Is It Just Me...

[Nazgûl Killer]

Or is WW2 full of oh-so lucky flukes in favor of the Allied nations?

I mean, just to start the list off - General Winter.
The years of WW2 knew some of the hardest winters Europe has ever seen, and Stalin himself said (I think it was him) that Russia's most important general is General Winter, I believe that if those hard winters didn't win their wars for them after Operation Barbarossa, they helped quite a bit.

In a show I saw (I think it was called "Battle 360"), which tells the story of the US carrier "USS Enterprise" (Big E), there have been numerous occasions in which just big fat luck won the day for them, for example:
A gigantic assault of Japanese "Zero" aircrafts and bombers were bearing down on the Enterprise's position, and just by short and random luck, a patrol flight (5 planes) who were COMPLETELY missguided and went off course, spotted those planes, giving the Enterprise a little heads up.

In addition, there was a battle (Sadly, I don't remember the name, again) near the end of the war, in which the Japanese were quite desperate, they sent two large fleets to attack (And destroy) and invading US force, invading an island in bomber-strike range of Tokyo, the first fleet had been intercepted and so was the second, the second retreated.
After a while, the second fleet doubled back, and lead a surprise attack at the invading US forces, it had very large/powerful ships against a very small and helpless ships from the US left behind to make sure the Marines take the island.
Guess what?
The smaller US ships charged at the larger ships, in a clear suicide mission, and made the enemy run for their lives!
In addition to that, even though the general leading the US counter-offensive got killed, no other ship was hit, and the Japanese were running for their lives!

The Nukes - A recent documentary I saw showed that Nazi Germany could have developed the nuke far faster than the US, not only that, it could have been operational and it New York, BUT, Hitler decided the weapon wasn't worth the budget and scrapped the whole thing!

The list goes on, and on, and on...

Just to clarify, I'm an Atheist, so I don't believe in all that "God's intervention" and stuff like that... But it seems that lady luck was on our side, and it can get quite suspicious.
Getting to my main point - My question is, is it just me or were the soldiers fighting for the Allied forces were EXTREMELY lucky, or is this war? I mean, is war naturally about luck? I believe some general said "No plan of attack survives the first encounter" - Is this valid here?

I don't mind if this turns into a little debate, but I mostly want to hear your opinions.

[Stark of Winterfell]

The Allies did indeed get some lucky breaks. And so did the Axis early (such as the fact that the US air force in the Philippines got destroyed on the ground even after Pearl Harbor). But the Allies also prosecuted the war much better.

[Akrotatos]

Flukes are a constant in war. The winners are those capable of exploiting them.

@ Stark

Great username!!

[garudamon11]

uh , its a movie , and guess what ? an AMERICAN one
read a book or read wikipedia , but never depend on movies

[Nazgûl Killer]

uh , its a movie , and guess what ? an AMERICAN one
read a book or read wikipedia , but never depend on movies

Uh... Wikipedia? You mean - The INTERNET website which ANYONE can edit?
No thanks, I'd rather watch the official History Channel documentary.
And no - It wasn't a movie, it was a documentary, a big, BIG difference. And why would anyone who's trying to bias someone, admit that his victories were lucky ones?

Please, read the OP from start to finish again, and post a reasonable comment.

Yes, I agree. The Allies had a ridiculous amount of luck. For example, I read about a squad of US soldiers who riched a Dutch river and there was about 1,000 Germans trying to cross. So basically, they start firing and the whole German troop just falls into complete chaos and gets their arses kicked by a pitiful amount of Americans. OR there's the fact that the Luftwaffe was excruciatingly close from destroying the RAF but their huge plane losses meant that they had to conclude the bombing campaign. Then, there were the Anzio and Salerno landings where the Germans were so close to destroying them but somehow the Allies pulled through. Infact, in Operation Husky, the Hermann Göring Panzer Division was pretty much on top of the US landings at Gela until their naval support warded them off.

