russia vs. japan in 1941 [WAS: 50% of NAZI oil..]

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food,
trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to
~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC.

OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the
world's
leading military power.


By what measure ?

The RN may have been arguably the strongest although
the USN was surely equal or better. The RAF was able
to hold its own on the defensive (just) but it was in no
shape to launch any real attacks on the nemey and the
army was pitifully small in comparison to that of Germany
and was for the most part less well equipped and led.



Without these resources, the
German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short.

Japan consolidates in China

That will never happen.

Even without trying to take on the US?


Yes, the amount of help that reached the Chinese before the
repoening of the Burma Road in 1944 was little more than token
and the Japanese simply lacked the manpower to effectively
subjugate China.

then attacks Siberia.

And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939.

And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win,
which they won't.

Even without trying to take on the US?


Yep, there still wasnt any oil in Siberia and that was the limiting factor
for Japan.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food,
trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to
~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC.

OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the
world's
leading military power.


By what measure ?

The RN may have been arguably the strongest although
the USN was surely equal or better. The RAF was able
to hold its own on the defensive (just) but it was in no
shape to launch any real attacks on the nemey and the
army was pitifully small in comparison to that of Germany
and was for the most part less well equipped and led.


1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was, as
you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not
nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive reinforcement
in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF would
guarantee would (mostly) get through.

2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of idiots
(blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we at
least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher levels,
had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany of
the other major participants.

In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a truly
great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of
warfare but also a developing ability to delegate.

3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly
equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF had
(just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like the
Battle and Stirling accepted. Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2)
above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we had
very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as was
cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in the
1939-40 time frame.

Of course:

4) By the end of the war, the US had grown and left us way behind.

5) We couldn't possibly have prevailed without their (largely
self-interested) help.

Without these resources, the
German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short.

Japan consolidates in China

That will never happen.

Even without trying to take on the US?


Yes, the amount of help that reached the Chinese before the
repoening of the Burma Road in 1944 was little more than token
and the Japanese simply lacked the manpower to effectively
subjugate China.

then attacks Siberia.

And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939.

And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win,
which they won't.

Even without trying to take on the US?


Yep, there still wasnt any oil in Siberia and that was the limiting factor
for Japan.

Accepted. I still think it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine
what happens if Germany and Japan get their act together and do some proper
joint planning either before or even during the war. The Panama Canal comes
to mind.

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...



1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was,
as
you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not
nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive
reinforcement
in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF would
guarantee would (mostly) get through.


There was nothing much in it

In 1914 the BEF had 6 British Infantry Divisions, 2 Indian Infantry
Divisions
1 British Cavalry division and 1 Indian Calavry Brigade

In 1939 their were 2 regular infantry divisions in the Aldershot zone , 1 in
the
Eastern Zone at Colchester, 2 TA Divisions in the London Zone, 1 regular
division in the Northern Zone , 1 TA Division in Scotland, 1 Armored
Division
and 1 regular infantry Division in Southern command and 2 TA Divisions in
Wales

In total 5 Regular Infantry divisions, 4 of TA Infantry and 1 Armored
Division
not all of the TA divisions were suitable for short term use


2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of idiots
(blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we at
least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher levels,
had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany of
the other major participants.


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a truly
great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of
warfare but also a developing ability to delegate.


And had screwed up royally at Gallipoli , the British Army was no more
ready for amphibious warfare in Norway in 1940 than it had been
in the Dardanelles

3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly
equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF
had
(just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like the
Battle and Stirling accepted.

The Stirling didnt arrive in numbers until 1942 I think you'll find.


Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2)
above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we
had
very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as was
cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in
the
1939-40 time frame.


Damm few ships had radar in 1939/40

soc.culture groups trimmed from reply

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...



1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was,
as
you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not
nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive
reinforcement
in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF
would
guarantee would (mostly) get through.


There was nothing much in it

In 1914 the BEF had 6 British Infantry Divisions, 2 Indian Infantry
Divisions
1 British Cavalry division and 1 Indian Calavry Brigade

In 1939 their were 2 regular infantry divisions in the Aldershot zone , 1
in
the
Eastern Zone at Colchester, 2 TA Divisions in the London Zone, 1 regular
division in the Northern Zone , 1 TA Division in Scotland, 1 Armored
Division
and 1 regular infantry Division in Southern command and 2 TA Divisions in
Wales

In total 5 Regular Infantry divisions, 4 of TA Infantry and 1 Armored
Division
not all of the TA divisions were suitable for short term use


2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of
idiots
(blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we
at
least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher
levels,
had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany
of
the other major participants.


