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
RAdm Dan Gallery (Chicago's greatest naval hero!) wrote in his memoirs that the Allies might have ended WW II years early by letting a delegation of senior Axis commanders tour American war plants.

before the War, the Germans thought the Ford complex at Cologne was huge, but dwarfed by the River Rouge complex, having more in factory floor space footage than the entire Cologne site.

and there were dozens of auto plants of far higher capacity than Cologne scattered across the USA.
That was for existing plants.
Chrysler broke ground on its 1.2 million sq.ft. Detroit tank assembly plant in October 1940. The first M3 Lee rolled off the assembly line in April 1941. It had 3.2M sq.ft of subcontractors feeding it.

Only MAN and Nibelungenwerke came close, a fraction of that.
 

hipper

Banned
Uh... no.



This was his immediate command decision after Browning got into a fight with the captain of USS Enterprise over the air tasking order which Browning had BOTCHED. Spruance had to chart it out on his own plot board and do the math in his head and HE had to fix it. It was also about the time that Spruance finds out that Browning did not notify Hornet to join Enterprise in the strike on Nagumo. Hornet is notified about it after Browning is time outed at this point, so she is just beginning to get her own planes ready. That is an hours delay. Stanhope Ring, the Hornet strike leader is wrong briefed from the original Browning ATO which is not corrected on Hornet as it was on Enterprise (Mitscher is to blame.) and he, Stanhope gets lost over empty ocean. That fiasco is compounded in a later Browning ATO, also screwed up, which further involves the incredibly mendacious and incompetent Marc Mitscher again in the cruiser strike force fiasco which bedevils Spruance further. (the strike on Kurita).

You can read that in "The Shattered Sword" in the foot notes or in the US naval records.

You say the Americans had luck?


they had the sort of luck that happens when well trained men with effective equipment go into battle, but both American and Japanese fighter direction was sub par compared to contemporary british practice. :). America had concentrated its pre war carrier air arm on the destruction of aircraft Carriers. it was effective in that role. and when given the chance they took it.

Japanese offensive plans were hugely overconfident and complex. and failed.
 

Deleted member 1487

RAdm Dan Gallery (Chicago's greatest naval hero!) wrote in his memoirs that the Allies might have ended WW II years early by letting a delegation of senior Axis commanders tour American war plants.
Funny, the Soviets did just this prior to the German invasion, Hitler thought it was a ruse like they pulled on the French and British in 1938 when they convinced the Allies the Luftwaffe was far stronger than it was.

At war's end they were fielding technology not to be seen again for perhaps another decade and were on the cusp of several other breakthroughs.
That was largely though an issue of the Allies dismissing some of the innovations, like the assault rifle and intermediate cartridge with a long recoil system. Things like the V-2 were not militarily practical and had to be developed to become so. Largely though the Allies took what was useful for the most part.

before the War, the Germans thought the Ford complex at Cologne was huge, but dwarfed by the River Rouge complex, having more in factory floor space footage than the entire Cologne site.

and there were dozens of auto plants of far higher capacity than Cologne scattered across the USA.
That was for existing plants.
Chrysler broke ground on its 1.2 million sq.ft. Detroit tank assembly plant in October 1940. The first M3 Lee rolled off the assembly line in April 1941. It had 3.2M sq.ft of subcontractors feeding it.

Only MAN and Nibelungenwerke came close, a fraction of that.
In part due to the fears of big factories being strategic bombing gold mines. They were right, but of course at the cost earlier in the war of economies of scale.
 

hipper

Banned

Japanese naval air power caused the Defeat of allied forces in Burma, once rangoon could no longer be resupplied by sea then Burma was lost, Stillwell surely noticed this on his walk into India in 1942 along jungle tracks. he had no men with him other than a small headquarters The theory that He Lead the Chinese expeditionary forces caused many problems later,
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Sure.

Of course that was AFTER the Axis voluntarily picked a fight with opponents that controlled better than triple the "war making potential" that they did (65% to 20%, France's 4.5% left out of the calculation) and 500% of the their population (this is a bit of a guess, because the British were only able to access a small percentage of India's manpower potential, and China's potential was never close to fully tapped, so I have dropped them by a far amount).

