All other things *not* being equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Yes you are... compared to what the Germans had to make do with at that time.
I’ll give you that if you’ll give me that zee Germans did have the defensive advantage. The drive to the Rhine was about rooting them out, not facing them in pitched battle.
It still seems like apples and oranges to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
The insufficient German fuel production was crashed to about 10% of its former output during that period and German truck productions had been smaller than truck losses for three years in a row by mid-'44...
You do understand that the fully motorised Western allies took six months in 1944 to reconquer against the numerically inferior shambles of an army what the Germans had conquered in 1940 against a numerically equal opponent in six weeks, having only a 15% motorised force?
If the two are compared, is the implication that had the Allies been less heavily motorized they would have proceeded more quickly? But can you really compare the two? Apart from the seasons, the French forces and the BEF evacuated to fight another day. The Germans didn’t have that option. This has to have had a bearing on how long things took to shake out.
My main point is not to argue that the Allies were as skilled and artful as the Germans. I don’t know enough to make or judge a nuanced argument about that, anyway. But I do feel like I know enough to be skeptical about attributing any American success solely to superior resources. If holding the keys to Ali Baba’s cave were a guarantee of victory Man United and the New York Yankees would win the championship every year and the Taliban would be a historical footnote.