Did Rommel impact on the defeat of Germany?

[Toddy]

Sick and returned to Germany prior to El Alemein. The turning point in North Africa.

I might be wrong but wasn't also supposed to be present at the DD defences? I was pretty sure he was in Germany then as well. The turning point in Europe.

Would his presence at either of these two engagements have influenced the war in a different vein? Or was the German war machine already in it's death knoll?

[TR1]

Neither engagement was anything close to a turning point in the war. Especially not El Alamein.

[AmandlaEwetu]

turning point was Stalingrad,Al Alemein and D day were sideshows in comparison


How large were German losses on the eastern front?
In: Germany in WW2 [Recategorize]
[Edit]

[Edit]
Answer
It is generally accepted that of the total German military combat deaths in WWII, which numbered about 3.4 million, about 75% and possibly 80% were on the eastern front. Additionally, up to June 1944 (Normandy) the percentage was even higher since there was little combat elsewhere that generated large casualties.
German material losses on the eastern front were also huge representing over 80% of artillery, tank and truck losses. Aircraft losses were about 50/50 on the eastern and western front. Of course, naval losses were almost exclusively in the west, even including defensive actions taken against Soviet attempts to massacre civilians on the open seas late in the war in the Baltic.
It is said that, 9 out of 10 German soldiers killed in World War II were on the Eastern Front.

[Connaught Ranger]

While Rommel was a recognized worthy adversary in the North African campaign all he

attempted to do or planned to do had to be ok'ed by his superior Field Marshal Kesselring.

That in conjunction with long supply-lines originating in France and Italy and always subject to Allied attack seriously depleted the reserves required to successfully take Egypt from the Allies.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

turning point was Stalingrad,Al Alemein and D day were sideshows in comparison

But El Alamein set up the Tunisia campaign, which led to the surrender of a a quarter million Axis troops, which WAS a major blow right after the fall of Stalingrad.

[CG51]

Nope. Only Eastern Front battles had any impact on the war.

[T3ngu]

I agree, in that the men and materials was all diverted (based on my readings) to the eastern front, and Rommel had to "make do". Thus, being starved of much needed reinforcements and material. This of course, impacted on his successor.

Hitler had a much greater impact no the defeat of germany, such as Von Lucks (i think) panzer division being held back on D day. (yes im being overly simplistic).

[NavyTimes]

Nope. Only Eastern Front battles had any impact on the war.

Is this trolling or a serious opinion? Or irony?

[PrinzEugen]

While Rommel was a recognized worthy adversary in the North African campaign all he

attempted to do or planned to do had to be ok'ed by his superior Field Marshal Kesselring.

That in conjunction with long supply-lines originating in France and Italy and always subject to Allied attack seriously depleted the reserves required to successfully take Egypt from the Allies.

Although Kesselring was Rommels superior until the autumn of 42, technically he had to answer to the Italians which he more often than not choose to disregard. Had he followed his instructions to the letter, chain of command would of been an major issue, but since he didn't, and quite often by-passed everyone and went directly to Hitler, it became a minor IMHO.
The latter part with regards to supplies and reserves I agree with.
For what it's worth I also agree with Kesselring that Rommel was best suited for corp level command at which he excelled.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Neither engagement was anything close to a turning point in the war. Especially not El Alamein.

People need to look deeper into what the Axis were trying to do and to the potential "what if" in would have happened.

Yeah sure Stalingrad this, Eastern Front that.

Axis powers defeat the Australians/British in North Africa and gain control of the Suez Canal. With this comes control of the Med and the vital oil supplies of the Middle East.

This is what will happen without a doubt.

1. Italy will stay in the war.

2. Italy still had the 4th most powerful navy with not only free access to the Atlantic but also the Indian/Pacific Oceans. A navy that was pretty well much one of if not the most modern navy in existence.

3. Turkey are more then likely going to throw their lot in with Germany, Italy and Japan.

4. Japan with good communication/logistic lines with said Middle East may very well open up a 2nd front with Russia.

The campaign in Africa may appear on paper to be a sideshow however the potential of what could eventuate with a Axis victory surely has to go down as one of the biggest strategic blunders ever made in warfare.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Not to mention the potential of a German advance north from the Mideast into the Caucasus, taking the Russians from the rear and seizing the Caucasus oil fields, which would in turn weaken the Soviet defense of...you guessed it...Stalingrad.

