Support NeoGAF

[Business]

So more submarines that would have been sunk like the rest.

Small arms don't win wars.

Pictured Allied jet fighters that don't kill most of their pilots which is a lot more then the Nazis could say.
Meteor

P80

The Me262 was no death trap for its pilots, where did you get that from?
It was an aircraft ahead of its time and able to hit and run USAF bomber formations while being basically unthreatened by escorting fighters. It was vulnerable to attack while slowing down for landing and being at the end of the war German airfields were not well protected. Maybe the accounts of Me262s shot down in flames while landing is were you get confused?

The Meteor just doesn't compare to the 262. As for the P80 how many kills did it score in WWII? 0. The irony of your post though is a test pilot did get killed due to an engine fire. From Wikipedia:

The Shooting Star began to enter service in late 1944 with 12 pre-production YP-80As, one of which was destroyed in the accident in which Burcham was killed. A 13th YP-80A was modified to the sole F-14 photo reconnaissance model and lost in a December crash.

Four were sent to Europe for operational testing (demonstration, familiarization, and possible interception roles), two to England and two to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina Airfield, Italy, but when test pilot Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash caused by an engine fire on 28 January 1945,[7] demonstrating YP-80A 44-83026 at RAF Burtonwood, the YP-80A was temporarily grounded.[8]

Before World War II ended, however, two American pre-production Lockheed YP-80A Shooting Star fighter jets did see limited service in Italy with the USAAF on reconnaissance, in February and March of 1945.[9] Because of delays in delivery of production aircraft, the Shooting Star saw no actual combat during the conflict.[10]

 

[MisterFalcon]

The Panther was supposedly meant to be a much lighter and faster tank, they named it Panther to convey that to the higher ups. Hitler still told them to stick more armor onto it and so they made the heavily armored machine it ended up being.

It was not just Hitler who got the Panther to what it was but rivalries and infighting on all levels of the German military industrial complex. Once the Germans realized their tanks were kind of shit when going up against the KV-1 and T-34 they ordered a design for a medium and heavy tank which would become the Panther and Tiger. Two firms presented their design, DB and MAN. MAN had no experience making large tanks but they had a lot of political clout.

The senior man in charge of the choice of the tank, Heinrich Kniepkamp was a former MAN employee who had a grudge against DB. The smaller, lighter design DB presented looked a lot like a T-34 and was actually chosen by Hitler to go into production. Kniepkamp was furious and started to work behind the scenes to get the MAN design approved instead. He leaked designs to MAN and started to spread the word that the DB tank did not look German enough. And in the middle of this all, the plane carrying Fritz Todt, the Minister of Arms production explodes mid air.What a coincidence ! Albert Speer takes over and with that come a bunch of new high ups who want to make an impact with bold decisions.

It's decided the new tank will have to go into production much quicker then originally planned and DB is not able to make that. Unsuprisingly, MAN say they are able to make the deadline. Here comes the order from Hitler for more armor and with the artificial deadling MAN gets into real problems like their gears and drive train not being changed to account for the far larger weight of the tank. When the first 13 Panthers were demonstrated 6 broke down, one catching fire.

Similar behind the scene shenanigans are always in the background of the German high tech designs. The V2 is by all standards a poor alternative for bombers that can fly back and bomb again. But German bomber designs were ruined the entire war by the JuMo 222 engine not being ready, The 222 was to be the greatest engine ever and new designs for heavy bombers were designed to use them. So all these planes are designed, prototypes built and then there are no engines for them. Poor performance of propellor engines also drove the Luftwaffe to jet engines. Due to a lack of rare metals they could not match the US and British fighters with 2000+ HP engines so they went for jets which had all sorts of problems.

Many of the advanced designs the Germans fielded were simply the only thing they could do. They did not go 'we will now make jets because they are better' but 'we can't make better propellor planes so we have to try this instead'.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

This is not a thread discussing the massive crime on humanity Germany is responsible for.

