What was the biggest mistake made during WWII?

[Born 2 Loose]

Didn't read the whole thread so apologies if already mentioned:

Axis: Having Italy as a member.
Allies: Liberating France

[context]

Put simply, the German mistake was not concentrating on the invasion of Britain. Had they pushed their advantage (ignoring Russia for the time being) they would have been able to successfully/easily invade Britain. They were literally days from destroying the RAF and removing the one stumbling block they saw to the invasion (total air superiority).

Had they done this the obstacles would have fallen like dominoes.

They would have controlled all of western (and much of eastern) europe. They would have controlled the whole of the industrial output of these countries. They would have had total superiority in most of the worlds oceans and the trading routes on them. They would have removed the main centre organisational centre for resistance in most of these countries as well - though of course many of them could have relocated to other countries, deGaul could had fled elsewhere. But it would have been much more dificult to support resistance movements from across the Atlantic, if not impossible.

By taking the British Empire they would have controlled africa. A thorn in their side throughtout the war. They would have controlled all of the oil supplies from africa/middle-east and removed the entire logistic problem accosiated with this area of the war. Germany were fighting on many fronts, not just the east (russia) and west (britain). They were splitting more troops in africa, and much of the sea power in the atlantic. We often forget over here (britain) just how many other nations were included in the "british" forces. Without a britain there would presumably have been no Australian/NewZealan/Indian/African/etc.... forces figting either. Where would the free polish (insert other nation of choice) pilots have lived/fought?

Some people here seem to forget the huge supply lines that went from britain to russia. Without a free britain there would be no supplies, no arms, no food, no fuel, etc.

The US developed nukes before germany for several reasons, not least the air raids on german installations launched from britain (we've all seen the film about telemark i guess?). Germany was decades ahead of anyone else in rocket/delievery systems. Anyone want to guess where they would be with long range missiles and nukes by 44/45? Does anyone know to what extent british scientists were involved in the manhatan project (I seem to remember reading that some were) - would they have been incorporated into the german efforts?

With britain under german control Hitler could have taken virtually all of his combined forces and pointed them at a russia without allies, without resupply routes. The entire german airforce (which had massive action/losses over britain) would have pounded russia. With free reign over the fuel supplies from the middle-east/africa germany would not have had the logistical problems in the east. Their navy would have blockaded russia and allowed germany to open other fronts behind leningrad etc. The lack of RAF/USAF bombing raids on germany would have meant the entire german industrial machine (now enhanced by the british industrial output and remaining military hardware) would have been free to produce far more war machinary than they managed.

When D-day came, significant german forces were distributed throughout western europe in anticipation of an invasion. Successful allied misinformation confused the german high-command sufficiently that they had to commit troops in places where they had to sit and wait, of no use to anyone.

And, you cannot underestimate the psychological factor of defeating britain. It would have been a huge boost. Hitler had a massive respect for the british empire (one of his initial reasons for not invading when he should have, believing he could convince britain to leave him be).

[Zeno]

Late follow up on the first Bomb. The test bomb was literally that, as you stated. It was called "The Gadet" and was hoisted up a pre-built tower and detonated by remote control. It was not something that you could have dropped from a plane.

Here are some more or less famous photos: The Gadet

Hoisting 'The Gadet'


Sucess!


The Trinity Test really was a giant science experiment, one of the largest ever done and certainly one that was done under the most intense pressure for all involved.


-Zeno

[Peter666]

I will appease the commissar's wrath by giving credit to one unique Soviet weapon that we don't hear enough of: the PPSH-41. That is the little submachine gun with the drum barrel magazine that held 71 rounds. Reliable and great for close quarter and urban combat. Way ahead of the American M1 Carbine.

[AdamL]

The once and future king,


The confusion is that I'm not trying to make a case that the Soviet infantry was superior to the Germans. When I said that I didn't buy the garbage about Soviet tactical ineptitude, I did not mean they were super-men. What I mean is that the Soviets most certainly don't go with the stereotypical mindless horde WW1 imagery from the media. And I certainly don't think tactical superiority from the Germans was the major factor of their successes early in the war. It more or less is a catalyst for those other factors which occur at the operational level. You may as well congratulate the wheel and track itself for the German success if you're going to think that tactical maneuver was the key. It simply wasn't the whole story.

The German army was superior tactically to the Soviets in actuality. The Soviets on paper knew all the same tricks as the Germans, but they didn't have the training. You had a much bigger gap between the average education in the west as in the east. The ability to think of tactical problems in the abstract, or even to simply put a round on target using indirect fire, was not a common thing for the Soviet. But they could fight, and fire on the enemy, and take cover and all that good stuff. And the Germans could scarcely do those things significantly better, they just knew tactical maneuver.

Did German tactical abilities work as a modifier for their operational success? Certainly. Where battle was fought, it was won professionally. This minimizes casualties and speeds up operational tempo.

But was it such a huge modifier that the Soviet tactical differentials explain the near-loss of Russia in 1941? No, and not even close. Tactical modifiers can't account for that huge a result. Operational ones can.

The German army knew how to conduct an operational offensive using the same principles the Soviets were well aware of. The difference was that they could actually do it. Where the Soviets try, they can hardly get a maneuver in on the operational scale without losing the whole formation. Furthermore, they take an offensive stance operationally while on the strategic defensive. They shoot their replacements at the Germans like ammunition because they don't have the supply systems in place to keep a force fielded (after formation) for very long. So they try to use up it's combat power before it naturally erodes.

Meanwhile STAVKA thinks the failures at the start of the war are due to morale shock and hasty retreats. So units that really should be falling back are being told "Fight to the death".

In summary, the Russian side is in a complete [censored] up from the operational side, is holding it's own tactically but doing nothing fantastic, and strategically has at least one thing right: They're fully mobilizing their economy.

And because they did that one thing right, and Germany didn't, they won the war. It kept them alive long enough to get their [censored] together operationally and it was a sealed deal from there.

Hope it's interesting.