World War II

[catullus]

Stopping the tank/armour development was probably a good idea for the Germans. Maus would have been too big to be practical. And the sketchboard battleship-on-tracks models were even more hopeless.
Even the King Tiger was a laugh at the strategic level. Sure, it could kill anything, and nothing could kill it (except fighter planes). But it was a mechanical monster, too complicated, breaking down all the time, it drank diesel by the gallons, sank down and got stuck in any terrain, and the roads (and bridges!) couldn't support it. It was a failure strategically.
Personally, I think the Mark V tank (Panther) was a better tank than the Mark VI (Tiger) strategically. Maybe they would have fared best stuck building mods on Mark IV, like the allies did with the Sherman.

C.

 

[Robespierre]

1) The Germans probably couldn't have "taken" Britain, because the British were defending themselves just too well and America wouldn't just let Britain perish. America was propping Britain up, while the British air force proved its superiority in the air under the circumstances. And Hitler couldn't execute an invasion without clearing the air first. Hitler COULD knock Britain out of the war, however, for instance he should have captured all the British soldiers at Dunkirk, this would have been a serious blow to the island. If Hitler had maintained his position after the defeat of France, with Britain as the aggressor and thousands of British POWs in German hands (to be returned in exchange for peace and also not available to defend their motherland), it is quite possible that America (and hence Britain) could be convinced to end the war against the Germans and allow France (as a state) to perish.

2) Attacking Russia in a full-scale total war of national survival was a bad idea, no matter when. Time wouldn't have changed that. What Hitler SHOULD have done, however, was capitalized off of the Slavic peoples' hatred of Russian rule and entered victoriously as the champion of freedom against Communism. Hitler could have introduced a whole new world order in the east, basically a series of nominally independent German puppet states. Stalin, acting from the heartland of Russia, would be forced to make a peace and the Russian Empire would be dismembered forever (or at least for a while). Hitler ruined things when he enforced a policy of mass extermination in the East, which undermined efforts to build any new type of order and turned all the local peoples from fervent pro-nazis into fervent anti-nazis, creating the kind of situation that could (and did) bring the Soviet Union from the brink of defeat to victory.

Thus, by forcing both Britain and the Soviet Union into peace, Hitler could have annexed most of France and half of Russia and gotten away with it. If he and his party weren't such a bunch of racist idiots, they could have truly created a Reich to stand for a thousand years (or at least until today). If Germany had adopted a positive policy towards the Slavic peoples in the East, they could have become valuable members of the German Reich that would ensure an end to Russian hegemony in Europe forever. Meanwhile, in the west, the Germans could have fostered a new Reich that included much of France. Totalitarianism doesn't necessarily mean mass murder and racism. The German state could have remained dedicated to ideals like courage, unity, and strength without adopting a policy of mass racial extermination. Instead of hunting down Jews, Hitler should have been hunting down just communists and working on winning the support of the USA.

 

[willemvanoranje]

The fact is the RAF was almost dead by the time Hitler decided to let the Luftwaffe attack London instead of airfields. If he wouldn't have done that, the RAF would've 'died', troops would have landed and German bombers would've bombed all English resistance, basically, Hitler would've conquered England, though he would not be able to attack Russia after that in my opinion.

No it did not fly.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

"2) Attacking Russia in a full-scale total war of national survival was a bad idea, no matter when. Time wouldn't have changed that. What Hitler SHOULD have done, however, was capitalized off of the Slavic peoples' hatred of Russian rule and entered victoriously as the champion of freedom against Communism. Hitler could have introduced a whole new world order in the east, basically a series of nominally independent German puppet states. Stalin, acting from the heartland of Russia, would be forced to make a peace and the Russian Empire would be dismembered forever (or at least for a while). Hitler ruined things when he enforced a policy of mass extermination in the East, which undermined efforts to build any new type of order and turned all the local peoples from fervent pro-nazis into fervent anti-nazis, creating the kind of situation that could (and did) bring the Soviet Union from the brink of defeat to victory.

Thus, by forcing both Britain and the Soviet Union into peace, Hitler could have annexed most of France and half of Russia and gotten away with it. If he and his party weren't such a bunch of racist idiots, they could have truly created a Reich to stand for a thousand years (or at least until today). If Germany had adopted a positive policy towards the Slavic peoples in the East, they could have become valuable members of the German Reich that would ensure an end to Russian hegemony in Europe forever. Meanwhile, in the west, the Germans could have fostered a new Reich that included much of France."

That was exactly what I was getting at earlier on. Well-said!

 

[Bretwalda]

I agree with those who said that Hitler might have won the war: E.g. if Dunkirk was more successful from the German point of view GB might sue for peace. An invasion against Britain (Seelöwe) might have worked out in '40 or '41. Don't underestimate the moral results of Britain's fall: USA would probably turn to an isolationalist view and the Soviet Union wouldn't possibly think, that could win.

Other major mistake was not to use the strong anti Russian feelings in the East: yes there were Stormtroops made up entirely Ukrainains, and other nationalities.

The end would lead to a Europe that would have been dominated by Germany (instead of USSR dominating East), and probably the same kind of Cold War would have evolved.

To Hitlers strategic brightness (or foolness): The first phase of the war brought successess with such steps that his generals would try to risk (and paid off handsomely) - on the second part however made quite few bad decisions.

I doubt however that the Russian industrialization could overtake that of Germans: their mere number of cannon fodder could last for many years - that and the General Winter was that they opposed the Germans. Germany was producing army machinery at such a rate even in 1944 that was say the least impressive. My grandpa' says that there were tanks and all kinds of stuff - and without gasoline... That was the major problem: lack of fuel (sorry if that was commonplace for you)

To the sucking King Tiger topic: yes, but not so good ideas were on all sides: e.g. if I know correctly some US tanks used high octane gas in the beginning. That meant that they were blown to pieces in any hit (or at least started to burn) while German tanks used diesel engines... The movie of Battle of Bulge showed what those tanks were capable of

Sorry for being long

 

[Siggy]

Bretwalda, You must have read that article I was mentioning. Totaly agreed with.

I am working on a translation, however I wonder if I can find a english translation without doing the work myself. The author is A.J.P. Taylor. He is American so he should have written that article in English in the first place... Man, am I smart

 

[Magnus]

Agreed the Germans could have used the hatred of the enslaved Russian people to help them destroy the USSR - unfortunately, the Germans, instead of acting like liberators, managed to be even worse to the people than the Soviets who preceded them, havinfg the effect of galvanizing strength for 'mother russia' - this is another case where Hitler's ideological racism hurt the war campaign.

 

[Robespierre]

I doubt however that the Russian industrialization could overtake that of Germans: their mere number of cannon fodder could last for many years - that and the General Winter was that they opposed the Germans. Germany was producing army machinery at such a rate even in 1944 that was say the least impressive.

Russian industrialization DID overtake that of the Germans. World War I proved that masses of Russian cannon fodder couldn't overtake industrially superior Germany, but by World War II not only did the Russian have more "cannon fodder" - they also had more cannons. I think it would be hard to find any accurate statistics (since everything on both sides of the Nazi-Soviet war was altered for propaganda anyway), but everything I have read about Kursk and Stalingrad points toward the fact that the Russian victory was fueled not only by the massive reaction against the German barbarism but also by the industrial might of Stalin's Soviet Empire.

The Russians were forced to pay a far bloodier price for their industrialization than any other country, because of their cruel dictator, but in the end their industry defeated the Germans. They were outproducing the German Panzer Corps with their superior Soviet tanks, outproducing German artillery, and outproducing German small arms. Hitler never mobilized the German economy for warfare - he was preparing only for short blitzkrieg campaigns, where the original supplies of the armies would suffice (a la Napoleon). This was a big mistake.

 

[Siggy]

Originally posted by Robespierre

They were outproducing the German Panzer Corps with their superior Soviet tanks, outproducing German artillery, and outproducing German small arms.

Don't be foolish; Russian tanks were not superior, they were adequate to do the job, probably because of the massive numbers. Superior is an overstatement.

 

[joespaniel]

In 1941 the Soviet T-32 was superior in every way to existing German armor of all types. The Germans had a hell of a time knocking these out. It usualy required a 88mm ATG to kill one.

Later, the German Tigers and Panthers were the bad boys.

 

[Bretwalda]

Are you sure you meant to write T-32?

This tank?

I think you meant this one: T-34

As it states there (of course every source should be treated with some suspiction - this one, too) It was superior in quality in '41, but not in quantity and I also might add: The Soviets were not able to use it properly, as Germans have learnt, already.

Later on it changed. Soviets had superior numbers but inferior quality... to the later German tanks

And that is only one piece of war machine... Many times Luftwaffe was a big help to ground troops - again German war machine was better coordinated.

Originally posted by joespaniel
In 1941 the Soviet T-32 was superior in every way to existing German armor of all types. The Germans had a hell of a time knocking these out. It usualy required a 88mm ATG to kill one.

Later, the German Tigers and Panthers were the bad boys.

 

[Siggy]

In this context I once read a "funny" account on one KV-1 tank (early war soviet heavy tank). It blocked the german advance somewhere on the northern front in June 1941, killed a battery of light german anti-tank guns and a lot of soft vehicles. Germans at last managed to disable it. They shot a track off and jammed the turret. The monster was still blocking the road however ( no way around it and ; terrain sucked at that location) it's guns and machine guns were still in working order. They moved some light anti-tank guns up and tried to knock it out. They failed. 37mm Grenades were bouncing off the armor, they didn't have '88's around and at last they even tried it with an 75mm howitzer. Also this desperate measure didn't have any effect as that gun had only HE-shells. After some hours of fruitless firing on the monster with about anything they could move up a hatch opened with a hand waving a white rag. The crew surrendered with no scratch apart from bleeding ears. They were totally stunned, but Ok. No one of the grenades managed to penetrate the tank.

 

[Bretwalda]

Kind of funny, that I read the same type of story somewhere, but with a Tiger II and Shermans.

Actually it was a bit different, as it stated that after a while the German crew abandoned the vehicle, however even after that they were unable to move it! (engine of 2 Shermans broke down on the attempt...)

Finally they came to a solution: they chopped the trees around it and circumnavigated it )

Originally posted by Siggy
In this context I once read a "funny" account on one KV-1 tank (early war soviet heavy tank). It blocked the german advance somewhere on the northern front in June 1941, killed a battery of light german anti-tank guns and a lot of soft vehicles. Germans at last managed to disable it. They shot a track off and jammed the turret. The monster was still blocking the road however ( no way around it and ; terrain sucked at that location) it's guns and machine guns were still in working order. They moved some light anti-tank guns up and tried to knock it out. They failed. 37mm Grenades were bouncing off the armor, they didn't have '88's around and at last they even tried it with an 75mm howitzer. Also this desperate measure didn't have any effect as that gun had only HE-shells. After some hours of fruitless firing on the monster with about anything they could move up a hatch opened with a hand waving a white rag. The crew surrendered with no scratch apart from bleeding ears. They were totally stunned, but Ok. No one of the grenades managed to penetrate the tank.

 

[Le Petit Prince]

I think the biggest strategic errors of all time have been made by Hitler

1.Stop to attack the RAF but bomb the cities instead...He would have take London

2. Stop the german center army group instead of taking Moskva by fear of being surrounded!!! YEAH but he would have taken moskva!!

 

[joespaniel]

Thank you, Bretwalda, thats what I was thinking of. T-34.

The Germans had poor intelligence about Russian units and equipment before Barbarrossa. They underestimated the troop, equipment and supply strength of the USSR over and over during the war.

The Germans did, however, have;

-Experiance (at first) and much better training.

-The Luftwaffe (again thanks Bret), until the ground forces outran its range ( they couldn't make foward airbases fast enough ).

-Morale. They hadn't been beaten, yet.

The Germans Army also had one other huge advantage. Communications. Initialy, they were far ahead of the armies it faught in wireless use. This was one of the things that made the fast-paced offense possible.

The combined-arms concept didn't hurt, either.

 

[joespaniel]

I saw an interview with a former German officer who, with an 88mm ATG and crew, held off a British column of Shermans for hours.

He said;
They just kept coming up the road and we kept picking them off. But eventualy we had to retreat. We ran out of ammunition before they ran out of tanks!

 

[Graeme the mad]

There is a simple way the war could have been won by the Axis - the Japanes attack USSR instead of US. Dont get me wrong Britian was incredibly important in the war (im very patriotic) but the US was necessary to win it.
If pearl harbour hadnt been attacked then US would not have got into the war (they were quite happy to let fascist dictators control the world as long as it didnt bother them).
The USSR would have been defeated by joint German and Japanese offensives and by the time that US public might have realised how bad things were for there own interesrs the Nazis would have almost certainly have had the Atom bomb and then Britain falls and a cold war situation arises with Japan vs US vs Germany though Japanese power would have been seriously hard pushed to be established in China

Im thinking of writing a book set in 1962 on the consequences of the Japanese not bombing pearl harbour so have researched it fairly thouroughly: would you buy it?

 

[joespaniel]

Yes, I would buy it. I like history 'what if' stories.

Actualy designed a scenario for civ2 along those lines, were the Japaneese attack Russia instead.

The attack on Pearl Harbor backfired on the Japaneese in the long run. Yamamoto knew it when he uttered those words...

" I fear all we have done is wake a sleeping giant"

 

[Magnus]

hmmm - I think the thread has changed from WW2 to Axis & Allies(TM) strategies

Japan knew it was going to have to tangle with the USA eventually, that's why it figured a sneak attack would slow it down enough to allow Japan to control the Pacific unchallenged - it almost worked.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

The Japanese did fight the Soviets .......... but some years before WW2. There were a few big actions betw the Soviet forces in the Maritime Province and the Japanese Kwantung Army which was garrisoning Manchuria sometime in the 30s. The Japanese got mauled badly cos they didn't have the heavy armor to match the Soviet tanks. So they never tried again after a negotiated peace.

Why else do you think Stalin put all those Siberian divisions in the Far East? To guard against possible Japanese attacks. After he got confirmation fr his spy in Tokyo that the Japs won't attk, he immediately transferred those units to Moscow who arrived in the nick to time to beat back the encroaching Germans.