[Dean1962]

People need to look deeper into what the Axis were trying to do and to the potential "what if" in would have happened.

Yeah sure Stalingrad this, Eastern Front that.

Axis powers defeat the Australians/British in North Africa and gain control of the Suez Canal. With this comes control of the Med and the vital oil supplies of the Middle East.

This is what will happen without a doubt.

1. Italy will stay in the war.

2. Italy still had the 4th most powerful navy with not only free access to the Atlantic but also the Indian/Pacific Oceans. A navy that was pretty well much one of if not the most modern navy in existence.

3. Turkey are more then likely going to throw their lot in with Germany, Italy and Japan.

4. Japan with good communication/logistic lines with said Middle East may very well open up a 2nd front with Russia.

The campaign in Africa may appear on paper to be a sideshow however the potential of what could eventuate with a Axis victory surely has to go down as one of the biggest strategic blunders ever made in warfare.

I have to disagree with 4. Japan would not and could not have opened up another front, as they had a number of problems.
1. Their army had stopped advancing in China long before. In every case, they had outrun their supply lines, and were unable to advance further.
2. Against the Russians, the Japanese had run into a brick wall. Every time they bumped the Russians, they lost, and after the battle of Khalkin Gol, they never even tried advancing further. In fact, their loss at Khalkin Gol forced them to sign a non-aggression pact with the Soviets, as they knew that the Soviets had better armour, better tactics, and in many cases better trained soldiers then they did. Although the Japanese had a better air force in theatre, in fact it was inefficient, and was soundly out-performed by their Soviet counterparts.
3. In order to have any chance of succeeding in an attack against the Soviets, the Japanese would have had to have withdrawn from somewhere else to have enough men and materiel to do it. From where could they have withdrawn? They were hopelessly mired in fronts all across Asia and the Pacific, and would not have withdrawn from any of them. All of the fronts in which they were involved were seen as being critical to the Japanese war effort, so there were no more men going to Russia.
4. The Japanese had good logistical lines in any place where their navy was operating. On land, however, this was another matter. They had all of the trouble in the world re-supplying their armies over the roads of China and Burma, and in the end, they were unable to do it effectively. Lengthening those lines to the middle-east was a no-go, unless the US had proven unable to defeat the Japanese Navy.
IMO, the scenario above could only have occurred if the US had not been drawn into the war against Japan. As soon as that occurred, the IJN became involved in a lengthy series of battles against the USN, ech of which weakened and finally resulted in the total destruction of the IJN. After Midway, they (the IJN) became far more concerned with protecting the home islands than with projecting power into other fronts.

Dean.

[TR1]

People need to look deeper into what the Axis were trying to do and to the potential "what if" in would have happened.

Yeah sure Stalingrad this, Eastern Front that.

Axis powers defeat the Australians/British in North Africa and gain control of the Suez Canal. With this comes control of the Med and the vital oil supplies of the Middle East.

This is what will happen without a doubt.

1. Italy will stay in the war.

and? Italy had larger numbers of troops in the East than it did in Africa for 90% of the war, it did little to tip the scale.

2. Italy still had the 4th most powerful navy with not only free access to the Atlantic but also the Indian/Pacific Oceans. A navy that was pretty well much one of if not the most modern navy in existence.

And one that showed no initiative to do anything, in face of inferior (at times) Bitish forces. We've been over this in the past, British navy had enough forces at it's disposal to enagage the Italians on equal, if not superior grounds, while keeping the Germans bottled in.

3. Turkey are more then likely going to throw their lot in with Germany, Italy and Japan.

4. Japan with good communication/logistic lines with said Middle East may very well open up a 2nd front with Russia.
Not a chance. japan was determined to not start any fighting with the USSR (Not Russia, btw), all throughout the war, ever since Khalkin Gol.

The campaign in Africa may appear on paper to be a sideshow however the potential of what could eventuate with a Axis victory surely has to go down as one of the biggest strategic blunders ever made in warfare.
German troop deployments in Africa were never intended to be victorious-rather prop up Italina forces and keep the status quo in the region.


.....................................