It's more so about the technological and military accomplishments of Germany during this time. Somehow, Germany alone was able to conquer majority of Europe. The country was able to hold it's own against U.K., France, USSR, AND the United States for sometime.

How?! The fact that the Germans were enraged, disgruntled, and unified surely played a part. But the Germans legitimately had some excellent scientists. They created some of the most powerful and durable tanks at the time along with other weapons. They even managed to create synthetic oil to power its war machine, since the country has no oil reserves.

Thankfully the good guys one in the end, but still its difficult to believe that a lone country was able to hold its own against 4 major world powers at the time.

Germany's military success was leveraged off the combination of lack of preparedness by her enemies, good military doctrine, pillaging/slave labor, taking on enemies one at a time, and luck. Technological superiority had little or nothing to do with it.

Germany only enjoyed technological superiority in a few areas, and ones that didn't make a difference in the war. They were behind in other areas. Synthetic oil was only big in Germany by necessity. The process was invented in about 1916-1919, and the Nazis developed it because their access to actual oil was highly limited. Synthetic rubber, being in demand by both Allies and Axis, was developed by both - more successfully in America, where synthetic rubber production became quite enormous by the end of the war.

Germany did not have superiority in tanks. In 1939-1940, the French had the "biggest and most armoured" vehicles, the Char B series. If you read battle logs from the Battle of France you'll find reports of lone Char B1 vehicles holding off columns of German tanks, who are unable to penetrate the B1 even after dozens of close range hits. The British tanks were more or less on par with the German state of the art, and so were some of the French mediums. In 1941, the Soviets had superior armoured technology to the Germans. The German armour of 1943 onwards was indeed thicker than western-allies armoured vehicles which is where this perception appears, but stuff like the Sherman was a far more useful tank to the Allies than the Panther or Tiger was to the Germans, because they were cheap and effective enough to be produced in overwhelming numbers. Most battles were not 1 tank vs 1 tank - they were 5 tanks vs 0 tanks, because the Germans could not cover most of their front and were drastically outnumbered.

Germany had the lead in rocketry, submarine technology, synthetic oil and that's about it. They did not have the lead in armoured technology except at a few small points, they did not have the lead in radar, computers/cryptopgraphy, small arms, artillery, aircraft (particularly heavy aircraft - and no I don't give a fuck if they put up a mediocre jet interceptor a few months before the British got one online), any other naval technology at all, or nuclear technology. The famous Panzerschreck was actually reverse engineered from the American Bazooka!

Germany did not hold it's own against 4 major world powers alone, or even at all. Germany took over Austria and Czechoslovakia without a fight. Then they took on Poland while France and Britain built up forces. Then Germany took on France and got extremely lucky when they actually succeeded despite material and numerical inferiority and only technological parity. Then Italy joined them as allies and waged an unsuccessful war in North Africa. Germany had the following allies:

• Italy
• Hungary
• Japan
• Finland
• Romania
• Bulgaria

Germany had access to the resources and slave labour from the following countries:

• Chechoslovakia
• France
• Belgium
• Netherlands
• Norway
• Poland
• The western half of the USSR

Germany, despite outnumbering the Soviet union with its allies and fighting on more or less a single front (North Africa with 2 divisions barely counts), did not manage to defeat them, and the USSR held the Germans back and regained ground with only extremely minimal external assistance prior to 1943. After this point, the Germans only lasted 2 years despite their enemies having to reconquer thousands of square miles of land and amphibiously land in the West.

 

[Markoman]

Nah, Germany was one of the biggest countries in Europe population-wise at that time, then they annexed Austria, parts of Czechoslovakia. Italy was an Ally + Japan. Smaller countries like Croatia, Romania participated in Operation Barbarossa. They got support and even soldiers from Russia and other parts of Europe. They were not fighting alone.

Their technology got countered left and right. Of course German scientists developed the blueprints for a lot of military tech after WWII (AK 47 is based on Sturmgewehr 44 if I recall correctly), but in the end I still believe that even if they somehow won the war, Nazi Germany would've fallen apart after Hitler's death. The whole system was a one-man-show and would've lead to big tensions over the succession.

