Military Literature

[Podweed]

my mistake, shouldn't have included england. canada is a big and rich enough country and if it focuses on military production, i'll bet it will be second only to the US. australia has enough heavy industries to engage in an oceanic war.

 

manuel quezon wanted to create an independent philippines, declare itself neutral and kick out both the USAFE and the invading japanese. didn't happen. and that was with the US. the britons are much more hard-nosed when it comes to deciding what their territories should do.

 

remember that the suez canal and gibraltar straits are crucial to commercial shipping. militarily, both access routes can be flanked, whether overland or through the air.

 

if i was limited to convertional, i will use my long range bombers to destroy axis infrastructure and my navy to bottle up sea and near-sea movement. that way, i'll try as much as possible to keep the axis from rolling into india, pakistan, china, middle east and north africa.

 

but my main objective would be to retake western europe. that's why controlling north africa becomes crucial. that will be my likely jump-off point. aside from strategic bombing, a crucial aspect will be infantry-mountain warfare. moving and fighting over rough ground will nullify the influence of mechanized forces. i'll start creeping in though the balkans, the pyrenees, the alps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Follow up again:

 

1. Australia had a tough little army. Emphasis on "little". It wasn't enough to confront the Japanese.

 

2. How would Quezon kick out the Japanese? Plead with them? Nah.

 

3. Shipping is the only way to mass-move men and materiel. If the Axis controlled those two passages, the Suez Canal and Gibraltar, forget about outflanking. Britain cannot hope to reinforce its forces in Asia around the Cape of Good Hope in time. Air resupply? Germany couldn't even save its 6th Army using this and Operation Vittles (the Berlin Airlift) involved nightmarish logistics over distances of a few hundred miles.

 

Hmmm, would the British, in the event of capitulation, have scuttled what remained of the RN?

 

4. What kind of fighter cover would those long-range bombers have? Once when they're in range of land-based interceptors, it'd be a turkey-shoot.

 

5. With North Africa under Vichy French control, where would the Allies land and from where? Brazil?The Afrika Korps and, we can imagine, the Italians will be waiting for the yet-to-be-sprung "Torch". The Balkans? Again, how to enter the Mediterranean? The Pyrenees? Would neutral Spain even allow it? The Alps? From where? There was no soft underbelly of Europe that was Italy without a successful African campaign. Italy had formidable mountain divisions.

[Dr_PepPeR]

I'd certainly want to know what Luftwaffe 46 would look like. Had the war lasted another year we would have seen some strange new planes for Germany.

[Dr_PepPeR]

you might want to scrounge around for the old ballantine illustrated war series.

 

for the german luftwaffe, read "first and the last" by adolf galland.

 

for blitzkrieg tactics, read "panzer leader" by heinz guderian

 

for a good commentary on germany's "greatest mistake (russia)", read "defeat in the west". this last book is one of the most intelligent books on ww2 that i've read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have been collecting the Ballantine Illustrated war series since I was in high school. I think I have 15 of them. My favorites include "Company Commander" by Charles MacDonald, "Helmet for My Pillow" by Robert Lockie, "Currahee" (forgot the author), "On To Berlin" by James Gavin, "Coral and Brass" by H.M. Smith, and "The Battle for Guadalcanal" by Samuel Griffith.

 

I also collected the "Brotherhood of War"and "The Corps" series by WEB Griffin (?).

Edited May 10, 2006 by Dr_PepPeR

[belisarius]

Follow up again:

 

1. Australia had a tough little army. Emphasis on "little". It wasn't enough to confront the Japanese.

they didn't mobilize and arm as much.

 

2. How would Quezon kick out the Japanese? Plead with them? Nah.

when the bataan battle was winding down. he made the recommendation to roosevelt. the latter vetoed it. if they did become a neutral country, the japanese would have honored the geneva accords but they will insist on the removal/destruction of US forces in the philippines.

 

3. Shipping is the only way to mass-move men and materiel. If the Axis controlled those two passages, the Suez Canal and Gibraltar, forget about outflanking. Britain cannot hope to reinforce its forces in Asia around the Cape of Good Hope in time. Air resupply? Germany couldn't even save its 6th Army using this and Operation Vittles (the Berlin Airlift) involved nightmarish logistics over distances of a few hundred miles.