[Toddy]

^^ Are you so blinded by Stalingrad that you can fail to see the possible logistics behind securing the Middle Eastern oil fields, and as a couple have pointed out, being able to attack USSR from behind? If Africa was a sideshow as you point out, why then devote such crack troops to the campaign, not to mention one of your better commanders in Rommel.

I am not even going to comment on your aspersions that D Day was a sideshow, that's a childish and pathetic comment.

Besides it was the USSR weather that beat the Germans, as it had done to Napoleon and the Grande Armee 120 odd years before.

[CG51]

Is this trolling or a serious opinion? Or irony?

Heh, sarcasm. Ask any of the revisionist here and that is what they will tell you.

[TR1]

^^ Are you so blinded by Stalingrad that you can fail to see the possible logistics behind securing the Middle Eastern oil fields, and as a couple have pointed out, being able to attack USSR from behind? If Africa was a sideshow as you point out, why then devote such crack troops to the campaign, not to mention one of your better commanders in Rommel.

I am not even going to comment on your aspersions that D Day was a sideshow, that's a childish and pathetic comment.

Besides it was the USSR weather that beat the Germans, as it had done to Napoleon and the Grande Armee 120 odd years before.
LOL. i did not even mention Stalingrad, yet you go on about it. Crack troops? BS. The numbers of troops commited, and the times during which they were committed, show that the Germans merely attempted to respond to British build ups, and maintain the situation on the ground, as opposed to reinforcing the Africa Korps to drive the Brits out of North Africa.


D day sideshow? where in gods name did I say that. You see to be rather adept at puting words into peoples mouths. I did mention it was not a turning point, but I never called it a side show.


HAHAHAH weather beat Germany. Ok, we know who the little child is here. Go on troll.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

And one that showed no initiative to do anything, in face of inferior (at times) Bitish forces. We've been over this in the past, British navy had enough forces at it's disposal to enagage the Italians on equal, if not superior grounds, while keeping the Germans bottled in.

Italy had no oil. However they did operate just as well if not better then the Commonwealth Navies when they did put to sea. Without major air support, against a superior force (in numbers) they still managed to resupply North Africa quite well all things considered.

The Italian Navy was generally faster, more modern then anything the British had in theatre. The British only had WW1 era battleships and a carrier or two when they could be spared.

The Italians showed plenty of initiative.

as for the number differences again. You fail to understand that numbers mean crap really. You can't have million man armies fighting in North Africa. It's logistically impossible, North Africa is only a narrow strip of land with water on wide side and a massive sand dune on the other.

[Toddy]

LOL. i did not even mention Stalingrad, yet you go on about it. Crack troops? BS. The numbers of troops commited, and the times during which they were committed, show that the Germans merely attempted to respond to British build ups, and maintain the situation on the ground, as opposed to reinforcing the Africa Korps to drive the Brits out of North Africa.


D day sideshow? where in gods name did I say that. You see to be rather adept at puting words into peoples mouths. I did mention it was not a turning point, but I never called it a side show.


HAHAHAH weather beat Germany. Ok, we know who the little child is here. Go on troll.

It's funny how a lot of historians and veterans considered the Afrika Corp crack troops you ****ing muppet.

So had the allied forces not succeeded during the Normandy landings, you don't somehow see this small insignificant thing as a turning point in the war? Or do you think that because you won a victory at Stalingrad the year before (which I admit was definitely the turning point in the East) the Germans were a defeated army ready to turn tail and run. If they had succeeded in either North Africa or at Normandy then where do you think they would have gone next? USSR, both fronts and you would have agreed to terms

Cheap shot I'll admit.

[T-Rex]

So had the allied forces not succeeded during the Normandy landings, you don't somehow see this small insignificant thing as a turning point in the war? Or do you think that because you won a victory at Stalingrad the year before (which I admit was definitely the turning point in the East) the Germans were a defeated army ready to turn tail and run. If they had succeeded in either North Africa or at Normandy then where do you think they would have gone next? USSR, both fronts and you would have agreed to terms

Totally agree on this point, well said. The only resaon Hitler was unwilling to provide Rommel with more support in Africa was because he was planing his Russian campaign. And indeed, if he had more support from Hitler and if his supply ships were not sunk in the Meditteranean, then who knows how the African campaigns might have turned out. What Rommel lacked in manpower he certainly made up in the technical supperiority of German equipment in the field. Hitler was focusing on Europe and not so much Africa. That is not to say that Africa was not a battlefied like any other, its just that Hitler did not think it was key to his success. Hence Rommel was ordered to withdraw.