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.

In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a
truly
great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of
warfare but also a developing ability to delegate.


And had screwed up royally at Gallipoli

And served his time in the political wilderness for it.

the British Army was no more
ready for amphibious warfare in Norway in 1940 than it had been
in the Dardanelles

Was much more ready for it at Normandy though, at least partly for the bad
experience at the Dardanelles.

3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly
equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF
had
(just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like
the
Battle and Stirling accepted.

The Stirling didnt arrive in numbers until 1942 I think you'll find.

My mistake. I remembered it as a crap early war big bomber.

Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2)
above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we
had
very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as
was
cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in
the
1939-40 time frame.


Damm few ships had radar in 1939/40

True. But airfields benefitted from radar detection of raids, and the ships
that did have it benefitted big-style, whether against surface ships or
U-Boots.

soc.culture groups trimmed from reply

John

"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and
then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK
troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.

Figures dont't really agree, you know. France sent 8,410,000 soldiers to the
front. Out of them, 1,357,800 were killed and 3,595,000 wounded. The only
country that suffered higher losses in this war was Russia.

Yours,
Christophe

"Christophe Chazot" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and
then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK
troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.

Figures dont't really agree, you know. France sent 8,410,000 soldiers to
the
front. Out of them, 1,357,800 were killed and 3,595,000 wounded. The only
country that suffered higher losses in this war was Russia.

For WW2? Seems awfully high and the figures I have certainly don't agree. On
Googling, I keep getting

France military 250,000 civilian 350,000 total 600,000

which sounds more reasonable, although still obviously a lot. After summer
1940 very few French were 'at the front', although I know about the Free
French movement and the heroism of the Resistance etc.

France only learned from WW1 that war was to be avoided (perfectly sensible)
and that a defensive strategy would deter Germany (turned out not to be true
as we know). Many in Britain made the same mistakes, but you were unlucky
enough to be before us in the firing line.

John

According to the first line, we were talking about WW1 :
The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find


"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Christophe Chazot" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find


(snip)

France only learned from WW1 that war was to be avoided (perfectly
sensible)
and that a defensive strategy would deter Germany (turned out not to be
true
as we know). Many in Britain made the same mistakes, but you were unlucky
enough to be before us in the firing line.

John


Yep. "Too few, too late" was also true for the french armies...

Christophe

Figures dont't really agree, you know. France sent 8,410,000 soldiers to the
front. Out of them, 1,357,800 were killed and 3,595,000 wounded. The only
country that suffered higher losses in this war was Russia.

There must have been close to a million slave laborers (guest workers,
if you prefer) sent to Germany. I've seen newsreels of them returning,
still in their 1940 uniforms.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:58:19 +0200, "Christophe Chazot"
wrote:


"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find

For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and
then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK
troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.

Figures dont't really agree, you know. France sent 8,410,000 soldiers to the
front. Out of them, 1,357,800 were killed and 3,595,000 wounded. The only
country that suffered higher losses in this war was Russia.

That number is WWI French deaths, not casualties. Germany lost
1,900,000 appoximately, probably somewhat more than Russian
(haven't seen figures I trusted for Russia) Austria-Hungarian
losses were about equal to the French.

Peter Skelton

In article , John
Mullen wrote:

The RN may have been arguably the strongest although
the USN was surely equal or better. The RAF was able
to hold its own on the defensive (just) but it was in no
shape to launch any real attacks on the nemey and the
army was pitifully small in comparison to that of Germany
and was for the most part less well equipped and led.

1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was, as
you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not
nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive reinforcement
in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF would
guarantee would (mostly) get through.


No the RAF was more than capable of holding out against the Luftwaffe.
The germans had the wrong aircraft the wrong tactics and well, just
about everything. -Even had they worked out what the strange looking
towers round the south coast were for and demolished them, enabling
them to knock out the RAF's frontline airfields, all the RAF would have
had to do was to pull their fighters back to the North of London (out
of the limited range of the german bombers) and continue sniping away.
-The RAF ended the Battle of Britain materially stronger than when it
started. -Of course they enjoyed the advantage of being able to recover
their downed pilots, and a large proportion of even the most badly
damaged aircraft, but they also enjoyed the most sophisticated command
and control system in existance at the time, together with professional
leadership, and an operational ethos which did not glorify the few aces
at the expense of the majority of canon fodder. I could go on but I
would recommend instead that you read "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by
Stephen Bungay.

Favourite quote from a German pilot, assured that the RAF was on it's
last legs sometime in September 1940

"Oh look, here come the last 50 Spitfires ..... again"