The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II

Started by tbone0106, June 24, 2012, 09:52:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

tbone0106

I guess this is sort of a poll. There were many huge miscalculations, but I can't help thinking Hitler's move into the Soviet Union in 1941 -- especially so late in the season! -- was the worst.

Opinions?

mdgiles

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 24, 2012, 09:52:40 PM
I guess this is sort of a poll. There were many huge miscalculations, but I can't help thinking Hitler's move into the Soviet Union in 1941 -- especially so late in the season! -- was the worst.

Opinions?
Indeed, But I think the worse part of the miscalculation was attempting to invade the Soviet Union with a horse drawn army. The distances involve guaranteed the break down of logistics. And I guess they believed all the unicorns and war fairies would be on their side, because I don't care if you do expect the campaign to be over before the winter, would it have hurt to have winter clothing and cold tested battle equipment on standby, I mean, after all, you're invading Russia. BTW, why fight at Stalingrad, simply cross the Volga and cut the damn city off.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

tbone0106

The monumental stupidity of the whole thing has always befuddled me. Until June 1941, Hitler had achieved every goal he had set and won every battle save one -- the Battle of Britain. He had formed the Axis with Mussolini's Italy, reunited Germany and Austria, subdued Czechoslovakia (first the willing Sudetenland, then the rest), conquered and occupied most of Poland (giving Stalin the rest by secret compact), France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, on and on. England was not defeated, but hardly stood as a competent threat for invasion at the time, or even in the foreseeable future. And folks in the United States were still holding America Firster rallies.

COVER D

Definitely Stalingrad. It's where Hitler lost his army. Had he won it D-Day might
have been impossible.

Hitler's officers wanted to go straight to Moscow and sit out the winter before
going to Stalingrad but Hitler wouldn't here of it. The German Army wasn't even
trained for house to house fighting. They liked being in the open.

You'd also have to list Pearl Harbor. While a tactical vicotry for the Japs, it was
perhaps the worse strategic move in history.


elmerfudd

Quote from: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 04:54:28 AM
Definitely Stalingrad. It's where Hitler lost his army. Had he won it D-Day might
have been impossible.

Hitler's officers wanted to go straight to Moscow and sit out the winter before
going to Stalingrad but Hitler wouldn't here of it. The German Army wasn't even
trained for house to house fighting. They liked being in the open.

You'd also have to list Pearl Harbor. While a tactical vicotry for the Japs, it was
perhaps the worse strategic move in history.

No question that Hitler invading the Soviet Union was a screw up.  An almost equal screw up was his failure to recognize that many of the Russkis, at first, welcomed him as a liberator, Stalin being such a bastard.  But being the mentally ill megalomaniac he was, he treated them all as "sub humans" who were incapable of doing battle with a "superior race."  And the Japs definitely awakened a "sleeping giant" at Pearl Harbor.  I think the giant would have awakened anyway, though.  (The Louisiana maneuvers and other preparations were not being undertaken without good reason.)

COVER D

Great point about the Russians hating Stalin. He killed almost as many of them as Hitler did
and Htiler made a grave yard out of Russia killing and maiming 1/3 of its population and they
still lost.

That's why I never felt sorry for the Germans behind the Berlin Wall.  They started the shit.

In the end Hitler's own army tried to kill him and just missed. Pure luck on Hitler's part.

mdgiles

I never understood the Germans in Russia, even if you thought slavs were sub-humans, you don't start the mistreatment until after you had won. You're superior to your dog, but that's no reason to kick him every time you walk in the house. All the Nazis had to be was a little bit better than the Communists - how hard could that have been. And why did the Nazis never build a four engine bomber of their own, if they didn't want to go to the trouble of developing one, simply copy a shot down Lancaster. That would have allowed them to get at much of the Soviet industrial plant.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

tbone0106

Quote from: mdgiles on June 26, 2012, 06:20:39 PM
I never understood the Germans in Russia, even if you thought slavs were sub-humans, you don't start the mistreatment until after you had won. You're superior to your dog, but that's no reason to kick him every time you walk in the house. All the Nazis had to be was a little bit better than the Communists - how hard could that have been. And why did the Nazis never build a four engine bomber of their own, if they didn't want to go to the trouble of developing one, simply copy a shot down Lancaster. That would have allowed them to get at much of the Soviet industrial plant.

Yessirree, the einsatzgruppen -- the "single purpose" squads, largely SS and wholly SS-supervised -- were a crappy idea. They were "kicking the dog" right behind the Panzers. Political and stupid.