[Salman]

Totally agree on this point, well said. The only resaon Hitler was unwilling to provide Rommel with more support in Africa was because he was planing his Russian campaign. And indeed, if he had more support from Hitler and if his supply ships were not sunk in the Meditteranean, then who knows how the African campaigns might have turned out. What Rommel lacked in manpower he certainly made up in the technical supperiority of German equipment in the field. Hitler was focusing on Europe and not so much Africa. That is not to say that Africa was not a battlefied like any other, its just that Hitler did not think it was key to his success. Hence Rommel was ordered to withdraw.


I always thought Germany landed troops in N A to save Italy from total defeat, just like in Greece. Thus maintaining some control of the axis "southern" front.

[LineDoggie]

El Alamein was the turning point in NORTH AFRICA, someone here seems to have missed that in the first post.

[Vandervahn]

It's funny how a lot of historians and veterans considered the Afrika Corp crack troops you ****ing muppet. ...

Um, initially the Afrikakorps was far from being "crack" troops, it was a hastily collected mix of standard armoured and support troops. Why should the Germans have risked anything really valuable just to support the Italians? Hitler never had ambitions in North Africa, and the idea to travel through Africa and strike into the Caucasus was sound, but given the circumstances not a lot more probable than traveling over the Northpole into Siberia.

The Afrikakorps only gained importance when both sides began to exploit the Africa Campaign for their Propaganda. Even today the actual Erwin Rommel and Africa Campaign are quite exaggerated with lore.



El Alamein was the turning point in NORTH AFRICA, someone here seems to have missed that in the first post.

The actual Question asked however was wether he contributed to the defeat of Germany. To which the answer is : not really.

[TR1]

It's funny how a lot of historians and veterans considered the Afrika Corp crack troops you ****ing muppet.

So had the allied forces not succeeded during the Normandy landings, you don't somehow see this small insignificant thing as a turning point in the war? Or do you think that because you won a victory at Stalingrad the year before (which I admit was definitely the turning point in the East) the Germans were a defeated army ready to turn tail and run. If they had succeeded in either North Africa or at Normandy then where do you think they would have gone next? USSR, both fronts and you would have agreed to terms

Cheap shot I'll admit.
Well, you loose your credibility with such childish statements.

[Lokos]

I'm not touching this thread. It's too easy.

L.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I'm not touching this thread. It's too easy.

L.

Well why even post you ****head?

Mr Eastern ****ing Front

[Lokos]

Well why even post you ****head?

Mr Eastern ****ing Front

My post added more to this thread than yours and Toddy's combined. How's that for trash talk?

We've had this discussion before. You didn't do well last time. I don't enjoy repeating myself over and over again to people who'll just choose to forget the entire episode - almost as if they had pressed a mental reset button - after the fact.

Next time, if you choose to address me, make the choice to also do it in a civil way. But I would prefer it if you never addressed me again in any way, shape or form.

Have a copacetic day.

L.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Hey man. I appreciate what you contribute to this area of the forum. You have opened my eyes up quite a bit with regards to the Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War.

What I take issue is, is with your condescending attitude for anything that occurred West of the "Oder Line"

There is no denying Nazi Germany and the USSR were in a war of winner takes all, there is no respawn. Game over man. But to continue as you do to suggest time and time again that El Alamain, Kakoda, Milne Bay, Tobruk, Normandy were only a side shows does fly in the face of being highly biased of what actually transpired.

I'm the first to admit that Stalingrad was the turning point in the war in the East. However Citadel had not yet taken place. Meanwhile whilst Stalingrad is raging, Australia, US and UK are realing from the Japanese, trying to hold on to what they have in Africa let alone trying to supply all of these campaigns. Far from home, in hostile seas.

There is a point in North Africa where the frontline was only 100 miles wide and the fighting resembled something from WW1.

Take the campaign in Gaudalcanal/Papua which was going on at the time of Stalingrad. Even if the US/Australia could land 4 million men. You can't do it. In some cases the front line extended a few yards! Let alone the fleet train needed to supply the fighting forces and the carriers.

At the end of the day. It took the combined effort of the Allies to defeat arguably the most awesome fighting force ever assembled across a number of fronts in a winner takes all battle.