 

Hmmm, would the British, in the event of capitulation, have scuttled what remained of the RN?

they would have based them in canada, and set up bases in the falklands, south africa, arabia, india.

 

4. What kind of fighter cover would those long-range bombers have? Once when they're in range of land-based interceptors, it'd be a turkey-shoot.

not really, the air war will shift to jets. and jet-powered bombers will have much better survivability than props. they won't need to bristle with 14 .50 cal guns to ward off fighters.

 

5. With North Africa under Vichy French control, where would the Allies land and from where? Brazil?The Afrika Korps and, we can imagine, the Italians will be waiting for the yet-to-be-sprung "Torch". The Balkans? Again, how to enter the Mediterranean? The Pyrenees? Would neutral Spain even allow it? The Alps? From where? There was no soft underbelly of Europe that was Italy without a successful African campaign. Italy had formidable mountain divisions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

west african coast. then push northwards. staging area will be south africa. battle groups based in canada and possibly iceland will engage in running battles to force the german naval forces to split up.

[belisarius]

I have been collecting the Ballantine Illustrated war series since I was in high school. I think I have 15 of them. My favorites include "Company Commander" by Charles MacDonald, "Helmet for My Pillow" by Robert Lockie, "Currahee" (forgot the author), "On To Berlin" by James Gavin, "Coral and Brass" by H.M. Smith, and "The Battle for Guadalcanal" by Samuel Griffith.

 

I also collected the "Brotherhood of War"and "The Corps" series by WEB Griffin (?).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the book tilles you mentioned ar enovels, not ballantine

 

we had co. comm, helmet, scream of eagles, and the griffith book. my favorite chapter there was "the iron tongue of midnight" telling how the americans has their asses handed to them at savo.

 

i think the very first book i read was "samurai" by saburo sakai.

 

if you're a serious student military of the military, i suggest you read the formal works of strategists such as mahan (navy) and mitchell (stategic bombing).

 

i was so into battleships i even research the metallurgical aspect of battleship armor.

[Jourdan]

the biggest mistake Adolf made was not to review history. Even Napoleon the Great failed to defeat Russia's "General Winter".

 

and oh, don't accuse the Nazis of a blunder with their declaration of war against the US...that wasn't made by gradeschoolers. Nazis knew very well that it's not gonna be very long before u see Uncle Sam on the European continent. it was an unnecessary declaration actually, moot and academic...but of course, given the imminent American involvement, it was just better to make something positive out of the whole situation...like rallying ur troops and boosting their morale by declaring a war against a big dog.

 

with or w/o a declaration of war against US, the US would have kicked germany's ass. y? there's already a business case to do so.

 

wait, let's roll back a bit. it was not really surprising to know that the Americans were actually tolerant of the bully Germans while they were killing the Polish, Czechs, French, etc...an expanding Germany was a good cashcow. actually the americans made a lot of money dealing with both the Allies and Germany early in the war...

 

but at some point, Germany got huge. Not good for the American purse. Plus they start building things on their own at an alarming pace using LOCAL resources. The idea of a Germany-controlled Continental Europe would be an economic nightmare...

 

but still, the Americans exercised caution. it pussyfooted for a while and maintained its strategic ambiguity...

 

then came the realization that Germany ain't so tough. can't bomb the s@%t out of London Brits and was defeated decisively by the Russian winter. It was time to butt in, kick some Nazis' asses, emerge as heroes and then get the lion's share of the spoils. Good plan.

 

and the rest is history. D-day. Germany got divided into West and East. Americans secured rebuilding contracts and a lot of trade concessions.

 

the end result: America became the top dog, economically and militarily. there's not much the Nazis can do with that.

[belisarius]

the biggest mistake Adolf made was not to review history. Even Napoleon the Great failed to defeat Russia's "General Winter".