But then, i've also read about the huge amount of luck in Fall Gelb and to be honest it seems after December 1941 that the Germans just lost any luck they had besides a few miracles here and there, but they weren't enough.

In fact, I find it frustrating how lucky the Allies were. It makes me doubt the true "test" effectiveness of their troops.

I wouldn't pick the word frustrating... Thanks to them we don't live under the Swastika right now

But yeah, it truly seems that the Germans simply had their luck 'relocated' to the Americans and their allies.

The Allies did indeed get some lucky breaks. And so did the Axis early (such as the fact that the US air force in the Philippines got destroyed on the ground even after Pearl Harbor). But the Allies also prosecuted the war much better.

What do you mean?
Err, I mean, how did they prosecute the war much better?
I thought that it was told that the Nazi soldiers were the equivalent of killing machines/robots in their discipline and practice... Do you mean the quality of the generals?

[Stark of Winterfell]

What do you mean?
Err, I mean, how did they prosecute the war much better?
I thought that it was told that the Nazi soldiers were the equivalent of killing machines/robots in their discipline and practice... Do you mean the quality of the generals?

The Nazis had good generals, but their top echelon (Hitler and his close advisors) was pretty , and often didn't listen to the generals. For the most part they were more interested in jostling for power and Hitler's affection than doing a good job running their industries. The Germans might have had nukes earlier than the Allies, or jet fighters in 1942, or any number of other huge advances, but Hitler kept deeming those unnecessary as he thought the war would be short. The Nazis didn't plan for a worst case scenario-a protracted two-front war. They didn't even adopt a total-war economy until halfway through the war. They chose to persecute, of all people, the Jews-whose scientists fled to Britain and the US, and designed weapons for the Allies. They claimed to "liberate" the Soviet Union, but treated the slavs according to their racial theories and left the Russians and other Soviet peoples willing not only to keep fighting for Stalin, but left them with such a desire for revenge that there was to be no stopping the Soviets. The Nazis didn't plan for winter (whether or not winter was worse than usual, it affected the Soviets too, and they pulled through-the Soviet Union, famous for not adequetely supplying its soldiers, was more effective in winter!). They changed course on the Battle of Britain just as they were approaching victory. The top leadership was too fickle and narrow minded, and the Nazis only held out so long due to their excellent soldiers, weapons, and commanders (they were brutal, but they got the job done...though if they'd been less brutal they might have found more allie).

And the Japanese-they claimed to set up an anti-western imperialism Asian co-prosperity sphere, and then proceeded to enslave all non-Japanese people they conquered. They also failed to introduce new types of aircraft into the pacific until it was too late. In addition they failed as mass producing competent pilots. The result was that later in the war they had pilots flying obsolete aircraft against experienced Americans in new aircraft. Of course, Kamikazes at that point became the only option left. The same with the Nazis-if they had treated these people better, they would have found willing allies. The Axis powers not only made several serious strategic mistakes, but blew chances to enlarge their alliance from the nations that they occupied.

[Lysimachus]

Yes, I agree. The Allies had a ridiculous amount of luck. For example, I read about a squad of US soldiers who riched a Dutch river and there was about 1,000 Germans trying to cross. So basically, they start firing and the whole German troop just falls into complete chaos and gets their arses kicked by a pitiful amount of Americans. OR there's the fact that the Luftwaffe was excruciatingly close from destroying the RAF but their huge plane losses meant that they had to conclude the bombing campaign. Then, there were the Anzio and Salerno landings where the Germans were so close to destroying them but somehow the Allies pulled through. Infact, in Operation Husky, the Hermann Göring Panzer Division was pretty much on top of the US landings at Gela until their naval support warded them off.

But then, i've also read about the huge amount of luck in Fall Gelb and to be honest it seems after December 1941 that the Germans just lost any luck they had besides a few miracles here and there, but they weren't enough.

In fact, I find it frustrating how lucky the Allies were. It makes me doubt the true "test" effectiveness of their troops.

