My Research on WWII

kobayashi

Deity
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
2,709
Location
Singapore
I just wanted to verify my understanding that the Germans had superior equipment and basically only lost a war of attrition (in spite of Hitlers crazy notions). This will be the theme in my scenario: quality verses quantity. This is quite a contreversial thing so I thought I'd make my research public before doing the scenario.

I suppose we could go into a long process of comparing stats of comparable equipment but I though that looking at the kills would have been much easier. Here are the top 10 Luftwaffe aces:

Erich Hartmann 352 kills
Gerhard Barkhorn 301 kills
Gunther Rall 275 kills
Otto Kittel 267 kills
Walter Nowothy 258 kills
Willhelm Batz 237 kills
Erich Rudorffer 222 kills
Heinz Bar 220 kills
Hermann Graf 212 kills
Heinrich Ehrler 209 kills

and many DOZENSs of aces with over 100 kills

in contrast, the top Allied aces

Russian Ivan N Kozahebub 62 kills
British James Johnson 38 kills
American Richard Bong 40 kills

Then I began to look at the tanks, without bothering to look for equivalent Allied kills.

Hans Ulrich Rudel, the top Ju-87 ace destroyed 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 800 other vehicles, 70 landing craft and a battleship single handedly.

The German tank ace Michael Wittmann destroyed 144 tanks over the course of the war before being killed by accident (friendly fire).

In 1944, Panzer Regiment Bake destoyed 267 Russian tanks in the Balabononaka pocket for the loss of 5 in five days

In July 1944, Ernst Bortmann destroyed 16 Shermans with a single panther

Karl Korner destroyed over 100 russian tanks in April of 1945, mostly JS-2s, in his King Tiger during the defence of Berlin. (He basically ran out of ammo).

 
I'm happy you're doing you r homework on it. I know a very good book I read about the 2nd WW. But that one is in Dutch. It was written by, eeeh. I don't remember. I'll search for ya. Hope I know it tomorrow. It has a lot of statistics, and about half of what I know of the strategic and statistic things of WW II (and that is a lot, I must say) came from that book.

Oh yeah. I must say that the German had a few very bad tanks, too. The Panzerkampfwagen II, III, and IV were already outdated in the Russian campaign. They were wiped out by the T-34's. The original plan was to use the Panther in Russia, but the production started to late and got messed up, by allied bombs I think, later.

------------------
Concordia res parvae cres****.
 
As far as kills go, you must understand that Luftwaffe pilots were never given desk jobs, or withdrawn for combat, as were allied pilots. Hartman, for example, had only three furloughs the whole war. By contrast, most allied pilots where withdrawn for long streches of the war. Bong, for example, was withdrawn for six months or more on three occasions. Also, the German scores where for the most part, gained on the Russian front. As for the better planes, it depends on the time in the war, and even on the altitude that a engagement was fought. For example, the Battle of Britain was fought at 10,000 ft or lower for the most part, and the Spitfire MkI had an advantage at these heights in both Bank and turn radius, but the BF-109E could outdive the SpitfireMkI (The German fighter had fuel injection, the British fighter did not, and therefore for a few critical seconds the engine had no power), and it (The 109)performed better at higher altitudes then the British fighters. As the war progressed, the tech lead went back and forth. The American Lightning, for example, had severe problems that were not eliminated until the P-38J variant, not introduced until 1944. The three main problems were that the Turbo-supercharges leaked at altitude, and didn't work right, unheated cockpit leading to frostbite(This is not an exaggeration), and compressibility problems in diving, which were the most serious of the three. A P-38 in a dive could(and often did), have it's tail rip off the airframe, dooming the pilot, who couldn't escape do to G-force pressure. These problems were corrected by the P-38J, but as that point in the war, it was withdrawn from Europe in favor of the P-47 and P-51. In the air war, the FW-190A-8 was inferior in performance to both the P-47C and the P-51B, but did carry more weapons. German training also sharply declined as the war went on, leaving a handful of "Experten", anda large flock of pilots who had no chance in the air. The ME262 came to late (Feb 45) to change anything. The date is when the first operational unit was formed. Most Russian aircraft were inferior above 5,000 ft, but the Russians did most of their airfighting was below this level. Interesting that you mentioned Kozahebub, Kob, he flew Lavochkins exclusively! <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0> Now on to armor. We needed concern ourselves with US or British armor Vs German, because allied armor was clearly inferior to German designs, so only a comparison of soviet vs german are necessary. In 1941, during the invasion of Russia, the German MBT was the Pzkw IIIE with a short 50mm main battery. The Soviet main MBT was the T-3476B. The German vehicle's only advantages where radios(which most soviet tanks lacked for most of the war), and better training. The late war Panther design suffered from excessive mechanical problems. When it worked, it was quite dangerous, but it was overly complex, and could not be produced in numbers to match the nearly equal T-34/85. The Tiger series had good guns and heavy armor, but it was poorly sloped as compared to Soviet armor. Yet through superior tactics and ability, the Germans where able to inflict enormous losses on the Soviets. The late war JS-2 could destroy a Panther from a distance that the German vehicle could not match. The Super-heavy Royal Tiger(AKA Tiger II) was slow and constantly broke down, do to transmition problems. But when it worked, it was invincible. Your approach has some merit, but it has flaws also. Better use of available resources might have changed the war's outcome. Despite what many people think, Nazi Germany was one of the most inefficient states in history. The Germans wasted time and effort on wasteful projects, and often duplicated research in senseless compition with it's self.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the Phrase: I don't know



[This message has been edited by Alcibiaties of Athenae (edited March 06, 2001).]
 
