[cmeisenzahl]

"Here is a story about mathematical deduction that I love, mainly because it is said to be true, and because it had an impact (albeit small) on the outcome of the second world war. It is the story of how a simple statistical formula successfully estimated the number of tanks the enemy was producing, at a time when this could not be directly observed by the allied spy network.

By 1941-42, the allies knew that US and even British tanks had been technically superior to German Panzer tanks in combat, but they were worried about the capabilities of the new marks IV and V. More troubling, they had really very little idea of how many tanks the enemy was capable of producing in a year. Without this information, they were unsure whether any invasion of the continent on the western front could succeed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1824525,00.html

[Ghoser777]

I like that! I could use that as a cool warm up.

[Stratus Wrong]

That is pretty neat.

[JoshuaGGS]

very interesting.

[production_coordinator]

The (Tiger) Panzer was vastly superior to the Sherman tank. We simply out built the germans... something like 10 to 1.

[ghporter]

We out produced them with everything, including soldiers. The Allied success at Normandie was due to sheer numbers, not superiority in much else-we overwhelmed them at a point they thought was too strong to be a serious candidate for invasion. We built over 4 million M1 rifles-an 8-shot semiautomatic rifle-and put them in the hands of almost every soldier, while the Germans depended on the K98-a bolt action, 5 shot rifle; who wins in a shoot out between the two? The guy who can fire more before reloading. The victory in Europe was almost entirely a logistical victory. Not to say that there weren't really brilliant strategic moves-not at all!-but the entire strategy was based on the ability to pour properly trained, equipped and supported soldiers into an area. The Germans just couldnt' do that.

At one point, counting direct war workers and the military population, the U.S. had more people involved in the war effort than there were Germans. That is what won-total dedication of all the nation's assets and resources to a common purpose.

[Stratus Wrong]

Yeah but the nazis had V2 rockets, howitzers, jet planes, weird occult experiments with monsters, ..oh... wait... that's wolfenstein.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Stratus Wrong

Yeah but the nazis had V2 rockets, howitzers, jet planes, weird occult experiments with monsters, ..oh... wait... that's wolfenstein.

That's what I was thinking.

[aberdeenwriter]

My question is how they could be so confident of their calculations. It made sense, sure, but so did the other estimates until they sought to check their conclusions and came to the statistical calculation.

So, they had two wildly contradictory answers. How did they decide to go with the stats?

[Ghoser777]

I think they realized that trying to count tanks on a live battlefield would be unreliable due to various factors (over counting the same tank, counting one type of tank as another, etc). The article also says that intelligence tried to estimate the number of tanks, and kept coming up with contradictory results - hence, making them highly unreliable. I'm guessing that they ran their statistical model over a couple months and got consistent results, and hence they thought that model was much more reliable. It would be nice if the article got into more detail about that decision making process.

[ghporter]

Note that our victory in the Battle of Midway had a lot to do with "undercounting" by the Japanese. They thought they'd sunk one of our carriers, but the crew got 'er back underway in just hours, so the Japanese were completely blindsided by having to face FOUR carriers when they thought there were only three out there. Tactical intel is always a major problem when it comes to the enemy's capabilities; strategic intel (over time as Ghoser suggests) gives much more information, though it takes a lot longer to develop.

[Sky Captain]

The German military may have had more technicaly advanced weapons(rockets, jets) but didn't have them in any numbers to make a difference.
In fact the first ME-262 shot down was by a Spitfire.

The Sherman was a rolling target for German armor.
It's only advantage: sheer numbers.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The German military may have had more technicaly advanced weapons(rockets, jets) but didn't have them in any numbers to make a difference.
In fact the first ME-262 shot down was by a Spitfire.

The Sherman was a rolling target for German armor.
It's only advantage: sheer numbers.

I wouldn't say the Sherman was a rolling target... it just wasn't a "German tank killer." It was very effective in many other areas especially when grouped with small units.

IMHO, Germany simply made fundamental mistakes... they would have done much better if:
- They hadn't gone to war with Russia.
- They had developed a heavy bomber (to use against England)
- They had let women work in their factories
- They started the war too early

I'm glad they list, and looking back is 20/20... but it's interesting.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

IMHO, Germany simply made fundamental mistakes.

Did Germany make those mistakes or did Hitler do? If Germany made a fundamental mistake then it was following the Austrian criminal.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Note that our victory in the Battle of Midway had a lot to do with "undercounting" by the Japanese. They thought they'd sunk one of our carriers, but the crew got 'er back underway in just hours, so the Japanese were completely blindsided by having to face FOUR carriers when they thought there were only three out there. Tactical intel is always a major problem when it comes to the enemy's capabilities; strategic intel (over time as Ghoser suggests) gives much more information, though it takes a lot longer to develop.

Both you and he iterate or re-iterate valid points.

Once again I ask is it only by re-running the stats and the calculations that the 'deciders' of WWII decided to trust their calculations?

I'm not saying this is an invalid method of decision making, especially when nothing is 100% certain. I'm just saying that even if I do the math correctly if I'm using the wrong formula then the perfect math, even if I calculated it a million times, won't guarantee the right answer.

But obviously they were correct and breathtakingly so, as it turns out.

I guess we won't EASILY know.

[ghporter]

I don't think it boils down to a scientific decision. I think Ike had to consider all the intelligence and logistical data available, and then go with his gut. Most memoirs of such people talk about getting all the information and then still not knowing what's the best way to go. Instead, these leaders had to trust their instincts. Ike had a very nice "I'm sorry I killed all these nice boys" speech ready in case the Normandie invasion didn't work; I think he was ready to resign, too. He had to play the odds and trust luck. Fortunately, he was very lucky.

[amsalpemkcus]

I wonder how good their sampling was (read capture rate). Guess that would have even given them a pretty decent deviation from the mean.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I don't think it boils down to a scientific decision. I think Ike had to consider all the intelligence and logistical data available, and then go with his gut. Most memoirs of such people talk about getting all the information and then still not knowing what's the best way to go. Instead, these leaders had to trust their instincts. Ike had a very nice "I'm sorry I killed all these nice boys" speech ready in case the Normandie invasion didn't work; I think he was ready to resign, too. He had to play the odds and trust luck. Fortunately, he was very lucky.

Don't you know that God was on our side?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ghporter

We out produced them with everything, including soldiers. The Allied success at Normandie was due to sheer numbers, not superiority in much else-we overwhelmed them at a point they thought was too strong to be a serious candidate for invasion. We built over 4 million M1 rifles-an 8-shot semiautomatic rifle-and put them in the hands of almost every soldier, while the Germans depended on the K98-a bolt action, 5 shot rifle; who wins in a shoot out between the two? The guy who can fire more before reloading. The victory in Europe was almost entirely a logistical victory. Not to say that there weren't really brilliant strategic moves-not at all!-but the entire strategy was based on the ability to pour properly trained, equipped and supported soldiers into an area. The Germans just couldnt' do that.

Well, I mean, sure, the sheer amount of infantry that the Allies threw at Normandy was certainly a large - if not the largest - factor in its success. However, you also have to credit other extremely important factors which may have influenced the battle more than merely the number of shots each infantryman carried.

First of all, the disagreement between Rundstedt and Rommel over the displacement of troops (Rundstedt wanted them held back to be able to fully attack wherever the Allies might land, while the latter wanted them right on the beach to stop them immediately) meant that Hitler decided the debate to no one's satisfaction, giving Rommel (I think) half the units for the beaches, while placing the others midway back for Rundstedt. Thus, it was more or less the "worst of both worlds" - there weren't enough for either scenario.

The Allies' total air superiority at this time exploited this to maximum advantage. Almost all forms of transport were knocked out behind the German lines - it was virtually impossible for them to provide any reinforcements during the decisive days of the attack. In contrast, the massive amount of ships the Allies had crossing the channel meant that troops could go from England to fighting position at Normandy in (I think) less than 24 hours.

Anyways, it's all pretty interesting.

greg

[ghporter]

No doubt about it, having a loon for a chief commander made the German's struggle much harder! Even with geniuses like Rommel and von Runstedt arguing two very valid, "gut feeling" strategies, Hitler decided based on whatever was going on inside his warped mind, and that was crucial. In many ways, the Allied commanders were aided by Hitler's declining mental state, but that was countered by his quite brilliant command staff who were successful often in spite of Hitler's wishes.

And air superiority was another issue of massing power and being able to hit the Germans hard over and over. The 8th Air Force took appaling casualties in their efforts to destroy the German war machine-and as that machine was dependent on production of airplanes, that's one very important set of targets that the 8th hit over and over and over. And they were able to do that because we were able to send thousands of airplanes and tens of thousands of men to England to fly those missions. The 8th Air Force destroyed the Luftwaffe's ability to replace losses and thus every lost fighter was a defeat for Germany, while we were able to replace our losses-and then increase our fighter presence-every time.

I have had lots and lots of this sort history presented to me over the years. Strategy and tactics are only useful if you have the means to use them. "The Arsenal of Democracy" was our "secret weapon." It's what built the guns, planes, tanks, and even the Higgins Boats used to realize the landings in Normandie, and it included "the breadbasket of Democracy" as well-feeding millions of soldiers and millions more Britons, Chinese, even Russians. Logistics may not be glamorous and may not win people medals (medals that people notice, anyway), but it's at least as important as fighting spirit and a willingness to go at it against the enemy.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

The (Tiger) Panzer was vastly superior to the Sherman tank. We simply out built the germans... something like 10 to 1.

Exactly! Germany built about 5000 Tigers - against about 55000 Shermans!!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

- They hadn't gone to war with Russia.

To quote Eddie Izzard, famed Historian and U.S. Foreign Policy Expert:

That's why they put up…’cause, I mean, Napoleon had been steaming in there 100 years before: "I'm going to kill them, I'm going to kill them, going to… Oh, it's a bit cold, it's a bit cold. Right! Ok, ok, bad idea."

And then Hitler, "I've got a better idea, got a better idea… Oh, it's the same idea! It's the same idea, it's the same idea..." So no wonder they set up the Eastern Bloc! They wanted a buffer zone. It wasn't fair, but that's what they did. So that's where they're coming from.

... In the 30s, Hitler, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, World War II... the Russian front, not a good idea...! Hitler never played “Risk” when he was a kid...! ‘Cause, you know, playing “Risk,” you could never hold on to Asia. That Asian-Eastern European area, you could never hold it, could you? Seven extra men at the beginning of every go, but you couldn't ****ing hold it! Australia, that was the one! Australia, all the purple ones! Get everyone on Papua New Guinea and just build up and build up...

[medicineman]

Another factor was the failure to give local commanders control. Hitler was asleep at the time of the invasion. He was in total control of the Panzer corps. No one dared wake him, and the tank corps was unable to challenge the Normandy landing.

[Sky Captain]

I was one of those supply people in GW1.
I suppose I would have been a C-47 pilot in WWII.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

- They hadn't gone to war with Russia.

You know, this is looked at as Hitler's most damning move, but I don't necessarily think it was such a complete failure in and of itself. I think you missed the most important blunder.

I firmly believe that the most incredibly stupid move made by the Axis powers, and the act that immediately cost them the war, was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour.

The effect was twofold. Most importantly, it as ghporter is saying, it brought the world's largest industrial powerhouse potential into total war commitment. From then on, it was simply a matter of sheer numbers - no one in the world could possibly hope to compete with the industrial and manpower output the States brought to the table. Remember, at the end of WWII their economy was the size of the rest of the world combined...whereas Germany by itself wasn't even the largest in its European theatre!

However, in line with Barbarossa: the second most important thing about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was that it allowed the Russians to strike the crushing counterattack that finally halted and pushed back the German offensive outside Moscow. In one of the greatest espionage stories in history, a German official (I believe) stationed in Japan was actually leaking information about Japan's plans to the Russians. Thus, Lenin was reassured that Japan was in fact not about to attack his eastern seaboard but the States instead. He was then able to transfer (I believe it was) 10 divisions from Russia's eastern force to Moscow at the end of November 1941, and it was those fresh troops that formed the backbone behind the Russian counterattack at Christmas.

So, yeah. Germany attacking Russia? Sure, it was incredibly insane, and mindboggling in its stupidity. However, had Japan perhaps turned its eyes towards Russia's eastern flanks at this time and ignored the States' mutterings in the background, Hitler might have been proven a genius after all. I think it was their attack on Pearl Harbour that immediately sealed the fate of WWII - and, hey, Winston Churchill seemed to agree with me at the time.

greg

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

These stats truly won WWII:

* Weight: 10,800 lbs
* Length: 10 ft 8 in.; Diameter: 60 in.
* Fuel: Highly enriched plutonium 239
* Fuel weight: approx. 13.6 lbs; approx. size of a softball
* Initiator: Beryllium - Polonium
* Explosive force: 21,000 tons of TNT equivalent
* Use: Japanese city of Nagasaki; August 9, 1945
* Weaponeer: Cdr. Frederick Ashworth
* Delivery: B-29 Bockscar piloted by Maj. Charles Sweeney

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

These stats truly won WWII:

* Weight: 10,800 lbs
* Length: 10 ft 8 in.; Diameter: 60 in.
* Fuel: Highly enriched plutonium 239
* Fuel weight: approx. 13.6 lbs; approx. size of a softball
* Initiator: Beryllium - Polonium
* Explosive force: 21,000 tons of TNT equivalent
* Use: Japanese city of Nagasaki; August 9, 1945
* Weaponeer: Cdr. Frederick Ashworth
* Delivery: B-29 Bockscar piloted by Maj. Charles Sweeney

Wrong again.

Remember that WWII was effectively over by the time it was dropped. Hitler was dead, Germany had surrendered, and Japan was entirely reduced to rubble, with small armies of citizens conscripted to scrounge for roots that produced small amounts of oil. The war was won before August 9th. The only problem was in getting that through the Japanese's heads.

In that regards, it was a very effective weapon.

greg

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Wrong again.

Remember that WWII was effectively over by the time it was dropped. Hitler was dead, Germany had surrendered, and Japan was entirely reduced to rubble, with small armies of citizens conscripted to scrounge for roots that produced small amounts of oil. The war was won before August 9th. The only problem was in getting that through the Japanese's heads.

In that regards, it was a very effective weapon.

greg

Japan's Decision to Surrender by Robert J. C. Butow

Real history for honest inquirers, December 19, 1999
Reviewer: Stephen M. St Onge "Stephen M. St. Onge" (Mpls, MN USA) - See all my reviews

Almost every book I've read about Japan's surrender was written to support a point of view : that using the atomic bomb was/wasn't necessary to end the war. Robert Butow's masterpiece was written to give you the facts.

Butow went to Japan, interviewed the surviving leaders, read the documents, and remembered that people don't always tell you the truth, or even remember it. When he was done, his considered judgement was that the Japanese leaders themselves didn't know when they would have surrendered if Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't been nuked.

Butow lays out the inner workings of the Japanese war cabinet, showing how a few men refused to face the fact that Japan had lost World War II. He tells how Japanese diplomats overseas tried to get peace negotiations going, only to be undercut by their own govt. He describes the way the Allies tried and failed to understand Japan.

We'll never know what would have happened if the atomic bombs had not been dropped. But after reading JAPAN'S DECISION TO SURRENDER, you'll understand -- if you're honest -- how the Japanese leadership dithered away their chance to avoid the holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and why Truman felt he had no better option than using the atomic bomb.

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ tg/detail/-/0804704600?v=glance

[Dr.Michael]

If you want a story where the allies used superior technology against germany, read the story about breaking the enigma code and its consequences for the war. Its in Simon Singh: The Code Book. Highly recommended (contains also the story about decrypting egyptian hieroglyphs).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Wrong again.