 

and oh, don't accuse the Nazis of a blunder with their declaration of war against the US...that wasn't made by gradeschoolers. Nazis knew very well that it's not gonna be very long before u see Uncle Sam on the European continent. it was an unnecessary declaration actually, moot and academic...but of course, given the imminent American involvement, it was just better to make something positive out of the whole situation...like rallying ur troops and boosting their morale by declaring a war against a big dog.

 

with or w/o a declaration of war against US, the US would have kicked germany's ass. y? there's already a business case to do so.

 

wait, let's roll back a bit. it was not really surprising to know that the Americans were actually tolerant of the bully Germans while they were killing the Polish, Czechs, French, etc...an expanding Germany was a good cashcow. actually the americans made a lot of money dealing with both the Allies and Germany early in the war...

 

but at some point, Germany got huge. Not good for the American purse. Plus they start building things on their own at an alarming pace using LOCAL resources. The idea of a Germany-controlled Continental Europe would be an economic nightmare...

 

but still, the Americans exercised caution. it pussyfooted for a while and maintained its strategic ambiguity...

 

then came the realization that Germany ain't so tough. can't bomb the s@%t out of London Brits and was defeated decisively by the Russian winter. It was time to butt in, kick some Nazis' asses, emerge as heroes and then get the lion's share of the spoils. Good plan.

 

and the rest is history. D-day. Germany got divided into West and East. Americans secured rebuilding contracts and a lot of trade concessions.

 

the end result: America became the top dog, economically and militarily. there's not much the Nazis can do with that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hohum...

 

well, let's stop accusing people of being amateur scientists and historians. instead, i'd like to see you expand the above essay to answer the following:

 

1. could the US' decision to go into europe, "kick nazi asses", and get the "lion's share in the spoils" been different/early/delayed from atual had the japs not bombed pearl?

 

2. was europe that rich after an allied victory? then why did the US, your everwhelming "top dog", agree to a multi-lateral arrangement with other powers regarding the disposition of "spoils"? they had to wait 50 years for the wall to come down before the real spoils could be taken. a 50-year cold war after wading in with an overwhelming military advantage? not very smart of americans, i should think.

 

3. so what do you think is the real reason why the US would focus on germany first before japan? you already said the germans weren't that good. they failed to beat the brits and ruskies as of december '41. so why didn't they just rebuild their sunken battleships sooner, build more carriers and drive straight to tokyo bay?

[Podweed]

they didn't mobilize and arm as much.

 

when the bataan battle was winding down. he made the recommendation to roosevelt. the latter vetoed it. if they did become a neutral country, the japanese would have honored the geneva accords but they will insist on the removal/destruction of US forces in the philippines.

 

they would have based them in canada, and set up bases in the falklands, south africa, arabia, india.

 

not really, the air war will shift to jets. and jet-powered bombers will have much better survivability than props. they won't need to bristle with 14 .50 cal guns to ward off fighters.

 

west african coast. then push northwards. staging area will be south africa. battle groups based in canada and possibly iceland will engage in running battles to force the german naval forces to split up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. No? Australians were "all in" for the war effort. However, even then, that country still needed help by way of protection from Americans.

 

2. When the Japs attacked the 'open city' that was Manila, I really wouldn't put too much stock in their word to abide by the Geneva Convention.

 

3. Possibly.

 

4. Jets, sure. So you had jet-powered bombers. How would they survive, being "heavy", in the face of oncoming jet-fighters out to meet them? What about fighter escorts (these would have to be carrier-based and we know them to be at a serious disadvantage performance-wise compared to land-based interceptors)?

 

C'mon, bombers cannot hope to survive in the face of a determined jet-fighter attack.

 

5. West Africa? I think so, too. Below the equator, that is. South Africa's too far.

[Podweed]

Hitler's been accused to no end of micromanaging the campaign in Russia. How big a difference would it have made had he left the conduct of the war to his generals?

[Podweed]

Hey, guys. You know, there's one conflict I haven't read much about and it's the Iran-Iraq War. Have any of you come across articles or titles discussing this? I don't want to just 'google' it. I would like a serious account.