One final question. Do you think the outcome would have been different had Germany concentrated on the Med/Africa as opposed to Stalingrad?

[Mordoror]

One final question. Do you think the outcome would have been different had Germany concentrated on the Med/Africa as opposed to Stalingrad?

sorry to come up in that discussion but should not the question be asked otherwise ??
Would the outcome have been different if Germany instead of sending troops and equipment on a relatively minor front (Africa) have sent the Afrika Krop and all its stuff on the Eastern Front ?

just to fix my point of view, the Africa front is very minor and excpet tactical success from one side or the other did not bring nothing either to the Allies or the Axis (except fuel for propaganda)
Even the El Alamein victory was oversized by the brits (hum so difficult to obtain a victory against an overstreched ennemy lacking fuel, spare parts, mechanized units and fresh troops when you have a local superiority of arty/armor/airpower of one to 2 to one to four ... and even after that Monty was afraid to keep on the pressure on the Afirka Korps remains, delaying the elimination of that unit by several months)

in fact this front was not worthy for the German except for the very hypothetical hypothesis of seizing the Suez canal ... which remaind that : hypothetical (except in the crazy mind of A.H)

And even after that OKH still fueled troops here to get them ultimately seized as prisonners (around 300 000 germans and italians if i remember correctly) that were certainly missed elsewhere

so instead of dispersing its forces on secondary fronts like North Afrika or Crete (which was an indirect consequence of the North African theatre operations) would have not been more worthy to send them in Russia ??

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

But that brings us the question of what was a bigger strategic prize. Suez or some burnt out city on the Volga?

I'm in the camp that had the Axis won in the Med/Africa the possibilities that such a result would open would put the USSR in a very bad situation.

Do you think Turkey would have remained neutral? Or Iran for that matter.

Arguably the most modern navy in existence with free access to the Indian and Atlantic Oceans.

[Mordoror]

Do you think Turkey would have remained neutral? Or Iran for that matter.

maybe not, maybe yes for Turkey, it is a matter of conjectures and would have depended of the diplomatic pressure too (US included)

Iran was already torn appart and vulnerable (presence of either Brit or Russian troops) and i don't see it engaged i n a conflict with either URSS or Western allies

Moreover either i have respect for the operators of the Regia Marina (ships officers and sailors) either the HQ of the Italian navy proved to be very poor on a tactical and strategical scale in the mediterranean waters so i don't see the italian navy being a descent opfor far away from its so called "mare nostrum"

but all that is my personnal opinion

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Do you think Turkey would have remained neutral? Or Iran for that matter.

Iran had already been invaded and occupied by the British and Soviets in August 1941 precisely because their neutrality was in question.

I don't think the armed forces of Iran or Turkey were sufficient to have much impact on the war. The impact of their entering the war would be to allow Axis troops to strike the underbelly of the USSR and maybe even threaten British India.

[Toddy]

Rommel was NOT in anyway shape or form responsible for the German defeats in either El Alemein or Normandy...it is surprising how often the Allies put plans in place to knock him out of action though isn't it??? Perhaps the leaders and soldiers fighting him personally were a bit more cluey than arm chair generals of the 21st Century.

Not to worry, I want to wish all a heartfelt Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

[T-Rex]

Yes, I believe there was more than one attempt on Rommel's life. I know of at least one failed attempt. Its a shame he committed suicide in 1944. On the other hand he had no choice, it was either suicde or face trial. Ive always wondered why serious generals commited sucide after a major loss. This usually never happend in the American army (correct me if I'm wrong).

[Kilgor]

Despite what you might hear, the goal of the German forces in Africa was to cause a mess and tie down extremely stretched British forces. The goal was never to take the middle eastern oilfields. (and to lend a hand to the lamentable Italian war machine)

[backpack]

I'm not touching this thread. It's too easy.

L.

Good advice for things other than threads too! Clap! -Howie Feltersnatch

[LineDoggie]

Yes, I believe there was more than one attempt on Rommel's life. I know of at least one failed attempt. Its a shame he committed suicide in 1944. On the other hand he had no choice, it was either suicde or face trial. Ive always wondered why serious generals commited sucide after a major loss. This usually never happend in the American army (correct me if I'm wrong).
IMO, if it was just a Court Martial, or Honor Court, Rommel would have fought that Vigorously. However a Peoples court with his families lives on the line as well........... who wants to see their child facing Roland Frieseler? Presented with a Fait accompli, he choose to save his families lives.

