Three WWII Questions... (1 Viewer)

Joe OKC

"Better Days"
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1997
Messages
20,412
Reaction score
6,968
Age
56
Location
OKC, OK
Offline
1. Could the Russians have defeated the Germans after Stalingrad without the help of the Americans and the British?

2. Did the Allied Bombing Campaign do any good?

3. If WW2 were to have started Today, would we (The USA) win or lose?
 

Big_L

Team Big Pimpin'
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
8,416
Reaction score
8,314
Age
48
Location
Pimpin Purgatory
Offline
1 ) It was more of the cold Russian winter and fighting on more than 1 front that did the Nazis in.

2) Pretty sure it did.

3) Yes because now we have a professional Air Force.
 

pmiceli

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Nov 30, 2013
Messages
919
Reaction score
1,101
Offline
It depends on what you mean by help.

Russia received material aid and without it, the eventual victory would have taken quite a bit longer but would have eventually happened in my opinion.

If you mean the Allies weren't fighting in the West, Russia alone against Germany would probably have lost.

The Allied bombing campaign had the wrong objective for quite a long time. The bomber Generals were out to "prove" bombers could win the war alone and this cost many thousands of airman's lives as they pursued a campaign designed to convince the Germans to quit.

Once the objective became the destruction of the Luftwaffe, the bombing campaign quickly turned the tide of the war in Western Europe. Bombers with escorting fighters going to Berlin forced the Germans to commit everything they had and the resulting destruction of the Luftwaffe meant Air Supremacy for the Allies for the 1944 invasion. If the Luftwaffe had been a viable force in June 1944 the Normandy landings would have been much more difficult.

The campaign across France was aided by unimpeded (except by weather) close air support for the Allies.

The last question is an interesting one.

Germany was the most powerful and technically advanced military in the world at the start of WWII. The United States was pitifully weak although the country had started serious preparation for war before Pearl Harbor.

But Germany was well on its way to losing already. England had held and Hitler had already made the always fatal error of invading Russia.

The United States was engaged in an undeclared war in the Atlantic providing Britain and Russia with vital ships and supplies.

The US suffered a series of defeats throughout the first half of 1942.

I cannot imagine this country now enduring 6 months of defeat and then enduring the incredibly bloody Pacific campaign and our necessary learning curve during the invasion of North Africa.

I don't think the United States could now endure sending its sons against a technically superior force and grinding out the bloody victories necessary to achieve unconditional surrender in the Pacific and Western Europe.

I think we would accept a conditional end to the war once the forward progress was stopped, which means the war ends sometime in 1943 and Germany and Japan continue on with greatly expanded empires. The fighting in Russia would have continued for years and millions upon millions more would have died in Europe and in the countries occupied by Japan.
 

sinner mike

All-Pro
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
1,381
Offline
The stalemate at Stalingrad (pinning the Germans in place) gave time for the Russians to gather men and materials that would eventually push the Gemans back. The winter was a significant factor in the German defeat along with Hitler's poor decision making. If Hitler would have allowed the generals to manage the battle the outcome would have been the same though not so devastating. Yes, I think the Russians would have wiped the earth clean of Germans if the Allies were not camped outside of Berlin.

Yes, the bombing helped. It crippled German manufacturing capability,.

It is unknowable who would win today.
 

Devildog

Meh
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
17,312
Reaction score
19,871
Age
47
Location
:hookthem:
Offline
1. The Soviets still would have made progress, but it wouldn't have come as quickly. The brutal Russian winter did the Germans in and the Soviets sent human wave after human wave, damn the consequences.

2. Yes, the allied bombing campaign worked. Taking out Germany's manufacturing ability and oil reserves were vital in stopping them. Today it would be better since we have precision guided munitions. The need for mass bombing of cities wouldn't have to happen.

3. If it doesn't get nuclear, yes, we would still win. We have the most capable professional military in the world with unmatched technology, but the gap is closing steadily.
 

pmiceli

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Nov 30, 2013
Messages
919
Reaction score
1,101
Offline
I took his question to be a replay of WW2 by the current generation, not a do over with the current military technology.

The Germans, while hindered by the bombing campaign, were still able to continuously increase production. It wasn't until the target of the campaign became the Luftwaffe that it had a major effect on the war progress.

And the Germans insisted on the very latest technology. The result was constant change in the production process and difficult production processes. This was a great hindrance.

An example are Panther tanks. Absolutely the finest tanks on the battlefield but greatly outnumbered by the mass produced tanks from the US.

Shermans were easily "killed" by Germans tanks. A single round would generally bounce around inside the tank, killing the crew but the tank was still serviceable. The US (and other we supplied) would clean the interior, put a new crew in and send the tank back into battle.

That's the hard calculus we won't do anymore (I am glad we haven't had to face that hard reality)

Now we are the ones with the excellent equipment and training.
 