That doesn't even consider access to raw materials, especially oil.

If you voluntarily pick a fight with three guys, each of whom is individually bigger, stronger, richer and arguably smarter than you, and they proceed to beat the snot out of you and your two cousins, exactly who is the idiot in the scenario?
 
Sure.

Of course that was AFTER the Axis voluntarily picked a fight with opponents that controlled better than triple the "war making potential" that they did (65% to 20%, France's 4.5% left out of the calculation) and 500% of the their population (this is a bit of a guess, because the British were only able to access a small percentage of India's manpower potential, and China's potential was never close to fully tapped, so I have dropped them by a far amount).

That doesn't even consider access to raw materials, especially oil.

If you voluntarily pick a fight with three guys, each of whom is individually bigger, stronger, richer and arguably smarter than you, and they proceed to beat the snot out of you and your two cousins, exactly who is the idiot in the scenario?

I don't think the argument that the allies brute forced themselves to victory is really a moral argument against the allies. It may be a argument against the individual competence of military commanders on ally side.
 
Japanese naval air power caused the Defeat of allied forces in Burma, once rangoon could no longer be resupplied by sea then Burma was lost, Stillwell surely noticed this on his walk into India in 1942 along jungle tracks. he had no men with him other than a small headquarters The theory that He Lead the Chinese expeditionary forces caused many problems later,

1. The theory was that the Chinese nationalist government would be sensible. Chiang Kai Shek was an impediment. Mao would have been the better choice.
2. Japanese air power was not the factor. Burma at least the tactically useful part is one huge wet rain forest (Jungle is not politically correct anymore.). He who can portage logistics on his soldier's backs in it can defeat airpower easily. Does THAT sound familiar?
 
Last edited:
they had the sort of luck that happens when well trained men with effective equipment go into battle, but both American and Japanese fighter direction was sub par compared to contemporary british practice. :). America had concentrated its pre war carrier air arm on the destruction of aircraft Carriers. it was effective in that role. and when given the chance they took it.

Japanese offensive plans were hugely overconfident and complex. and failed.

The British got creamed by the First Team. Twice. US was 3 and 2 against them. Results oriented outcomes. Midway, Eastern Solomons and Philippine Sea. Strike first and strike hard. Works. Philippine Sea could have gone the other way if the Japanese had been a little more kamikaze and less orthodox.
 

hipper

Banned
1. The theory was that the Chinese nationalist government would be sensible. Chiang Kai Shek was an impediment. Mao would have been the better choice.
2. Japanese air power was not the factor. Burma at least the tactically useful part is one huge wet forest (Jungle is not politically correct anymore.) He who can portage logistics on his soldier's backs in it can defeat airpower easily. Does THAT sound familiar?


Nice point. I had not considered foot born supply, but the Facilities for supporting an army out of north East india did not exist in 1942 it took time to build up. Bill Slims memoir is explicit on that point and much else.


The supply chan came through Rangoon, which was closed by Japanese Naval air power in early 1942.

Supporting the communists would have been counter productive to american Goals. The Chinese fought well given Support. Slim put 7tharmoured brigade under chinese command during the 1942 retreat. I suspect Vinegar Joe was not the right man for the job.
 

hipper

Banned
The British got creamed by the First Team. Twice. US was 3 and 2 against them. Results oriented outcomes. Midway, Eastern Solomons and Philippine Sea. Strike first and strike hard. Works. Philippine Sea could have gone the other way if the Japanese had been a little more kamikaze and less orthodox.

the Japanese never came up against British seaborn fighter controll methods untill 1944 and when they came up against land based radar directed fighters over columbo in 1942 suffered their heaviest air to air losses to date.
 