[johanness]

Sick and returned to Germany prior to El Alemein. The turning point in North Africa.

I might be wrong but wasn't also supposed to be present at the DD defences? I was pretty sure he was in Germany then as well. The turning point in Europe.

Would his presence at either of these two engagements have influenced the war in a different vein? Or was the German war machine already in it's death knoll?

You are aware that even the Finns had bigger battles against the Soviets then the Commonwealth at El-Alamain?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=121840&postcount=2

[JRT]

As a force the Afrika Korps was not capable of more than what it did, keeping the Italians at war and holding ground for some time in the northern Africa. Rommel, however, was given orders to advance east to Suez canal, even though he was never given the adequate forces and supply lines to achieve this feat.

What was crucial in the Africa campaign was the use of vehicles, especially armour, and there was always too few of them for the Germans. Italian armour was of little use to Rommel, as it was inadequate both in quality of the machines and of the men. While the british armour wasn't that glorious either, they had 'em coming in and could replenish the losses.

Given that Rommel would have been given enough adequate tanks in the form of 50mm - armed Pz III's and long-barreled Pz-IV's (F2->) with fuel and spares, he would have stood a chance of advancing to Suez even with only half the infantry of the allies. Those Tigers that arrived were too little, too late. Landing craft would have enabled to land on the flanks and rear of allies, but these were not available.

Given that he was outnumbered with a mission to advance, I'd say it was hardly Rommel's doings why the axis lost in Africa but due to the fact that Axis never got the hold on mediterranean waters and that Rommel was not given the forces required for the job.

Of the importance of the Africa mission, it is not like those forces would have turned things around in the Eastern Front, after all it was only a handful of German divisions, the majority of the numbers were Italians whose combat value in the Soviet Union would have been even more questionable than what it was against the British. However capturing the Suez and the destruction of the Eighth Army would have cut the British Empire in half and influenced on the Japanese advance in Asia. It also would have made the Mediterranean Axis waters and freed up forces from there. It is also possible that it would have given Germany the possibility to strike through the caucasus by summer of 1943, but it is doubtful if there ever would have been enough troops for that mission and what gains could have been made.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

You are aware that even the Finns had bigger battles against the Soviets then the Commonwealth at El-Alamain?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=121840&postcount=2

Guys, the amount of men engaged doesn't always indicate the importance of the battle.

For example a very important battle in the American Civil war, the Battle of Boone's Mill, was fought in North Carolina on July 26, 1863 with a few hundred men total, and half the Confederate force was naked because they were attacked while swimming in a pond.

If the Union had won the battle, they would have captured the Wilmington to Richmond railroad and destroyed major bridges. Wilmington was the only reliable seaport of the Confederacy, so this would have deprived Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia of supplies for some time.

Tiny battle, important result.

[THESPEAR]

^^ Are you so blinded by Stalingrad that you can fail to see the possible logistics behind securing the Middle Eastern oil fields, and as a couple have pointed out, being able to attack USSR from behind? If Africa was a sideshow as you point out, why then devote such crack troops to the campaign, not to mention one of your better commanders in Rommel.

I am not even going to comment on your aspersions that D Day was a sideshow, that's a childish and pathetic comment.

Besides it was the USSR weather that beat the Germans, as it had done to Napoleon and the Grande Armee 120 odd years before.


Even without the weather Nazi-Germany wouldn't have survived the Russian counter attack.

The number of Russian Soldiers , Tanks, Altilery, were too much for the Germans.
Plus they had good generals who were able to stop the German advance.

Quantity have it own quality too.

[Noble713]

I am not even going to comment on your aspersions that D Day was a sideshow, that's a childish and pathetic comment.


Compared to Operation Bagration, which was occurring at the same, it does come off as a BIT minor.

[LineDoggie]

Bagration:

Germans- 800,000 Men Soviet Union-2,330,000 Men
Casualties
German-580,000 Men Soviet Union-769,355 Men


Overlord:

Germans-1,000,000 Men Allies- 2,052,000 Men
Casualties
German-450,000 Men, 2,200 Tanks/SPW Allies- 209,672Men, 4,000 Tanks/SPW

[TR1]

lol, yes german casulaties were significant if you look at the whole france campaighn. Those numbers you pasted were from a longer period that bagration. Not to mention the numbers of germans surrendering to the West was magnitudes larger.