[conon394]

What do you mean?
Err, I mean, how did they prosecute the war much better?
I thought that it was told that the Nazi soldiers were the equivalent of killing machines/robots in their discipline and practice... Do you mean the quality of the generals?

The allies cooperated far better, set objectives more realistically, managed their economies and production vastly better than the Axis and avoided having unrealistic nut jobs in power rather well - even Stalin while certainly a cold blooded mass murdering SOB was far more lucid than Hitler and many of the Key Japanese leaders.

[Nazgûl Killer]

The allies cooperated far better, set objectives more realistically, managed their economies and production vastly better than the Axis and avoided having unrealistic nut jobs in power rather well - even Stalin while certainly a cold blooded mass murdering SOB was far more lucid than Hitler and many of the Key Japanese leaders.

Ohhh, well, yeah. That's true.

Which brings a scary thought to my mind - What if Hitler was as organized as the Allies? Could the war turn out differently?

[SigniferOne]

Ohhh, well, yeah. That's true.

Which brings a scary thought to my mind - What if Hitler was as organized as the Allies? Could the war turn out differently?

Certainly. There was a whole host of things which if he did differently would have turned things into a whole different direction E.g., not invade Russia, or invade it with better planning? Invade and take Britain? It could happen, and we would be living under it now. There was a time when Assyria conquered all of the Middle East. Piles of dried skulls reminded the inhabitants of settlements who was in charge now.

[conon394]

Which brings a scary thought to my mind - What if Hitler was as organized as the Allies? Could the war turn out differently?

Depends

I think if you suggest:

Hitler appoints Speer as 'economy czar' etc circa as soon as it obvious Churchill is not going to surrender, talk negotiate no how no way.

Japan and Germany actually talked a bit more and thus Japan did not attack the US but only the UK and sundry rump colonial forces of the governments in exile at London.

Hitler avoided a second Front against the USSR at least of his own making.

Japan focused on an aggressive invasion in the Indian ocean particularity capturing Madagascar which the Vichy authorities offered too them - thus chopping the UK up into isolated sections and thinning the RN brutally.


Still think in the end the FDR would get the us in the war and UK/US would win but it could have been far costly and very much longer -also I doubt Stalin would not turn on one or both of the axis powers sooner or later.

[hellheaven1987]

Well, the thing is that Japan could not advance on Malaya without bombing Pacific Fleet, since FDR already agreed if Japan moved on Malaya, Pacific Fleet would station in Singapore to stop that.

Not to mention Germany had no way to strike British Isles anytime; the only way I can think about is Wehrmecht purposely bail British Army invaded France, then destroyed it there; but that was impossible to do anyway. In fact, the only way Germany could invade Britain was like what General Student said, airborn assault on Britain immediately after Dunkirk (Britain at that time had no defence against airborn assault. What General Student proposed was to use airborne to capture two or more airfields around London right after Dunkirk, then air in all invasion force to explore the holes at once).

[conon394]

In fact, the only way Germany could invade Britain was like what General Student said, airborn assault on Britain immediately after Dunkirk (Britain at that time had no defence against airborn assault. What General Student proposed was to use airborne to capture two or more airfields around London right after Dunkirk, then air in all invasion force to explore the holes at once).

I still think that's bull. The RAF was you know not going to ignore transports. Also its not like the UK was bare of troops it had several units intact (many of which were later sent to France and than retrieved again), and even if the Dunkirk troops could only be minimally armed they would be equal to light paras, and Germany had not much in the way of air trans. And of course it assumes the UK was a brittle as France politically...

Student is just mouthing German arrogance after the success of the operation against France.

One could also point out that in large scale operation German air trans almost never lived up to expectations.

[hellheaven1987]

I still think that's bull. The RAF was you know not going to ignore transports. Also its not like the UK was bare of troops it had several units intact (many of which were later sent to France and than retrieved again), and even if the Dunkirk troops could only be minimally armed they would be equal to light paras, and Germany had not much in the way of air trans. And of course it assumes the UK was a brittle as France politically...