They, the British, were creamed at Arrakan in 1943, During the bungled British operation against Sumatra in 1944, a combination of Japanese fighters and misuse of weather fronts showed that Sir Philip Vian's TF 67 was not ready for prime time. Operation Robson that was. As late as January 1945 off Palambang, Vian had another try. This time the weather cooperated. It was only Japanese IJA aviation. The strikers were thoroughly chopped up. Operation Meridian that was, against "green" IJA pilots. The refinery was blown up and the Japanese lost 14 aircraft (British claimed 50.). What we do know is that the British failed to score significant permanent damage and at least 7 attackers were splashed, but half of the strikers were so shot up, they were write-offs. (20 planes.)

Columbo 42? British radar was shut down. Losses; 27 British aircraft caught on the ground, 5 Japanese aircraft to AAA during 5 April. British cruisers Dorsetshire and Cornwall sunk. Round 2 was another winner on 9 April. HMS Hermes, HMAS Vampyr (spelling?) and HMAS Holyhock (spelling?) sunk. Between those two episodes Admiral Sir James Somerville (HMS Formidable and HMS Indomitable on hand) supposedly tried to fight a night air/sea action with Nagumo. He never found Nagumo. British claimed 30 Japanese planes splashed in total from the 2 Columbo visits. Actual? Japanese sources list 14 to enemy action and 11 to operational accidents. Damage to another 20. Pearl Harbor was 29 confirmed by wreckage and was worse as to damage, but MURPHY, this is April 1942 with a British fleet alerted at SEA! Make that 3 times the British boloed against the First Team.

Vinegar Joe, Wedemeyer, or even Eisenhower, himself, the bottleneck was always Chiang. At least Mao listened and learned from his peers. He might even have listened to Americans after Otto Braun and his Russian cohorts bugged out and left the CCP in the lurch during the Long March. But that is 1935, and calls for more foresight than Washington possessed at the time.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't think the argument that the allies brute forced themselves to victory is really a moral argument against the allies. It may be a argument against the individual competence of military commanders on ally side.
I've always found it to be, at best, a spurious argument (at worst is becomes much darker, fortunately we don't have that too much hereabouts). It is the same argument that is used to insult Grant vs. Lee in the American Civil War. General "X" fought a much better defensive battle than General "Y" or General "A" was much more successful in a surprise attack against unprepared forces than Genera; "B" was three years later.

The arguments generally either proclaim how wonderful the side that lost (and it is ALWAYS the side that lost) did before the other side simply swept out and crushed them or before that other side developed some weapon or some tactic that "changed" the fighting in an "unfair manner" and thereby prevented the "better" generals from winning. It is, regardless of who uses the argument, some version of what in ACW terms is known as "lost causers".
 
I've always found it to be, at best, a spurious argument (at worst is becomes much darker, fortunately we don't have that too much hereabouts). It is the same argument that is used to insult Grant vs. Lee in the American Civil War. General "X" fought a much better defensive battle than General "Y" or General "A" was much more successful in a surprise attack against unprepared forces than Genera; "B" was three years later.

The arguments generally either proclaim how wonderful the side that lost (and it is ALWAYS the side that lost) did before the other side simply swept out and crushed them or before that other side developed some weapon or some tactic that "changed" the fighting in an "unfair manner" and thereby prevented the "better" generals from winning. It is, regardless of who uses the argument, some version of what in ACW terms is known as "lost causers".

I personally don't see any moral value in whether the losing side had better commanders, but I think it's important to honest about these things, so we can recognize our weaknesses and strengths. If Nazi Germany and the Confederation had been able to make that analysis, they wouldn't have started their respective wars. History are full of losing powers which didn't recognize their own weaknesses and strengths, and being aware of that, make it less likely that we join them.

As example if USA had recognized potential weaknesses of their army under WWII, the Korean War could have gone much better.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I personally don't see any moral value in whether the losing side had better commanders, but I think it's important to honest about these things, so we can recognize our weaknesses and strengths. If Nazi Germany and the Confederation had been able to make that analysis, they wouldn't have started their respective wars. History are full of losing powers which didn't recognize their own weaknesses and strengths, and being aware of that, make it less likely that we join them.

As example if USA had recognized potential weaknesses of their army under WWII, the Korean War could have gone much better.
Actually the U.S. would have done better if Congress had actually spent $12 on new equipment rather than doing the classic Congresscritter "wait, I need to get a useless bridge built in my district" shuffle.
 

Deleted member 1487

I've always found it to be, at best, a spurious argument (at worst is becomes much darker, fortunately we don't have that too much hereabouts). It is the same argument that is used to insult Grant vs. Lee in the American Civil War. General "X" fought a much better defensive battle than General "Y" or General "A" was much more successful in a surprise attack against unprepared forces than Genera; "B" was three years later.

The arguments generally either proclaim how wonderful the side that lost (and it is ALWAYS the side that lost) did before the other side simply swept out and crushed them or before that other side developed some weapon or some tactic that "changed" the fighting in an "unfair manner" and thereby prevented the "better" generals from winning. It is, regardless of who uses the argument, some version of what in ACW terms is known as "lost causers".
I get your point, but people generally don't say that about the Italians or French in WW2. Or the Japanese necessarily for that matter.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I get your point, but people generally don't say that about the Italians or French in WW2. Or the Japanese necessarily for that matter.
That sort of proves my point. Just like the Confederacy the "clean German Army" has a huge number of fans (for that matter the Reich has a lot overall, just look at the Luft' 46 fools who mistake napkinware for actual possible construction) for reasons that are totally beyond me.

The Confederacy at least has the advantage in the U.S. of 150 years of selective memory and way too much good press in the mass media to explain the attraction. The Reich, on the other hand, is rightly portrayed as the exemplar of evil.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Sure.

Of course that was AFTER the Axis voluntarily picked a fight with opponents that controlled better than triple the "war making potential" that they did (65% to 20%, France's 4.5% left out of the calculation) and 500% of the their population (this is a bit of a guess, because the British were only able to access a small percentage of India's manpower potential, and China's potential was never close to fully tapped, so I have dropped them by a far amount).

It's not just that. Because the United Nations were concerned with winning the war, as opposed to implementing racialist ideology, they recognised that every country makes as good soldiers as anyone else, if properly supported and equipped.

So while the Italians and Rumanians were making do with only the heavy equipment their own economies could produce, and therefore getting smashed by enemy tanks and artillery concentrations, the Brazillian infantry division in Italy fought as well in 1944-5 as any other line division in Italy, because it has been equipped to exactly the standard of an American division.

Similarly, the Brazillian 1st Fighter Group flew American P-47s, and did as good service as anyone else.
 

Deleted member 1487

That sort of proves my point. Just like the Confederacy the "clean German Army" has a huge number of fans (for that matter the Reich has a lot overall, just look at the Luft' 46 fools who mistake napkinware for actual possible construction) for reasons that are totally beyond me.

The Confederacy at least has the advantage in the U.S. of 150 years of selective memory and way too much good press in the mass media to explain the attraction. The Reich, on the other hand, is rightly portrayed as the exemplar of evil.
I thought we were talking about military performance rather than moral culpability. If anything it seems like in the case of the German army the 'clean' mythos has been pretty well debunked even among niche hobbyists. And are there really any actual 'lost causers' still out there?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I thought we were talking about military performance rather than moral culpability. If anything it seems like in the case of the German army the 'clean' mythos has been pretty well debunked even among niche hobbyists. And are there really any actual 'lost causers' still out there?
We should be, The problem is that the reality always gets diluted by the myth. Rommel is a classic example.

Military genius.

Bollocks.

His great strategic plan was what they had been teaching at West Point since before the Civil War. It was a holding attack; one up, two around. When the U.S. military is disparaged as "hey, diddle diddle, right up the middle" is is only true when the enemy was actually wise enough to follow what they teach in chapter one of defensive strategy and have for a few thousand years. Anchor your defense on a piece of local geography, the rest of the time the U.S. basic attack theory was a holding attack (which has been renamed a couple dozen times, including the hilariously mis-titled Hail Mary" in the Gulf War).

If the German Army had been half as competent as some of the "well, they only lost because of numbers" folks claim they would have taken Leningrad, and Moscow, and Stalingrad. They would have held along the Rhine or the Dnieper or any of the other superb defensive positions that mark Western/Central Europe. They failed at all of them.
 
Top