As for the bombers, it speaks to the German mindset, perhaps, or maybe even more to the European mindset. Of European countries involved in WWII, ONLY England built strategic bombers. Being essentially an island stronghold without a stable foothold on the European continent, England had to build planes that could strike the enemy where he lived and/or operated. The British have been criticized for the short "legs" of their fighter aircraft, but what were they assigned to do? They were assigned to protect the British people from bombers flying short distances across the English Channel, generally from forward bases in occupied France. The were assigned to do battle with Messerschmidt Bf109's that had such dinky fuel tanks that on bomber-escort missions, their time-over-target was something like ten minutes.

Germany, roaming continental Europe, could afford to subscribe to the tactical air force point of view. Take the territory with your armor, supported by your short-range, heavily armored airplanes, then do it again, and again, and again, always from captured or conquered territory. The Luftwaffe had to be the most portable land-based air force that ever existed!  :tounge:

The Bf109, the vaunted Messerschmidt fighter, went through an endless series of models and improvements, but not one time did the designers extend its pitiful operational range, which never exceed around 600 miles WITH a drop tank. Like all other German weapons of war, it was a tactical, not a strategic, weapon.

Ford289HiPo

Quote from: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 04:54:28 AM
Definitely Stalingrad. It's where Hitler lost his army. Had he won it D-Day might
have been impossible.

Hitler's officers wanted to go straight to Moscow and sit out the winter before
going to Stalingrad but Hitler wouldn't here of it. The German Army wasn't even
trained for house to house fighting. They liked being in the open.



I'd add Kursk in there. That battle ate the German armored forces.
Do cannibals refuse to eat clowns because they taste funny?

Ford289HiPo

Quote from: mdgiles on June 26, 2012, 06:20:39 PM
I never understood the Germans in Russia, even if you thought slavs were sub-humans, you don't start the mistreatment until after you had won. You're superior to your dog, but that's no reason to kick him every time you walk in the house. All the Nazis had to be was a little bit better than the Communists - how hard could that have been. And why did the Nazis never build a four engine bomber of their own, if they didn't want to go to the trouble of developing one, simply copy a shot down Lancaster. That would have allowed them to get at much of the Soviet industrial plant.

How correct you are. The Ukrainians initially looked at the invading German forces as liberators and were willing to fight alongside them against Stalin. That was, until the Einsatzkommando moved in and started exterminating everyone.

The Germans did have a 4 engine aircraft, the Focke-wulf 200


During the war, it was relegated to long range aerial reconnaissance and anti-shipping duty. After the war, it was used as a civilian aircraft.
Do cannibals refuse to eat clowns because they taste funny?

COVER D

You're right. I meant to add that battle but couldn't think of it's name.
That's where Hitler lost all his tanks, perhaps the greatest tank battle of
all time. Russia held their tanks back as the Panzers kept coming and
coming and then they charged right in to them. They even rammed the
Panzers. Gutzy move by the Russians.

There was another great tank battle with us where Abrams beat the shit
out of the Panzers. can't remember the name. The Panzers were the best
tanks of WW2 but they were bulky and the Shermans were faster and
could maneuver around them. Same with the Russian tanks.

Speed whipped big in both those cases.

Patton of course whipped Rommel in the desert.


walkstall

Quote from: Ford289HiPo on June 26, 2012, 07:37:43 PM
I'd add Kursk in there. That battle ate the German armored forces.




The Battle of Kursk: Myths and Reality

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

tbone0106

Quote from: Ford289HiPo on June 26, 2012, 07:54:32 PM
How correct you are. The Ukrainians initially looked at the invading German forces as liberators and were willing to fight alongside them against Stalin. That was, until the Einsatzkommando moved in and started exterminating everyone.

The Germans did have a 4 engine aircraft, the Focke-wulf 200


During the war, it was relegated to long range aerial reconnaissance and anti-shipping duty. After the war, it was used as a civilian aircraft.

Yeah, but...

Actually, Hitler himself used one a few times for personal Fuhrer business. But only 276 Fw 200's were ever built. That's a wartime token gesture to a concept no one in the higher echelons of German planning/thinking/doing believed in.


COVER D

Somebody needs to tell the Military Channel about these supposed myths
because they sure pimped them as fact in the program.

Russian tank commander said they rammed into German tanks but do we
believe what Russians say?

mdgiles

Quote from: COVER D on June 26, 2012, 11:04:25 PM
Somebody needs to tell the Military Channel about these supposed myths
because they sure pimped them as fact in the program.

Russian tank commander said they rammed into German tanks but do we
believe what Russians say?
Why not. On the Russian side it was win or get shot by the NKVD. Of course on the German side it was win or get shot by the SS.
Actually on the military channel the laid the entire battle out, and mostly it was about the Soviets carefully channeling the Nazis into their anti-tank guns, and then counterattacking using superior air and superior numbers. The problem with the Germans was they never knew when to break off an action.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!