[willow_boy]

Hitler's been accused to no end of micromanaging the campaign in Russia. How big a difference would it have made had he left the conduct of the war to his generals?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just a quick reply to this:

 

The attack on Moscow would have occurred a lot earlier than November 1941. If Hitler's generals had managed the war, Army Group Center could have focused all of its might on captuing Moscow, and probably Stalin too, all during the summer campaign and before the onset of the Russian winter. The people of Moscow would not have had enough time to set up a strong defensive ring around the city. If Stalin was captured or if Moscow had fallen to the Germans, it would have dealt a devastating blow to the morale of the Russians.

[Podweed]

Just a quick reply to this:

 

The attack on Moscow would have occurred a lot earlier than November 1941.  If Hitler's generals had managed the war, Army Group Center could have focused all of its might on captuing Moscow, and probably Stalin too, all during the summer campaign and before the onset of the Russian winter.  The people of Moscow would not have had enough time to set up a strong defensive ring around the city.  If Stalin was captured or if Moscow had fallen to the Germans, it would have dealt a devastating blow to the morale of the Russians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But that doesn't address how German armies, no matter how strong or fast they moved, could've managed to defeat Russia's defense-in-depth strategy, which the Soviets employed to the hilt. The further into enemy territory the Wermacht pushed, the stronger the opposition became because retreating Russian troops were absorbed by successive defensive lines, blitzkrieg tactics notwithstanding.

[willow_boy]

But that doesn't address how German armies, no matter how strong or fast they moved, could've managed to defeat Russia's defense-in-depth strategy, which the Soviets employed to the hilt. The further into enemy territory the Wermacht pushed, the stronger the opposition became because retreating Russian troops were absorbed by successive defensive lines, blitzkrieg tactics notwithstanding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This defensive strategy you're referring to started taking place during the 1942 campaign when the Russian generals and armies started learning from their mistakes the previous year. However, during the 1941 campaign, in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa, a lot of their armies were routed by the Germans due to the absence of experienced officers (a result of Stalin's purges from the 1930s). The Germans, due to Hitler's micromanaging, failed to take advantage of this Russian inexperience to maximum effect in 1941.

Edited May 11, 2006 by willow_boy

[Podweed]

This defensive strategy you're referring to started taking place during the 1942 campaign when the Russian generals and armies started learning from their mistakes the previous year.  However, during the 1941 campaign, in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa, a lot of their armies were routed by the Germans due to the absence of experienced officers (a result of Stalin's purges from the 1930s).  The Germans, due to Hitler's micromanaging, failed to take advantage of this Russian inexperience to maximum effect in 1941.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

By accident or by design?

 

An early general retreat was part of Soviet strategy because the Russians knew they still did not have enough by way of defense against Germany. By the very nature of this, fleeing units were dragooned by those in place. Also, Barbarossa was effected on a front so wide that two million men, despite six major points of attack, could not possibly hope to overwhelm a numerically-superior albeit generally ill-equipped foe.

 

Let's fast-forward to when Russia regained its footing and Germany was on the defensive. Could the latter have held out longer had it consolidated its forces and shortened the front-lines by strategic withdrawals? Was forward-defense essentially military-suicide?

Edited May 11, 2006 by Podweed

[Dr_PepPeR]

the book tilles you mentioned ar enovels, not ballantine

 

we had co. comm, helmet, scream of eagles, and the griffith book. my favorite chapter there was "the iron tongue of midnight" telling how the americans has their asses handed to them at savo.

 

i think the very first book i read was "samurai" by saburo sakai.

 

if you're a serious student military of the military, i suggest you read the formal works of strategists such as mahan (navy) and mitchell (stategic bombing).

 

i was so into battleships i even research the metallurgical aspect of battleship armor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The WEB Griffin series are fiction. They incorporate historical events and characters into the plots. The dialogue and characters are stilted but make for good light reading.

 

The other books mentioned are mostly first hand accounts of the incidents/battles described. Another Ballantine illustrated war book that I vividly remember is entitled "Brazen Chariots" although I forget the author. He describes what desert tank warfare was like for the British tankers in the Middle East in WWII.