Did the Allies win WW2 mostly due to brute force?

Did the Allies win WW2 mostly due to brute force?

  • Yes

    Votes: 97 27.2%
  • No

    Votes: 99 27.8%
  • To a degree

    Votes: 160 44.9%

  • Total voters
    356

Deleted member 1487

I'm not addressing WWII specifically, but rather challenging the basis of the question. I.e. attempt to say that brute force is a less legitimate strategy than things requiring more finesse.
'Legitimate strategy' isn't what is being argued, that's the strawman. It is whether one side is actually better at fighting at the sharp end of the stick. They can still lose especially if the other side has more numbers than they can actually defeat in combat, but the fact is that they are better able to fight as evidenced by casualty stats and performance in terms of ground gained against the odds. A win is a win though, but victory with heavy losses can still be pyrrhic.
 
I'm not addressing WWII specifically, but rather challenging the basis of the question. I.e. attempt to say that brute force is a less legitimate strategy than things requiring more finesse.

I would say no.

Naval strength, for instance, is built strength. No nation is going to be able to build up a large navy without the facilities and knowledge to do so.


Even for land strength, I'd say it's no less legitimate. The old joke is that a Tiger tank can defeat 10 Shermans, but the problem for the Tiger is that it's always up against at least 11. Those 11+ Shermans didn't get there by accident.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Kick
Tactics are only relevant in as far as they helped achieve strategic goals. If you have all the tactics in the world but you never translate this into strategic success then your tactics FAILED, and it doesn’t matter what temporary victories you achieved.

As to the question, brute force and skill cannot be separated. Brute force is a legitimate option when you have drastically superior resources available. To ignore it, or label it as not skilled because of some misplaced idea of fair play is foolish. You use the options available.

Tactically brilliant catastrophes are still catastrophes.

Since all you guys seem to hear is that the Germans were flawless and amazing strategists, and the Allies were bumbling hordes, regardless of what your fellow conversants are saying, fine then.


Fuck you all, Hitler's dog would make a better strategist than every allied general. Logistics don't matter, a total of zero German tanks were ever destroyed in the war. All allied casualties were directly resultant of their incompetence and failure as men.

You're never going to win your arguments because you are in fact perpetuating them when you refuse to accept anything other than "every aspect of Germany was awful and incompetent". Hopefully you can learn to argue above a preschool level.
 
Since all you guys seem to hear is that the Germans were flawless and amazing strategists, and the Allies were bumbling hordes, regardless of what your fellow conversants are saying, fine then.

The thing is that I don't accept out of date notions taught as history 25 years ago. See the Battle of Narvik discussion I have in this thread. The RN is not the Germans. The Germans actually do a fairly good job at Narvik, despite their hopeless naval situation. What is fair is fair. Is it not?

Fuck you all, Hitler's dog would make a better strategist than every allied general. Logistics don't matter, a total of zero German tanks were ever destroyed in the war. All allied casualties were directly resultant of their incompetence and failure as men.

Vitriol is not an answer. It is reasonable to demonstrate the Norway Campaign as an example of how the Germans practiced the operational art when they put their minds to it.

You're never going to win your arguments because you are in fact perpetuating them when you refuse to accept anything other than "every aspect of Germany was awful and incompetent". Hopefully you can learn to argue above a preschool level.

Demonstrated... as untrue. Now use something sensible like Norway and prove your own point. There are examples in the record. Yugoslavia is another, or early North Africa.
 
The thing is that I don't accept out of date notions taught as history 25 years ago. See the Battle of Narvik discussion I have in this thread. The RN is not the Germans. The Germans actually do a fairly good job at Narvik, despite their hopeless naval situation. What is fair is fair. Is it not?

Indeed, taken together, the two naval battles at Narvik I would say are a classic example of a phase in which the Royal Navy really should be viewed as applying brute force rather than finesse and suffering accordingly. The second one even more so than the first, in the sense that sending a large battleship to operate in confined wars against destroyers in a navy that was already far outnumbered could well have resulted in the Warspite being torpedoed and sunk. Warspite was targeted by U-boats. The torpedoes failed to work. That evidently is how thin the line is between being hailed as aggressive tactical genius and being lamented as foolish tactical incompetence.
 
'Legitimate strategy' isn't what is being argued, that's the strawman. It is whether one side is actually better at fighting at the sharp end of the stick. They can still lose especially if the other side has more numbers than they can actually defeat in combat, but the fact is that they are better able to fight as evidenced by casualty stats and performance in terms of ground gained against the odds. A win is a win though, but victory with heavy losses can still be pyrrhic.
Using the terms superior skill and fighting prowess clearly shows a disdain for brute force that dismisses it as a strategy.

Since all you guys seem to hear is that the Germans were flawless and amazing strategists, and the Allies were bumbling hordes, regardless of what your fellow conversants are saying, fine then.
Yes, because that’s what was said...
 

