when Japanese aircraft "Inadvertantly" sank the gunboat USS Panay in 1937 during it's invasion of China). FDR could only provide "All aid short of war" to the British due to the Isolationists. However with the attack on Pearl Harbour, and Hitler's subsequent declaration of war on the US four days later, all "Isolationism" and anti-war rhetoric dried up overnight and the country united behind FDR. The US had been building up it's military since 1937, including introducing conscription in 1940 and so by early 1942, with the war in full swing, the US was ready.
U.S. Owned or Chartered Ships Attacked Before Pearl Harbor
At least 243 mariners were killed in action before Pearl Harbor.
Date Ship Type Cause Result Location Deaths
10/09/39 SS City of Flint Hog Island freighter Capture by pocket battleship Deutchland Released NAtlantic None
06/12/40 Exochorda Freighter Shelled Slight damage Med-Black Sea None
11/09/40 City of Rayville Freighter German mine Sunk Australian coast Crew 1
12/21/40 Charles Pratt Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk SAtlantic Crew 2
05/21/41 Robin Moor Hog Islander Torpedo & Shelled Sunk Caribbean None
08/11/41 Iberville Freighter Aerial mine from German aircraft Damaged Red Sea None
08/17/41 Longtaker [former Danish Sessa] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo & Shelled Sunk NAtlantic Crew 24 (3 survivors)
09/05/41 Steel Seafarer Freighter Bombed by German aircraft Sunk Gulf of Suez None
09/11/41 Arkansan Freighter Shelled Damaged Indian-Red Sea None
09/11/41 Montana [former Danish Paula] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 26
09/19/41 Pink Star [former Danish Landby] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 13
09/27/41 I. C. White Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk South Atlantic Crew 3
10/16/41 Bold Venture [former Danish Alssund] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 17, (17 survivors)
10/19/41 Lehigh Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed None
11/05/41 Montrose Freighter Collision Unknown North Atlantic Unknown
11/11/41 Meridian [former Italian Dino] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx. 38
11/14/41 Crusader [former Danish Brosund] Freighter Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx 33; German POW 1
11/16/41 Turecamo Boys Tug Unknown Sunk North Atlantic Crew 9
11/19/41 Del Pidio Unknown (Philippines) Mine Unknown Philippines Crew 6
11/19/41 Edridio Mindoro (67 ton) Mine Sunk Philippines Unknown
12/02/41 Astral Tanker Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew 37
12/03/41 Sagadahoc Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed Crew 1
12/07/41 Cynthia Olson Steam Schooner Torpedo Sunk Pacific Crew 33; US Army
the German Government had issued an exclusion zone for american shipping,this rightly so was ignored by the americans. these sinkings werent accidental, thats why the american government started sending armed protection with there convoys, as i said it was only a small political move to coerce the american public opinion once there merchant marine was being attacked by a belligerent force, this is what really brought the american people against the nazis, pearl harbour had not yet occured
American industrialization didnt really come into effect untill 43, in 42 america built 750 ships,germans destroyed 1600 allied ships that year, so america wasnt rdy to roll, as it was having trouble supplying enough transport,in 43 they built 1900 against 600 sunk, that was probably a deciding point of the war,,,, more guns more tanks more ships and men....
G'day again all, I love these historical debates. Great comprehensive response Stumpy with the listings of ships sunk, but as you said, these were all US owned or chartered merchant ships running cargo into a country that was at war. Were any of those ships sunk in or relatively near US territorial waters? Or were they sunk on the British side of the Atlantic? You could also add to that list the Cunard ocean liner "SS Athenia" which was sunk by U-30 on the day Britain declared war (03/09/39), with the loss of 118 lives. The ship was British registered, but amongst the passengers were over 300 US citizens, with 28 killed. Hitler had threatened to court-martial the U-boat commander, Lemp, but never did so and the sinking was subsequently denied by the Germans (I think they made out that the ship had struck an iceberg or something).
The US government could have made much of this, but they chose not to. If you look at American military history, they love using some pretext for getting into a war, usually a sunken ship (The USS Maine, the SS Luisitania, the ships sunk at Pearl Harbour the USS Maddox in the so called called "Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 to justify US involvement in Vietnam and not forgetting "WMD's" in 2003). So despite all these sinking’s mentioned and loss of American lives up until December 1941, the US did not declare war on Germany, which is why I believe it would have taken some catastrophic event, like the attack on Pearl Harbour or the proposed bombing of New York City by long-range Luftwaffe Ju 390 bombers, to have made the US declare war on Germany. There was an alleged test flight of a Ju 390 from Bordeaux in France to within 20km of New York and back, without refuelling, in Jan 1944 to test the feasibility of such an attack (Possibly using a German atomic bomb if it could have been finished in time) but it has never been proven that this flight actually occured.
But when I mentioned the start of the shooting war, I did say between the US and German navies. Despite the aggressive patrols by the US navy to protect vessels on their side of the Atlantic early on in the war, there were no recorded engagements until the one I listed with the USS Niblack. I would assume that the US Navy would have been issued pretty strict ROE's. Thanks for correcting me on the industrialization Stumpy, I meant 1943, not 42. America was in far better position to wage a major war on two fronts (With all it's natural resources, industry and huge population), plus having big oceans either side helped. But from the time when the US entered the war in December 1941, they consulted with the British and decided on the "Europe First" strategy. They correctly deemed it tactically easier to isolate and contain the Japanese with most of their navy, and then commit most of their army and air force to the European theatre. Once Germany was defeated, most of those forces were being transferred to the east when Japan surrendered. Cheers everybody!
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: mmm
i guess that is why after the fall of dunkirk,the british sent all their latest military technology to the USA with their top scientists!
Still described today as the most valuable cargo to ever have landed in the USA.
Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:02 am Post subject: Re: mmm
ANZAC_Lord4war wrote:
Still described today as the most valuable cargo to ever have landed in the USA.
may be true... i thought the german uranium (a time boost for USA in the arms race with SU) and a month later von Braun (building the rocket to the moon) was the most valuable cargo USA ever recieved
Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands
As I see it, the Citadel was operational undertaking, not strategical. Even if the Germans succeeded in reducing the salient 100% I doubt it would change anything in the East (in other words in war generally), but maybe delaying soviet actual progress for couple of months. Once launched, Citadel had proven to be too much demanding for the Germans!
The 9th Army never got close anything near the operational breakthrough and the northern attack was stalled within the first several days of the battle. In the south Manstein managed to keep up slow progress, but after the battle of Prohorovka it was just clear that they wouldn't move forward any more. LSSAH put licking on the soviet armor near Prohorovka, but Germans failed to achieve operational breakthrough here as well, so the reinforcements (XXIV Panzer Corps) had no place for commitment. Soviets also launched their counterstrikes on the flanks of the german wedges, so that operational reserve (XXIV Pz C) had to be sent to stop the soviet onslaught along the Mius river.
So it wouldn't make any difference "if Hitler held his nerves", Germans were just bound to lose there. Of course, they should have listened to Guderian and never fought that battle.
Actually this is a good question bacause the winner of the battle of Kursk would have the strategic initiative in the Soviet Union, so if Hitler would allowed Manstein to continue his offensive coupled with the Soviets commiting their strategic tank reserve, then the Germans would have had the upper hand from that point and with their newer and better tanks coming into play they at least might have had a chance to force Russia out of the war.
Another question conerning Kursk would be, what if the Germans had allowed the Soviets to launch their own spring offensive, then when it had ran out of steam then the Germans launch their own counter offensive?
Success at Kursk for the Germans also would have allowed forces to be redeployed to France for the anticipated invasion of Europe by the americans and british.
I belive they cant have started earlier, the Panther was not ready.
As the started they had way to few Panthers, and the once they got had reliability problems, thus some dasy into battle not enough of the already few was operational.
The avarage east Pz Div in Kursk op had some 109 tanks, that aboutr half they shall have. And of em 40% was outdated compared to T34. The HT was lacking to they had about half of there need.
And as the Italy landings took place soon after, there was nothing to gain at Kursk, more need elseware.
I belive the odds was againstr the GE.
I belive they cant have started earlier, the Panther was not ready.
As the started they had way to few Panthers, and the once they got had reliability problems, thus some dasy into battle not enough of the already few was operational.
The avarage east Pz Div in Kursk op had some 109 tanks, that aboutr half they shall have. And of em 40% was outdated compared to T34. The HT was lacking to they had about half of there need.
And as the Italy landings took place soon after, there was nothing to gain at Kursk, more need elseware.
I belive the odds was againstr the GE.
Yeah, if the allies didn't landed in italy at time of kursk, the german would have start an advance again.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
. Man, snow hasn't melted yet everywhere, and where it had there are rivers of mud.