[LineDoggie]

Bagration dates are June 22nd, 1944- August 18th, 1944

Overlords Dates are from June 6th, 1944- August 30th, 1944

Casualties are not for the entire campaign in France.

Milton Shulman (1st Canadian Army intel and member of MI 14b, author of "Defeat in the West" written from his interviews with Gerd von Rundstedt, among other German Commanders) states German casualties as 210,000 POW, and upwards of 240,000 Killed, Wounded

[SOG]

Megaraptor;3793305']Guys, the amount of men engaged doesn't always indicate the importance of the battle.

For example a very important battle in the American Civil war, the Battle of Boone's Mill, was fought in North Carolina on July 26, 1863 with a few hundred men total, and half the Confederate force was naked because they were attacked while swimming in a pond.

If the Union had won the battle, they would have captured the Wilmington to Richmond railroad and destroyed major bridges. Wilmington was the only reliable seaport of the Confederacy, so this would have deprived Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia of supplies for some time.

Tiny battle, important result.

Logic has no sense in this debate! Out of this thread now!

[Lokos]

Okay.


Bagration:

Germans- 800,000 Men Soviet Union-2,330,000 Men
Casualties
German-580,000 Men Soviet Union-769,355 Men


Overlord:

Germans-1,000,000 Men Allies- 2,052,000 Men
Casualties
German-450,000 Men, 2,200 Tanks/SPW Allies- 209,672Men, 4,000 Tanks/SPW

1) Wikipedia is a useful resource. But if you're going to mislead, don't be so blatant about it. Tamelander gives 288,000 casualties for the Germans, for example, injecting a great degree of uncertainty into that facet of the debate. Of that total only 23,000 are KIA and 67,000 WIA - the rest MIA (most of which would likely be POWs). To show you that I, too, can quote Wiki:


Tamelander states this figure breaks down to 23,019 dead, 67,240 wounded, and 198,616 missing. According to Tamelander, these figures also include losses from the fighting in Southern France as well as from following the retreat. He suggests roughly 79,000 men should be deducted from this total to give an accurate figure for the Normandy campaign

Corresponding German losses in the East were massive. Though there is no absolute certainty to be had, what we know for certain is that AGC (Army Group Centre), as an operable army group in its original mould, was destroyed. Though that certainly does not mean it was 100% liquidated, it does mean that the damage it sustained was horrendous. At least 28 divisions were more or less entirely swept away. The Germans suffered at least 300,000 permanent losses (KIA/MIA) in the space of two weeks (between 22 June and 4 July). The strength of the AGC (including units brought up from the flanks) went from 888,000 on 22 June to 445,000 in August, even taking into account reinforcement personnel.

That's a staggering loss. The Soviets, for their part, suffered 178,000 permanent losses.

2) The strength figures you provide are accurate, perhaps, in August - but intellectual honesty would have seen you point out that, on the first day, Allied strength landed was in the vicinity of 160,000 - to reach 1.5m in late July, and finally culminating in the 2m given in very late August. By 23 July there were perhaps 380,000 Germans contesting the Allied advance - a number that would eventually climb to 1m in August. The corresponding totals for Bagration on day one were much higher, at 700,000 and 2.2m, respectively, and the campaign far more intensive in terms of daily losses for both sides until August.

3) The Soviets had used Bagration to unhinge the German strategic position, and launched a number of concurrent, concerted operations, including Vyborg-Petrozavodsk (involving 451,500 Soviets from 10 June - 9 August), Rezekne-Dvinsk (391,000 from 10 July - 27 July), Pskov-Ostrov (258,400 Soviets from 11th August - 31st July) and the massive L'vov-Sandomierz offensive (1,002,000 Soviets from 13 July - 29 August) - not to mention Madona (390,000 Soviets, 1 August - 28 August), Tartu (272,800 Soviets, 10 August - 6 September) and the huge Iassy-Kishinev offensive (1,314,000 Soviets, 20 August - 29 August). Only Vyborg-Petrozavodsk was possible without Bagration.

I do not point these things out to prove, simply, that Bagration was a 'bigger' operation, and therefore somehow more important than Overlord. That's a senseless contest. Both constituted highly damaging campaigns that significantly reduced the German capacity for conducting warfare. But what I do not appreciate is this bare-faced attempt to mislead regarding the nature of the operations in question and the factual make-up thereof. Be careful with the salient facts, Linedoggie.

L.

[Indiana Jones]

Bagration:

Germans- 800,000 Men Soviet Union-2,330,000 Men
Casualties
German-580,000 Men Soviet Union-769,355 Men


Overlord:

Germans-1,000,000 Men Allies- 2,052,000 Men
Casualties
German-450,000 Men, 2,200 Tanks/SPW Allies- 209,672Men, 4,000 Tanks/SPW

This information is incorrect, originates in faulty Allied estimates on German strength and casualties, and has been unreflectedly cited primarily in Anglo-Saxon historiography ever since, to include Keegan, Hastings, and other well received authors.

To give any eventual debate a more solid footing allow me to provide the actual figures. From primary data we know that actual German Verpflegungsstärke (headcount- including sick, disabled, POWs, etc) in Normandy peaked on the 23rd of July at roughly 380 000 personnel. During the total duration of the campaign, no more than perhaps 640 000 German soldiers fought in Normandy.
German casualties amounted to a total of roughly 200 000 men, see: Heeresarzt im OKH GenST. d. H. /Gen.Qu Az 1335c/d (IIb), (Nachträge are included).

In short:
Manpower situation: (referencing the 23rd of July as the high point of German strength for the Wehrmacht, and the 25th of July for the Allies)

Germans: 380 000 US: 812 000 British & Commonwealth: 640000

Force ratio: 1:3,8


Casualties:

Germans: 200 000 Allied: 210 000

Casualty ratio: 1:1,05

Tank losses are difficult to ascertain.
Niklas Zetterling who has assessed the German armoured strength based on the primary Panzerlage documentation estimates the maximum of lost German tanks at 1500, and more than half of these were abandoned due to a lack of fuel or spare parts.
Anyways, it should certainly be added that the relative Allied superiority in the air as well as in virtually all other relevant material including ammunition supplies was far greater than is reflected by the already lopsided manpower ratio, ie:

Available Aircraft
( data referenced indicates Allied strength for the 6th of July, and German strength for the 10th of July, being again at its peak)

Germans: 1300 Allies: 13 000

Force ratio: 1:10

And perhaps even more telling, indicative of the severe German fuel shortages, sortie ratio on D-Day:

Luftwaffe fighter arm: 172 Allied: 14 674
(bombers&recce inconsequential in numbers)

[Lethal Lou]

Re Rommel's impact on WWII. First, if you haven't read "Attacks", his book on infantry tactics, do so. Based on lessons learned primarily in the Italian theater it provides excellent guidance on mountain warfare. He was an outstanding tactician. Secondly, during the invasion of France his Panzer Division performance was judged among the best, leading to his rapid promotion. Thirdly, remember that when leading Afrika Korps, the Allies had broken Enigma. So the Allies knew what he was going to do in advance; he'd make contact, recognize danger, and improvise on the fly to win. Very impressive. The propaganda machine selected him to be the model General (a la Gilbert/Sullivan!). Finally he was given huge responsibility by Hitler (exemplifying trust) in command of interior forces/France in anticipation of D-Day. When he was ordered to commit suicide this had multiple negative effects. A - the troops loved him felt betrayed by their leadership. B - his fellow generals saw they could easily have been in his shoes, leading to more distrust. C - the secret police believed "if he could be turned anyone could be turned" freshening the cycle of bloodshed/reprisals. D - the Allies had it easier having lost a worthy adversary. E - the toadie generals clearly realized the way to further promotion was over the bodies of their more talented peers and ratted out more good generals. F - the volk saw a person put on a pedestal knocked off it, which made them question those remaining on high. Overall - his being sacrificed was a net loss for the Reich. By the time this occurred, the tipping point had passed and even had he remained on to the end, he couldn't have changed the outcome. Even had Hitler been deposed and Rommel (or Canaris/etc) replaced him, Germany would not have been likely to be granted more favorable terms than they recieved in the end (esp once the death camps were revealed).