Remember that WWII was effectively over by the time it was dropped.

Only to those who have the luxury of knowing for certain they'd never have had to fight the horrific battles for the Japanese home islands. For the million or so US troops who would have had to, and those that even up to the time of the bomb drops were dying by the thousands in the current island battles against an enemy still fighting to the death, the war was far from over.

Hitler was dead, Germany had surrendered

irrelevant to the Pacific theatre.

Japan was entirely reduced to rubble, with small armies of citizens conscripted to scrounge for roots that produced small amounts of oil.

Japanese forces were still inflicting thousands of casualties in the Pacific theatre and ready to keep doing so, despite suicidal lack of supplies. The land invasions of the home islands would have made Iwo Jima and other Pacific battles look like walks in the park.

We now even know Japan had produced their own atomic bomb, and there's evidence [edit]to suggest they may have[/] even detonated one. Who knows how things would have turned out had they been able to detonate a nuke via submarine in the middle of our fleets, or delivered one to a coastal US city? The war dragging on several more years (as conventional war would have) might have bought them enough time to do so.

People can speculate about alternative ends to the war- but the fact remains, the atomic bombs did do the job.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

People can speculate about alternative ends to the war- but the fact remains, the atomic bombs did do the job.

Ahhhh, there's no doubt about that. It did the job, and almost certainly did it with the most efficiency and least lives lost.

But the fact remains that the stranglehold the US had on Japan had effectively "ended" the war by that point. In addition, the Russian movement of troops to the eastern seaboard (which, incidently, has been speculated as one important reason why the a-bomb was dropped so quickly, to ensure a total "American victory" and avoid the appearance of Russian help) only further ensured Japan's destruction. They were starving islands bereft of any sort of sea support or weaponry.

The "war," such as it was, was over. The Japanese no longer had any avenue or capacity for attack, exempting the highly suspect (and controversial) nuclear-weapon theory you alluded to. The problem was their singular dedication to defending their territory and the Emperor's honor (as seen by reports documenting their intentions of using all remaining airplane fuel to launch mass kamikaze attacks in the event of US home island invasions).

So yes, while you can say that the A-bomb effectively put the finishing nail in the Pacific theatre's coffin, your statement that it "truly won WWII" is erroneous. It didn't - it merely was a brilliant yet inevitable finish to the only remaining Axis holdout. Your response to my comment on Germany's prior surrender ("irrelevant to the Pacific theatre") further emphasizes this: remember, however important the Pacific theatre was to the war, in terms of manpower, casualties and/or overall operations it was in almost all aspects completely dwarfed by the European theatre - which, of course, needed no Little Boy or Fat Man.

greg

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

We're talking about different things it seems.

That Japan's eventual defeat was inevitable is pretty much unquestioned. But you're arguing about the political part of the war. I'm talking about the war itself... the actual "fighting, stuff blowing up, cities going up in flames, people being killed in droves" part. The REAL thing. The part that people drafted to fight it would have had to deal with and die in droves in FOR REAL. The part that atomic weapons put an end to, IE "Won" for real.

That war- the real thing- being "effectively over" or won in 1945 without the use of the atomic bomb, is not in any way shape nor form true.

Contrary to myth, Japan was far from disarmed. Even in its remote island outposts that were nearly impossible to resupply, the Japanese were still able to inflict large casualties and there certainly weren't just surrendering.

On their main home islands, the fighting would have ramped up tenfold, with Japan enjoying more of a home turf advantage, millions of civilians in the crossfire, and many battling on to the death themselves. They did have weapons, men, machines, and though it wasn't a war winning situation for Japan by any means, it would have been a bloody to the death match. All this, plus the continued fire-bombings of Japan's cities, each killing as many or more people than the nuclear strikes.

Such a conventional war could easily have dragged on into the 1950s, cost millions more lives. And we haven't even scratched the surface of the adverse effect on the following cold war had the Soviets managed direct inroads into southeast Asia.

So it's your statement that the war was "effectively over" that's completely false. It wasn't. There were millions of people on either side that counter your assertion by the very fact they weren't killed by conventional bombs and battles that would have occured without the use of the weapon that DID end the war.