I just wanted to simply point out the Germans fought the war the longest, even beating Britain in length if you can't the first couple days of the Polish campaign.
Also remember in 1941 the Germans were able to destroy huge but inferior Soviet forces, so this can inflate their count.
 
My two cents:

-If Hitler had not decided to run the stategic part of the war after 1941 like he did, the war would have gone on for many more years.

-The war was going to end in a allied victory either way you look at it.

-Hitler made many important blunders during the war.
1) Didn't have the army eliminate BEF (britsh expiditionay force) at dunkirk; instead gave the task to the over-confident Goring.

2) Hitler should have focused his bombing of britain on the ariplane factories and airfields; instead he jumped around on targets giving british chances to rebuild there facilities.

3) Hitler should have never attack russia; or at least till he had better equipment.

4) Underestimated Russia campaign length. Didn't provide winter clothing for his troops.(happend with bonapart too...so sad)

5) Should have made certain that Africa was conquered; Suez should have been top priority.

6) The Battle of Kursk was delayed much too long; gave russians time to rally reinforcements and dig-in. (If Hitler had left it up to his generals, like i said, that would have never happened.)

7) Battle of the bulge was a valiant attempt, but thorughly stupid in all regards; what did he think was going to happen when the skies cleared up? (He got caught with his pants down) 200 king tiger tanks wasted (what a shame)

That pretty much somes it up.

Keep up the good work with that scenario!

------------------
"Nothing in the world can endure forever"
-Roman Citizen
 
One reply at a time:

first willemvanoranje who wrote:

*****
I must say that the German had a few very bad tanks, too. The Panzerkampfwagen II, III, and IV were already outdated in the Russian campaign. They were wiped out by the T-34's.
*****

Stats show that the kill ratios were ranging from 1:5 to 1:8 up till the end of 42. Then they dropped to about 1:1.3 when the T-34s started appearing. To the Russian's credit, the idea of sloped armor was first introduced by them. As an interim measure, in the second quarter of 43 the following were intoduced by the Werhmacht:

the Tigers with 88mm L/56
and Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf G with the L/48 75mm gun(This gun was superior to the T35/76 gun)
Huge numbers of Sturmgeschutz IV tank destroyers with the same L/48 75mm gun

And I quote from "Achtung Panzer":

*****
Another Sturmgeschutz ace Hauptmann Peter Franz also the Knights Cross holder and the commander of Stug.Abt. "Grossdeutschland" destroyed some 43 Soviet T-34/76 tanks during the Battle for Borissovka on March 14th of 1943.
*****

These measures stabilised the front and the kill ratios returned to aout 1:5. At no point in time during the entire war did the kill ratio ever drop below 1.

In late 43 the ratios dropped again as the Russians introduced the T35-85 and SU series tank killers but the situation was again stabilised when the Panthers and jagdpanthers began appearing in greater numbers.

I will plan the scenario along these lines but if the german player researches ahead and waits for the Panthers before Babarossa, well who knows?

 
Now on to Alcibiaties of Athenae, why did you have to write so much.

First the planes:
I agree that the germans essentially did not have a lead in fighter design vs the British and Americans and they lagged behind sorely in bombers. Interesting that you mentioned the problems about the flying coffin (as you nneded to invert the plane before ejecting) before they were solved. I cannot agree about the russian planes as most of the german aces made their kills on the eastern front. The Russians simply made 10x more planes.

I've touched upon this in the post just before this. To add to that,

*****
When it worked (the Panther),it was quite dangerous, but it was overly complex, and could not be produced in numbers to match the nearly equal T-34/85.
Yet through superior tactics and ability, the Germans where able to inflict enormous losses on the Soviets.
*****
The Germans made only about 8500 Pz IV all variants, 6000 Panthers and 1400 Tigers. Amen, quality vs quantity. Don't know how many tanks the Russians made but the Americans built 50,000 Shermans just to give you an idea.

*****
The Germans wasted time and effort on wasteful projects, and often duplicated research in senseless compition with it's self.
*****

more on this in the next post.



[This message has been edited by kobayashi (edited March 06, 2001).]
 
Next Dreadnought,

We all agree that the Germans would have lost no matter what because of Hitler (you didn't mention that he delayed the Me262 project by two years beacuse he insisted it be made into a dive bomber) and because the german A-bomb effort focused on heavy water. I guess this thread is more about the validity of the quality verses quantity scheme.