Deleted member 1487

Using the terms superior skill and fighting prowess clearly shows a disdain for brute force that dismisses it as a strategy.
Brute force can result in a pretty high body count for the winner. See the USSR in WW2. For that reason it is not exactly a faultless option. Similarly the attrition/material/firepower strategy can get real expensive, take a long time, and result in a lot of collateral/civilian damage/destruction. Which is why the post-Korea US military has emphasized maneuver warfare over their grinding attrition strategy of past wars.
 

Deleted member 1487

I have. Yes the Soviets had any number of issues with their tank designs in 1941, but so did the Germans. Ultimately it was the quality of the crews and the systems behind them that decided the outcome of the battles, but even with the flaws of the Soviet tanks, the German crews could have used them better than the Soviets. Though to be fair the T-34s started performing better once the logistics issues of 1941 were worked out and they weren't breaking down and had properly sighted guns. Of course if we just focus on the T-34 we are also ignoring the reality that the vast majority of German AFVs in Barbarossa were remarkably crappy designs, like the Pz I and II. Even the 38t had a two man turret IIRC and was easily kill-able by the standard Soviet AT guns and AFV cannons. Not to mention the damage AT rifles were able to do, which the Soviets had huge numbers of.
 
Brute force can result in a pretty high body count for the winner. See the USSR in WW2. For that reason it is not exactly a faultless option. Similarly the attrition/material/firepower strategy can get real expensive, take a long time, and result in a lot of collateral/civilian damage/destruction. Which is why the post-Korea US military has emphasized maneuver warfare over their grinding attrition strategy of past wars.
Afghanistan and Iraq II (and to some degree Vietnam) would seem to counter that argument - maneuver warfare fails if there is no one willing to stand and fight. Besides, brute force implies no finesse. The Americans and British in WW2 did go out of their way to minimise their own casualties - this may have resulted in an over reliance on distant bombardment of all types (air, artillery, naval even) but this wasn't "brute force" it was using the best tools they had to hand.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
The thing is that I don't accept out of date notions taught as history 25 years ago. See the Battle of Narvik discussion I have in this thread. The RN is not the Germans. The Germans actually do a fairly good job at Narvik, despite their hopeless naval situation. What is fair is fair. Is it not?



Vitriol is not an answer. It is reasonable to demonstrate the Norway Campaign as an example of how the Germans practiced the operational art when they put their minds to it.



Demonstrated... as untrue. Now use something sensible like Norway and prove your own point. There are examples in the record. Yugoslavia is another, or early North Africa.


My point is that any defense in any manner of any aspect of a German operation that did not meet with strategic success is automatically met with "yeah, but it doesn't matter", regardless of whether the strategic outcome is really the point of the post.


A simple "well at they didn't do everything wrong" is simply met with "yeah, but they lost".


Hell, what I personally want to hear is just simple admittance that both of you groups go bonkers sometimes and that both of you contribute to the problem of misinformation through hyperbole.
 
I have. Yes the Soviets had any number of issues with their tank designs in 1941, but so did the Germans. Ultimately it was the quality of the crews and the systems behind them that decided the outcome of the battles, but even with the flaws of the Soviet tanks, the German crews could have used them better than the Soviets. Though to be fair the T-34s started performing better once the logistics issues of 1941 were worked out and they weren't breaking down and had properly sighted guns. Of course if we just focus on the T-34 we are also ignoring the reality that the vast majority of German AFVs in Barbarossa were remarkably crappy designs, like the Pz I and II. Even the 38t had a two man turret IIRC and was easily kill-able by the standard Soviet AT guns and AFV cannons. Not to mention the damage AT rifles were able to do, which the Soviets had huge numbers of.

Then you KNOW everything I wrote is factual and true, so why claim it is nonsense? Just asking. As for all of the German AFVs being crappy? They had about 1300 PZKWIIis and another 300-400 PZKW IVs plus numerous Flak 18s and 36s, which were more than field expedient to deal with the Russian "heavies". They were cheese whizzing the Russian armor like it was not even there. Let's get real shall we?
 

Deleted member 1487

Afghanistan and Iraq II (and to some degree Vietnam) would seem to counter that argument - maneuver warfare fails if there is no one willing to stand and fight. Besides, brute force implies no finesse. The Americans and British in WW2 did go out of their way to minimise their own casualties - this may have resulted in an over reliance on distant bombardment of all types (air, artillery, naval even) but this wasn't "brute force" it was using the best tools they had to hand.
Guerrilla warfare is something different entirely. Maneuver warfare applies to state actor armies.

Arguably the Wallied type of combat extended WW2 by overly relying on firepower to fight an attritional war.
 
I think you mean operational/strategic goals
Yes, you are correct, I misspoke.

I feel the general sentiment of my statement still stands, though--that even "on the ground" as it were, the Heer routinely showed the lack of innovation and brilliance they exhibited early in the war. To look at it another way, once the Allies understood the reality of modern mobile warfare and adopted it/adapted to it, the Germans seem to have lost the one trick in their bag.
 
Guerrilla warfare is something different entirely. Maneuver warfare applies to state actor armies.

Arguably the Wallied type of combat extended WW2 by overly relying on firepower to fight an attritional war.