OP
Joe OKC

Joe OKC

"Better Days"
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1997
Messages
20,412
Reaction score
6,968
Age
56
Location
OKC, OK
Offline
I took his question to be a replay of WW2 by the current generation, not a do over with the current military technology.
That was exactly the question.

Can you imagine the reactions in the USA today if we had to take our Youth, draft them and send them over seas against a foreign enemy. Plant Victory Gardens, Food Rationing, Gasoline Rationing. Turning sewing machine factories into gun factories.

American today is so politically correct it is amazing. We protest over the most stupidest of things. Fire Teachers and leaders over light hearted jokes on Facebook.

I view that it would be very difficult if we had to go against something that grew up in a Hitler Jugend lifestyle.

Great answers BTW, There are no right or wrong answers here. Only opinions.

My thoughts on Stalingrad. That Yes, I think that the Russians would have defeated the Germans alone. Just taken a little longer. Because at that time other than N. Africa, we had not set up any other fronts. Russia was fighting it alone. We Did not invade Italy until July 1943. Stalingrad fell in January 43'

The Air Campaign. I think it's a double sided coin here. It did not decrease production as it was first thought nor did it break German moral so therefore it did not do as it was expected to do. But on the other hand. It did keep luftwaffe fighters busy attacking bombers that could have been used fighting either the soviets or the allies and away from some main battle fronts.
 

pmiceli

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Nov 30, 2013
Messages
919
Reaction score
1,101
Offline
That was exactly the question.

Can you imagine the reactions in the USA today if we had to take our Youth, draft them and send them over seas against a foreign enemy. Plant Victory Gardens, Food Rationing, Gasoline Rationing. Turning sewing machine factories into gun factories.

American today is so politically correct it is amazing. We protest over the most stupidest of things. Fire Teachers and leaders over light hearted jokes on Facebook.

I view that it would be very difficult if we had to go against something that grew up in a Hitler Jugend lifestyle.

Great answers BTW, There are no right or wrong answers here. Only opinions.

My thoughts on Stalingrad. That Yes, I think that the Russians would have defeated the Germans alone. Just taken a little longer. Because at that time other than N. Africa, we had not set up any other fronts. Russia was fighting it alone. We Did not invade Italy until July 1943. Stalingrad fell in January 43'

The Air Campaign. I think it's a double sided coin here. It did not decrease production as it was first thought nor did it break German moral so therefore it did not do as it was expected to do. But on the other hand. It did keep luftwaffe fighters busy attacking bombers that could have been used fighting either the soviets or the allies and away from some main battle fronts.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Allies-Won-Richard-Overy/dp/039331619X

The link above is an excellent, scholarly treatment of the subject. It treats your first two question in great depth.

The third not so much :) (Although it does provide plenty of background for a realistic game of what if?)

I received it as a gift from a friend who does military history and national security for a living.
 

SuperMatt

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
562
Reaction score
536
Offline
1. Could the Russians have defeated the Germans after Stalingrad without the help of the Americans and the British?

2. Did the Allied Bombing Campaign do any good?

3. If WW2 were to have started Today, would we (The USA) win or lose?
1. Possibly not

2.Yes imagine being on the ground during that time, it has to wear down people with constant bombing wondering if one will land on them.

3. Depends Yes if our military that we have now can handle it but I would be worried if we had to get the soft 18-24 year old crowd involved because they have no clue about being tough they have no backbone!!!
 

bigdaddysaints

BigDaddy Has Arrived
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
7,669
Reaction score
11,661
Age
47
Location
DutchTown
Offline
1. The Soviets still would have made progress, but it wouldn't have come as quickly. The brutal Russian winter did the Germans in and the Soviets sent human wave after human wave, damn the consequences.

2. Yes, the allied bombing campaign worked. Taking out Germany's manufacturing ability and oil reserves were vital in stopping them. Today it would be better since we have precision guided munitions. The need for mass bombing of cities wouldn't have to happen.

3. If it doesn't get nuclear, yes, we would still win. We have the most capable professional military in the world with unmatched technology, but the gap is closing steadily.
we should have a military that is unmatched. we spend more on military than the next 10 countries combined.
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
22,573
Reaction score
20,747
Age
49
Location
Between here and there
Offline
1. Without the US, England would have eventually starved. That takes away the 2nd front. Russia would've won because of winter, and the fact Russia outnumbered the germans. It would've been a terrible victory though.

2. Bombing severely hurt production, but the allies cutting off the oil and tungsten sources was of massive importance.

3. I'm not sure. The US population isn't large enough to defeat China. Simply couldn't do it. Russia would go nuclear. So, could we? Doubtful. The US is also so technically advanced it's not easy to replace losses now. It takes 12 years from keel to fully in service for a carrier. How long to build modern fighters and bombers? Tanks. I know they are tough targets but not easily replaceable. Even all the gear troops carry is not quickly and easily replaceable, certainly when modern trade routes would be disrupted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom