Buba
A total creep
I was referring to the thread being about Germany having those extra sources of oil and not about Churchill's mismanagement of the war effort. Mismanagement which I do not deny.Derail? [...]
All good!
I was referring to the thread being about Germany having those extra sources of oil and not about Churchill's mismanagement of the war effort. Mismanagement which I do not deny.Derail? [...]
I thought we were talking about the Brandenburgers taking bridges, not the FJ operation against Den Haag. We could talk about the FJ bridge operations, which were all successful, same with the assault on Eben Emael.over 1500 highly trained Fallschirmjagers captured and over 150 Ju 52 transports utterly destroyed.
The cost was far too high, considering the fact that these failures were due to German error and stupidity rather than Dutch competence.
I was talking about the surrender of Rotterdam, not the entire country:"The Dutch military had no effective means of stopping the bombers (the Dutch Air Force had practically ceased to exist and its anti-aircraft guns had been moved to The Hague), so when another similar ultimatum was given in which the Germans threatened to bomb the city of Utrecht, the Dutch supreme command in the late afternoon decided to capitulate rather than risk the destruction of another city.[34][35]"
The Dutch capitulated after the bombing.German bombing of Rotterdam - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Schmidt used the threat of destroying Rotterdam to attempt to force Colonel Scharroo to surrender the city. Rotterdam, the largest industrial centre in the Netherlands and of major strategic importance to the Germans, was to be bombed. Scharroo refused and stretched out negotiations. The start of the air raid had been set for 13:20 (Dutch time, MET – 1 hr 40).[21][22][23]
Schmidt relented and issued a second ultimatum of 16:20.[24][25] However, it was already too late and just as the Dutch negotiator was crossing the Willemsbrug to relay this information, the drone of bombers was heard: a total of 90 bombers from Kampfgeschwader 54 were sent over the city.[26]
Schmidt radioed to postpone the planned attack. When the message reached KG 54's command post, the Kommodore, Oberst Walter Lackner, was already approaching Rotterdam and his aircraft had reeled in their long-range aerials. Haze and smoke obscured the target and to ensure that Dutch defences were struck, Lackner brought his formation down to 2,300 ft (700 m).[27] German forces on the Noordereiland fired flares[28] to prevent friendly fire — after three aircraft of the southern formation had already unloaded, the remaining 24 craft in the southern bomber formation under Oberstleutnant Otto Höhne aborted their attack. The larger formation came from the north-east. Unable to see the red flares launched from the southern area of the city, they proceeded with their attack. Fifty-four He 111s dropped low to release 97 tonnes (213,848 lb) of bombs, mainly in the centre of the city.[29]
I mean that was in part an issue of hindsight, but in this specific case also one of revenge. So I do think they thought they were doing what it took to win the war based on Douhetian principles, but also really wanted revenge for the bombing they faced as well as to punish Germany. It was an ugly war.
Ok...I was referring to the thread being about Germany having those extra sources of oil and not about Churchill's mismanagement of the war effort. Mismanagement which I do not deny.
All good!
I mean...Harris did make a very strong case that the only German failure was to concentrate their bombing and he could make it work with US provided material and greater scientific refinement of the bombing techniques and bomb mixes. After all the firestorm technique wasn't an accident and Conventry made quite an impression. Contrary to propaganda there were major breakdowns in morale in heavily bombed sites, so the impression was if worse shocks could be delivered repeatedly, something the Luftwaffe was not set up to achieve, then it was possible to collapse the enemy war effort. They did get close it seems, after all Goebbels and Speer warned that another couple/few Hamburg's and the war would be over.You would think the people who had weathered an attempt in 1940 would realize how ineffective such a strategy would be, however. Revenge is a powerful motivator, however.
And in the end the Allies win as like OTL Germany can not defend everything all at once.That's basically how the Germans made new divisions.
Take the veteran cadre of one division and build up a new division around it.
All the better.
It'll be a reverse BoB.
The Allies can't attack everything at once either.And in the end the Allies win as like OTL Germany can not defend everything all at once.
The POD is Germany discovering and developing certain oilfields earlier, not FDR losing his hateboner for Hitler.And your assuming that US still joins the war as per OTL.
But the only way that these oilfield will be of any use to Germany is if they are found as early as possible.The POD is Germany discovering and developing certain oilfields earlier, not FDR losing his hateboner for Hitler.
Hence USA goes to war against Germany.
This may be either good or bad ...ran on diesel instead of gasoline
"Further success was had by the Malta Convoys. An urgent supply convoy from Gibraltar to Alexandria (Operation Tiger) coincided with reinforcements for the Mediterranean Fleet, two small convoys from Egypt to Malta and 48 more Hurricanes flew off HMS Ark Royal and Furious in Operation Splice, with only the loss of the SS Empire Song, which hit a mine and sank with 10 Hurricane fighters and 57 tanks on board.[77] Convoy Tiger transported 295 Matilda II tanks, new Crusader tanks and 24,000 tons of oil for operations in North Africa.[78] They were completed on 12 May. I., II., and III.; StG 1 made a determined effort against Tiger and Malta without result.[79]"
Siege of Malta (World War II) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Very cut off indeed, and this was during a period of supposed Axis air superiority after the arrival of Fliegerkorps X.
Doubt of it's Importance?
"In all, 2,304 Axis ships were sunk, with a combined tonnage of 3,130,969."
Siege of Malta (World War II) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The cost of Malta not being taken in 1940 was far higher for the Axis compared to what the Allies lost defending the island.
And just so you know. . .
CHERRY PICKING.You do notice this was a side issue of supplying Malta? Its also apart from a brief convoy in autumn 40 the only one I've aware of through the Med.
By May wasn't Fliegerkorps X already in the Balkans for the attack on Yugoslavia and Greece in April?
As stated earlier there are serious doubts about how much difference largely unimpeded access to Libyan ports would have made to Axis logistics. Not to mention even without Malta there would still be British subs operating in the region and in those periods when the Axis controlled Benghazi and Tobruk they would be vulnerable to air and naval attack as OTL.
I took one look, did a few calculations, and came to said conclusion.The data switching between barrels and tons and back and per month and per year is confusing.
I do know that 7 barrels is one ton, but I still get lost ...
"Diesel engines are more fuel-efficient and have more low-end torque than similar-sized gasoline engines, and diesel fuel contains roughly 10% to 15% more energy than gasoline. So, diesel vehicles can often go about 20% to 35% farther on a gallon of fuel than their gasoline counterparts."This may be either good or bad ...
Refining a ton of oil yields (very roughly) 50% gasoline, 25% diesel, 10% kerosene. I'm not sure about the rest - lubricants? Bunker oil?
Hence a diesel bottleneck forms faster than a gasoline bottleneck. So, depending on how consumption of POL derivates looks like, having diesel burning trucks could either be good or bad.
Improved and overhauled Reichsbahn means better transportation in USSR.From "Wages of Destruction" I remember that the Reichsbahn was run down before the work - and never got any TLC. For coal distribution barge is best - keeps the black stuff off the railways/roads and is cheapest - hence in OTL the RAF mining German riverways and canals.
According to RV Jones it took the Germans about 5 months to jam it and longer to do it consistently. Given the inaccuracies/shameless self promotion in his memoir that may not be fully or at all accurate.
Depth though shouldn't be an issue, as the Brits claimed to be able to 'bend' the beams at any range, the bigger problem is identifiable terrain features at night if the beam isn't working right...which might be an issue given the lack of defining features in that part of the Netherlands/Germany plus lack of H2S until later in the war. Then there is the issue of the Germans using decoy targets, which they did to considerable success historically (as did the British in 1940-41) and using fake flares to simulate pathfinder markers and often did cause misdrops by bombers, especially earlier in the war when the lack of sophistication of Bomber Command was still an issue. By 1944 though that issue had largely been worked out by the RAF.
Also it is likely that the Germans would be quite concerned about bombing and would not only defend the field well, but also have transmitters throughout the Netherlands to jam the signal, which are much closer than anything based in Britain.
CHERRY PICKING.
You take a look at the range data chart I added?
So over 300 Matilda II and Crusader tanks and 24,000 tons of fuel is just a side issue for you?
What are you? An Übermensch with a tank ripping distortion halo?
Can't ignore this again, can you?
Where are those planes going to operate from without Malta?
Your iceberg aircraft carrier?
If the Italians take Malta, this is the amount of airspace and open ocean they can cover, protecting Axis supply convoys.
RN subs gonna have a fun time.
As well, all those planes used to hammer Malta can be used to defend Benghazi and Tobruk instead.
You're making a bunch of empty points by assuming the Axis are idiots.
The data switching between barrels and tons and back and per month and per year is confusing.
I do know that 7 barrels is one ton, but I still get lost ...
This may be either good or bad ...
Refining a ton of oil yields (very roughly) 50% gasoline, 25% diesel, 10% kerosene. I'm not sure about the rest - lubricants? Bunker oil?
Hence a diesel bottleneck forms faster than a gasoline bottleneck. So, depending on how consumption of POL derivates looks like, having diesel burning trucks could either be good or bad.
From "Wages of Destruction" I remember that the Reichsbahn was run down before the work - and never got any TLC. For coal distribution barge is best - keeps the black stuff off the railways/roads and is cheapest - hence in OTL the RAF mining German riverways and canals.
I think you're right. From what info I could find about the situation in 1945 it was less about the wrecked rail lines and more about the lack of rolling stock. I found one quote from a US officer about being surprised at how relatively intact the rail lines were. Though I think in the context he meant lines not the marshaling yards. In the cities/junctions they were pretty messed up though with enough labor that wasn't too much of an issue to fix. Having enough locomotives however is and by late 1944 the loss of those in retreats and especially in air attacks broke the system.Yes the Nazis badly neglected the railways but I got the impression that the main issue was lack of repair/replacement of the rolling stock and that this was significantly lessened by the obtaining of such equipment from the occupied companies.
Steve
Assumptions are not backed up with data.Actually your making a lot of wild assumptions yourself. As well as insults to try and hide that? I didn't copy the images because they were largely irrelevant to the points I was making. Namely
a) That virtually nothing throughout the period 1940-43 went through the Med from Gib to Alexandria. No matter how many stupid images you post that doesn't change.
Once Malta falls there will no longer be any need to maintain as many aircraft because all those Italian aircraft used to bomb Malta are now available for use in Africa.In terms of your last point seeking to maintain large amounts of air power in eastern Libya is going to further increase the Axis logistical burden. They can keep more than OTL there possibly but not the sort they could maintain from S Italy/Sicily and providing 24 hour cover is going to be an interesting challenge. Not to mention this won't apply to Fliegerkorps X as Hitler only usually allowed it to operate in the Med when it wasn't too useful in the east. Its not going to be switching out between Libya and Russia as easily given the problems in moving ground crews and facilities and the like is it?
So because there is oil in the Netherlands, the United States does not declare war, doubt that.The Allies can't attack everything at once either.
And your assuming that US still joins the war as per OTL.
No USA and the Allies are pretty much screwed.
The PAK38 would like a word:Assumptions are not backed up with data.
What I am presenting here is data. Pure and simple
300 Matilda and Crusader tanks and 24,000 tons of fuel is no laughing matter.
The Matilda was virtually invincible in North Africa, aside from 88mm flaks.
You grossly underestimate the impact of 300 tanks and 24,000 tons (168,000 barrels) of fuel on the Allied situation.
By mid-1942, the Germans had devised efficient infantry tactics using the Pak 38 and the long-barrel 50 mm (1.97 in) version of the Panzer III (Ausf J), which could deal with the Matilda. One solution for the British design was to upgrade the main gun, but with a turret ring of only 1.37 m (4.49 ft), no superior gun could be mounted without a major overhaul of the entire hull.