[runningdog]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

However, in line with Barbarossa: the second most important thing about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was that it allowed the Russians to strike the crushing counterattack that finally halted and pushed back the German offensive outside Moscow. In one of the greatest espionage stories in history, a German official (I believe) stationed in Japan was actually leaking information about Japan's plans to the Russians. Thus, Lenin was reassured that Japan was in fact not about to attack his eastern seaboard but the States instead. He was then able to transfer (I believe it was) 10 divisions from Russia's eastern force to Moscow at the end of November 1941, and it was those fresh troops that formed the backbone behind the Russian counterattack at Christmas.

So, yeah. Germany attacking Russia? Sure, it was incredibly insane, and mindboggling in its stupidity. However, had Japan perhaps turned its eyes towards Russia's eastern flanks at this time and ignored the States' mutterings in the background, Hitler might have been proven a genius after all. I think it was their attack on Pearl Harbour that immediately sealed the fate of WWII - and, hey, Winston Churchill seemed to agree with me at the time.

greg

Lenin? That poor guy was crushed by Stalin and his actions weren't all that different from Hitler's. It wasn't until Stalin was so frozen in fear that other people were finally allowed to do different things to help. Zukov was spared the firing squad because he was so far in the East. His troops were well equipped for any possible Japanese attack and when Zukov was finally given the command to help he was well prepared with seasoned and well equipped troops to defend Moscow in the Winter '41. Incidently, Zukov's orders were received in October of '41. According to this site, "Mr. Sorge was a Russian spy who had infiltrated the German embassy in Japan and worked hard to convince Japanese officials that Japan should not attack Russia, but move south, at the risk of war with the United States.

When Sorge informed the Kremlin [in Russia] in October, 1941, that the Japanese intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days, he received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington — Roosevelt, Marshall, Admiral Stark, et al. — had been advised of the Japanese intentions."

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by runningdog

Lenin? That poor guy was crushed by Stalin and his actions weren't all that different from Hitler's. It wasn't until Stalin was so frozen in fear that other people were finally allowed to do different things to help. Zukov was spared the firing squad because he was so far in the East. His troops were well equipped for any possible Japanese attack and when Zukov was finally given the command to help he was well prepared with seasoned and well equipped troops to defend Moscow in the Winter '41. Incidently, Zukov's orders were received in October of '41. According to this site, "Mr. Sorge was a Russian spy who had infiltrated the German embassy in Japan and worked hard to convince Japanese officials that Japan should not attack Russia, but move south, at the risk of war with the United States.

When Sorge informed the Kremlin [in Russia] in October, 1941, that the Japanese intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days, he received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington — Roosevelt, Marshall, Admiral Stark, et al. — had been advised of the Japanese intentions."

Slip by myself. I meant Stalin, of course. Now sure about the rest of your comments - are they criticisms or merely expanding on my espionage story? Yeah, Richard Sorge (I think) was the spy dude, now that I see his last name.

And Zhukov - who had previously been banished to the defense of Leningrad because of his outspoken criticism of the way Russia (ie. Stalin) was running the war, in particular Kiev's encirclement by the Germans - as I said made the Moscow counterattack bolstered with fresh troops which he had brought from Russia's eastern forces (via the single-rail Siberian line) in November. It was only after being reassured that Japan had no designs on Russian soil that Stalin allowed those eastern forces to be weakened. Zhukov had been in Moscow for almost a year before that after being promoted to full general in 1940, after his massive success over the Japanese at the Battle of Khalkin Goll (sp?) a year before.

So, yeah. As I said, Japan's decision to attack the States meant that Zhukov was able to transport desperately needed Siberian/Eastern troops to Moscow without fear of being overrun from behind. It was those fresh troops who formed the backbone of the Soviet counterattack in early December that finally drove the Germans backwards.



greg

[aberdeenwriter]

By August 1945 the winner of WWII wasn't much in doubt. The 'point spread' was the only issue to be determined.