Student is just mouthing German arrogance after the success of the operation against France.

No, the fact was that in 1940 Germany did have one or two air-transport divisions, from the record it seems most were mountain divisions actually.

And Dunkirk troops had to rush back to London before German para occupied it; we had to remember that most British force was in chaos that time and took sometimes to reorganize.

The only problem was that how German going to supply themselves once RAF recovered. However Lauft waffe could actually use the capture airfield as base to set up an air defence, and on 1941 German had the capacity to supply troops using airlift (as Operation Barbarossa did).

[pannonian]

No, the fact was that in 1940 Germany did have one or two air-transport divisions, from the record it seems most were mountain divisions actually.

And Dunkirk troops had to rush back to London before German para occupied it; we had to remember that most British force was in chaos that time and took sometimes to reorganize.

The only problem was that how German going to supply themselves once RAF recovered. However Lauft waffe could actually use the capture airfield as base to set up an air defence, and on 1941 German had the capacity to supply troops using airlift (as Operation Barbarossa did).

It would be interesting to see what a bunch of unsupplied German paras could do against a load of Army units that haven't yet been sent to France, a heavy force of fighters that have been held back from France, and armour that was held back from France. The paras will be light infantry, without any heavy equipment, and with no supplies to speak of. The British will have the advantage of home ground, as much supplies as they'd want, numbers, heavy arms such as armour and artillery, and air supremacy. Remember that, at this time, the Kriegsmarine was still recovering from the Norwegian operation, and the Luftwaffe was exhausted from the Battle of France.

[Lysimachus]

Bear in mind that capacity was quite low if you look at the disaster at Stalingrad. Have a read of Stalingrad - Memories and Reassessments by Joachim Wieder and Heinrich Graf von Einsiedel. 6. Armee was getting nowhere near what it required, and considering how stubborn the British resistance would be upon a landing a large amount of forces would be required to actually win a campaign on the British Isles and so Germany could either use her nonexistant navy or her airforce.

[hellheaven1987]

Bear in mind that capacity was quite low if you look at the disaster at Stalingrad. Have a read of Stalingrad - Memories and Reassessments by Joachim Wieder and Heinrich Graf von Einsiedel. 6. Armee was getting nowhere near what it required, and considering how stubborn the British resistance would be upon a landing a large amount of forces would be required to actually win a campaign on the British Isles and so Germany could either use her nonexistant navy or her airforce.

The differences were:

1. Student's propose was based on capturing two to more large airfields, something Stalingrad had none. Airdropping supplies and using airport to supply are two different things.

2. Most German spearhead in 1941, notable the Panzer Groups, was heavily relied on airdrop for supply; similarly, the frontline of Moscow and Leningrad during the winter of 1941 was heavily, some sections completely, depended on airdrop, which both fronts survivied the winter; it suggests that airdrop was possible to support a large operation.

3. However, the air-supply campaign in winter of 1941 caused a serious problem - it heavily retarded the air-supply capacity of Luftwaffe; many planes were crushed due to bad weather and the lost never replaced again. It was part of reason why Stalingrad in 1942 had far less airdrop - 6th Army had to rely on a transport service that already heavily understrength and unable to operate in bad weather.

First don’t forget France was still fighting so Student’s plan pre-supposed a massive reorientation of German air force assets and air mobile troops at a time when at least the air force was critical in breaking Frances fall back defense.

Second when has anyone succeeded with such a plan, I dunno I’m thinking of an air operation with the letters M-G in it the name… and that had air superiority and transports far better than JU52s. Sure the Germans captured Crete but at a high cost and frankly they should have failed (and were backed up with naval transport that was simply not going to happen).

Germany had piss poor intelligence on the UK and some scratch plan was almost sure to magnify those issues. A night operation was bound to be confusing and air support would have been minimal at best given the fact RAF air superiority.

The other problem is Britain had non–Dunkirk forces in place (that was my point the troops sent to France later - after Dunkirk were in the Britain at the time) certainly a match for anything Germany could have air transported at the extreme range of it rather pathetic air transports – practically 10 years out of date already.