The PRVN beat a conventional army; conventionally at the end. Only part of that victory was "guerilla warfare". I have pointed out that information warfare is a component that we seem to ignore in the operational art. Get the Americans tired so they leave. Then invade South Vietnam. That is force on force. Brute force I might add.
 
Then you KNOW everything I wrote is factual and true, so why claim it is nonsense? Just asking. As for all of the German AFVs being crappy? They had about 1300 PZKWIIis and another 300-400 PZKW IVs plus numerous Flak 18s and 36s, which were more than field expedient to deal with the Russian "heavies". They were cheese whizzing the Russian armor like it was not even there. Let's get real shall we?

USA found how difficult it was to counterattack with towed AT guns, and those 88s were big targets, as were their prime movers.

In 1941, most of the Mk III were 37mm, With the J model the first to be delivered with the 50mm KwK 38 L42. After June 1941, E,F,G and H were regunned with 50mm guns as conditions permitted. Ther were maybe 800 50mm armed Mk III available for the invasion

The low vel 75mm not much good till HEAT production was ramped up for them in late 1941, on finding the first series Gr.38 Hl HEAT shell had real issues, as in not penetrating for their rated performance. Russia was their first combat use, having just missed France. The 'A' series used a steel liner that worked reliably, but no large numbers of that reached the Front till 1942
 

Deleted member 1487

Then you KNOW everything I wrote is factual and true, so why claim it is nonsense? Just asking. As for all of the German AFVs being crappy? They had about 1300 PZKWIIis and another 300-400 PZKW IVs plus numerous Flak 18s and 36s, which were more than field expedient to deal with the Russian "heavies". They were cheese whizzing the Russian armor like it was not even there. Let's get real shall we?
Because while there are elements of truth in what you've said doesn't mean your point is correct or the facts are framed in an accurate way. The Pz III was vulnerable to just about all the AT weapons the Soviets had, especially the older models.
Again the German tanks were just as vulnerable to the Soviets as vice versa and the Soviets had a lot of weapons to fight back with, they just did not fight effectually. I mean the Soviets have the 45mm AT gun, which aside from the Pz IV was good enough to kill the Pz III, plus Soviet AT rifles were so dangerous the Germans had to install the 'skirts' side armor to try and protect against them. The Soviets also had their 85mm FLAK guns, which they used to kill German tank at long ranges. That's not to mention their use of artillery as direct fire AT weapons.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Yes, you are correct, I misspoke.

I feel the general sentiment of my statement still stands, though--that even "on the ground" as it were, the Heer routinely showed the lack of innovation and brilliance they exhibited early in the war. To look at it another way, once the Allies understood the reality of modern mobile warfare and adopted it/adapted to it, the Germans seem to have lost the one trick in their bag.

So much this.

The intellectual dishonesty of the Wehraboos - and we have a couple of them in this thread - is shown by how they absolutely will not discuss the litany of failed German attacks from 1943-1945.

The performance of the German Army in the Lorraine fighting around September 1944 was disgustingly poor. 111 and 112 Panzer Brigade fought badly by the standards of the British Army in 1941, making all the same mistakes of getting themselves impaled on enemy anti-tank guns and enemy tanks fighting from the reverse slopes of ridges, while attacking with complete disregard to the principles of combined arms.

The wider German Army then repeats the performance in the Ardennes two months later.
 

Deleted member 1487

The PRVN beat a conventional army; conventionally at the end. Only part of that victory was "guerilla warfare". I have pointed out that information warfare is a component that we seem to ignore in the operational art. Get the Americans tired so they leave. Then invade South Vietnam. That is force on force. Brute force I might add.
In 1975 it was the NVA vs. ARVN and ARVN was not willing to fight. The US had officially pulled out in March 1973. Fighting the US forces in the field got the NVA smashed repeatedly and cost them hundreds of thousands if not over 1 million lives. Information warfare is something else, what you're talking about is morale and propaganda. The NVA strategy was an attritional one, with a strong propaganda component, plus serious terrorism against anyone that disagreed with them. Their operations were actually pretty heavily maneuver oriented, but that is a different story compared to the main point that was the Iraq occupation conflict and the current Afghanistan war.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yes, you are correct, I misspoke.

I feel the general sentiment of my statement still stands, though--that even "on the ground" as it were, the Heer routinely showed the lack of innovation and brilliance they exhibited early in the war. To look at it another way, once the Allies understood the reality of modern mobile warfare and adopted it/adapted to it, the Germans seem to have lost the one trick in their bag.
You mean as Hitler increased his grip on military operations and even got to the point of issuing orders down to the battalion level. From late 1941 when Hitler took over OKH and ran the army directly they were increasingly hamstrung by Hitler's whims that eliminated their freedom of operation. Still throughout the war they still had some innovations, but as things went on they lost their best men to attrition Hitler's demands.

Funny how as the Allies learned their crushing material and manpower superiority is what developed the most. The biggest thing that killed 'Blitzkrieg' was the multiple fronts, foreign territory occupied (full of partisans), and declining manpower and worsening force/equipment ratios and eventually collapse of Axis allies.
 
Top