These two elements will be 'excised' from my scenario. Hitler will die of a heart attack at the start and Rudolf Hess will not defect to Britain in his ME 110 but take over the war effort. Second, the German's will focus on Uranium for the A-bomb. That will balance the game for the Axis.
 
Sorry Kob, but you know that when I'm at work, I have lots of free time. Some production numbers:
  • T-34/76 10,000
  • T-34/85 19,000
  • JS-2 2,500
  • SU-76 3,000
  • SU-85 7,000
  • SU-100 1,200
  • JSU-122 300
  • SU-152 2,200
I know lots about aircraft, and the P-38 is among my favorites (I also was an avid model builder ). I like your whole concept so far. BTW, your aircraft Icons are fantastic! How about sending me some enlarged shots? It's hard for me to see those little guys (bad eyes ).

------------------
<FONT COLOR="blue">All knowledge begins with the Phrase: I don't know</FONT c>
 
Ortginally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae.

T-34/76 10,000
T-34/85 19,000
JS-2 2,500
SU-76 3,000
SU-85 7,000
SU-100 1,200
JSU-122 300
SU-152 2,200

Sorry but those numbers look very low. I have no basis for these aurguments but I swear that the T-34 series would hae to make at least 50,000+ tanks.

Are you sure these are right???

------------------
"Nothing in the world can endure forever"
-Roman Citizen
 
Originally posted by Dreadnought:
Sorry but those numbers look very low. I have no basis for these arguments but I swear that the T-34 series would hae to make at least 50,000+ tanks.
Are you sure these are right???
Those numbers are from an armor survey done in 1970. I just rechecked it from two different sources, and both confirm a number of WWII production of about 29,000 T-34s. This does not include assault gun variants, which I listed separately. Maybe the source your using includes post war vehicles? I could be wrong here, but I did check three different sources. Maybe your source is listing all soviet armor, not just T-34s? I will try to dig a little more into this.


------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blast.gif" border=0><FONT COLOR="blue">All knowledge begins with the Phrase: I don't know</FONT c><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>
 
I think the world would be one big Fascist controlled empire if Hitler wouldn't have sent his troops to Russia before he completed his campaign against England, and his campaign in Africa.
And in the Russian cmapaign (Operation Barbarossa), he ordered his troops to go for Leningrad and the Kaukasus. That was wrong, he should've ordered them to conquer Moscow first.
If Hitler would've convinced
Japan to attack Russia in the east, Russia would have been doomed.

------------------
Concordia res parvae cres****.
 
From the WWII fact file:

The Russians really started off as part of the facist pact which is often something forgotten. Not only that they attack Poland together with Germany, they also annexed several nations like Finland and Latvia, Estonia..... In fact the Allies doomed the world to half a decade of confrontation by getting into bed with the Russians. If they had fought a three cornered war instead, with Germany squeezed in the middle, Germany would still have lost and the Russians would have been bombed to horsehocky eventually. (pure speculation, feel free to dispute this conclusion). That's why in my scenario, the Allies are not refrained from going to war against the Russians.
 
In the end of WWII, the Fins just kicked the Germans out of their country. Other Axis-friends in the east, became friends of the SU.

------------------
Concordia res parvae cres****.
 
Alcibiaties of Athenae;

I just did some research, i checked a JANES refernce, they report that there were 40,000+ T-34's of all models(all hastily built) they went on to add. This is where i remeber seeing it, maybe the "of all models" is what is causing the conflict in numbers. Janes is a fairly reliable sorce though...I check some more resources too.
 
Hi kobayashi, just some thoughts to your general idea "quality (Germans) verses quantity (Allies)".

There were similar discussions earlier at Apolyton, and I´m always surprised about that many people think the Wehrmacht was far superior in every field, nearly unbeatable and had only lost due to Hitler´s mistakes or the lack of fuel and ammo.

I don´t think that this is true (no offense of course, just my opinion ). The examples you have given are of course very impressive, but I think they can´t go for the entire German army, especially not later in the war.

 
Strange that you should think so, being from Germany an all. Anyway, some other stats about casualties that I found:

Germans lost about 3.5 million men, 90% on the Eastern Front. The Soviets lost 13.5 million men on the eastern front.

As to the quality and quantity arguement, there are many dimensions to this.

The Germans had quality in training and tactics at the beginning and quality overall in the middle. Towards the end, production problems and new untrained soldiers (due to the fact that a lot of them died) reduced overall proficiency.

The British had quality in some areas, like in the air but always lacked quantity. The Americans had the same quality profile but enormous production capacity. They also gave/lent billions to the British and Russians. In terms of the quality of fighter aircraft, I would say the Axis and Allies were roughly neck to neck. The Allies main quality advantage was in bombers and their main quantity advantage was in capital ships and carriers.

The Russians depended on quantity for most and for a brief period the T-34 did give them a slight lead but that was all. Even exchanging tanks at 5:1 they could still field more and more units. They were the main attrition factor that doomed Germany. Even through the heaviest period of Allied bombing, German production was still increasing.
 
Top Bottom