1. I agree that, hence it really depends on how much shock the capture of London would give to British, which consider the later performance, such as Battle of Bulge, it should be at a maximum of three weeks.

2. Crete was actually the only example we can rely. The naval transport was excluded even before the operation, so that did not count. The para assault, frankly, failed miserably. The only reason why Crete was success because one air-transport mountain division, which was trained to assault airfield, stormed the airfield in Crete which allowed reinforcement to lift in.

3. The problem was that RAF was also quite confused at Dunkirk, and a rapid capture of London + British's unprepared for an airborn assault would increase the chance of success (in fact, it seems British had quite little idea about paratroops at that time).

It would be interesting to see what a bunch of unsupplied German paras could do against a load of Army units that haven't yet been sent to France, a heavy force of fighters that have been held back from France, and armour that was held back from France. The paras will be light infantry, without any heavy equipment, and with no supplies to speak of. The British will have the advantage of home ground, as much supplies as they'd want, numbers, heavy arms such as armour and artillery, and air supremacy. Remember that, at this time, the Kriegsmarine was still recovering from the Norwegian operation, and the Luftwaffe was exhausted from the Battle of France.

It would be interested, although those para were not "light armed" none were them para actually (air-transport mountain divisions, did have heavy equipments).

[conon394]

No, the fact was that in 1940 Germany did have one or two air-transport divisions, from the record it seems most were mountain divisions actually.

And Dunkirk troops had to rush back to London before German para occupied it; we had to remember that most British force was in chaos that time and took sometimes to reorganize.

The only problem was that how German going to supply themselves once RAF recovered. However Lauft waffe could actually use the capture airfield as base to set up an air defence, and on 1941 German had the capacity to supply troops using airlift (as Operation Barbarossa did).

Its still bull.

First don’t forget France was still fighting so Student’s plan pre-supposed a massive reorientation of German air force assets and air mobile troops at a time when at least the air force was critical in breaking Frances fall back defense.

Second when has anyone succeeded with such a plan, I dunno I’m thinking of an air operation with the letters M-G in it the name… and that had air superiority and transports far better than JU52s. Sure the Germans captured Crete but at a high cost and frankly they should have failed (and were backed up with naval transport that was simply not going to happen).

Germany had piss poor intelligence on the UK and some scratch plan was almost sure to magnify those issues. A night operation was bound to be confusing and air support would have been minimal at best given the fact RAF air superiority.

The other problem is Britain had non–Dunkirk forces in place (that was my point the troops sent to France later - after Dunkirk were in the Britain at the time) certainly a match for anything Germany could have air transported at the extreme range of it rather pathetic air transports – practically 10 years out of date already.

[conon394]

Piles of dried skulls reminded the inhabitants of settlements who was in charge now.

That's the good part Sig, let's not forget the people skinned alive and the pregnant women cut open... how soon people forget the 'befits' of absolute monarchy

[Lysimachus]

1. Student's propose was based on capturing two to more large airfields, something Stalingrad had none. Airdropping supplies and using airport to supply are two different things.

Stalingrad and the surrounding are had plenty of airfields. Perhaps not as large as the ones in Western Europe but the quantity of them (and the fact that makeshift airfields can be made to compensate) made up for it in a sense. It was only later on that supplies were airdropped as the Russians took airfield after airfield.

2. What? If the Luftwaffe couldn't even supply 6. Armee then how on earth are they going to supply one or multiple Panzergruppen?

3. However, the air-supply campaign in winter of 1941 caused a serious problem - it heavily retarded the air-supply capacity of Luftwaffe; many planes were crushed due to bad weather and the lost never replaced again. It was part of reason why Stalingrad in 1942 had far less airdrop - 6th Army had to rely on a transport service that already heavily understrength and unable to operate in bad weather.

That's odd I thought the transport fleet was quite large. It's just so many of them got shot down and it was impossible from the start to supply the encircled army.