 

[HiiiLife]

Jet packs.

 

[reckless]

The Me262 was no death trap for its pilots, where did you get that from?
It was an aircraft ahead of its time and able to hit and run USAF bomber formations while being basically unthreatened by escorting fighters. It was vulnerable to attack while slowing down for landing and being at the end of the war German airfields were not well protected. Maybe the accounts of Me262s shot down in flames while landing is were you get confused?

The Meteor just doesn't compare to the 262. As for the P80 how many kills did it score in WWII? 0. The irony of your post though is a test pilot did get killed due to an engine fire. From Wikipedia:

Yeah that was the Me-163 Komet that was a death trap. The 262 just liked having its engines fail after ~20ish hours which is terrible.

And the paper stats don't really matter when they can't actually be fielded effectively or in large enough number to actually make a difference.

All of the late war German stuff starts to blend together since they all pretty much have at least 1 major reliability flaw.

That's what test pilots do, the US/UK didn't really rush experimental weapons into productions because "This one will surely turn the tide!".

 

[Captain Tuttle]

Anyway, here's my submission for "cool Nazi tech"

An infra red scope aka, the "Vampyr"

The US had one too, developed in '43

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvfABFaiBVo

That's a great YouTube channel btw, he finds very neat stuff and goes into detail

 

[ClosingADoor]

They undoubtably had the best and strongest military at the time. And if it wasn't for the incompetence of Hitler they would have won the war

Not really. They would only have "won" had they not used their military, by not attacking the USSR and going for a peace treaty with England as soon as possible. Their military could never have matched the USSR or US, even if only because the lack of resources to produce their stuff.

They got lucky at the start, then held out for a bit. But no matter how you look at it, Nazi Germany was going to lose in the end.

 

[Takyon]

Don't fall too far down the rabbit hole lol

 

[Dmax3901]

Not really. Nazi Germany had little colonies, and thus also not many resources, their economy was fucked for a long time after World War 1, which actually lead to the rise of the nazi's.

They mostly had a good start in World War 2 because their biggest enemy (USSR) made a deal to split Poland, letting them have free reign in the east. Then France fell quickly due to some superior tactics from the Germans. After that, what else did they really do except hold out for a bit against the UK and then getting fucked once the US and USSR joined in.

I mean they invaded three times the size of Germany into Russia in the first month of Barbarossa.

 

[v1oz]

Germany's atomic research project was way behind the United States Manhattan Project. However, their rocket research was years ahead of everyone else.

Well wasn't the Manhattan Project manned by German scientists who didn't want the Nazis to get hold of an atomic bomb.

 

[Jacob]

Germany was not fighting by itself OP

But yeah they pulled a well oiled war economy right out of their ass

Helped along by the fact that they abducted as many slaves in four years as Atlantic slave traders did in 400.

 

[desertdroog]

Three relevent documentaries on Netflix streaming are:

Nazi Mega Weapons
Space Race
Cosmodrome

The first does a pretty good job talking about the successes and failures of German WWII weapons with the final season focusing on Imperial Japan. They have a whole episode on the V2 and Wherner von Braun.

Space Race talks about how both the US and Soviets got their hands on German scientists to make space travel a reality. It focuses on Braun and his rival Sergei Korolev.

Cosmodrome is a good end cap to the above regarding what the Soviets captured mindshare and development from the NAZI's and their evolution of the tech.

 

[Dmax3901]

Probably the best infantry force in military history. Blitzkreig was a total gamechanger

Rome?

Same with German military successes - they're often times attributed to some general "German superiority/awesomeness" when the reality was much more complicated (or completely different). The aforementioned misuse of tanks, political infighting (especially between Reynaud and Gamelin), major strategic blunders (and lack of strategic vision) by French high command, loss of Belgium's formal alliance, etc. all played major roles in the defeat of France, for example, but are not talked about all that much. That and France, in general, simply wasn't as powerful as people thought at the time (for those and other reasons).

Also don't forget they had to fight against Hitler's consistently terrible military strategies.

 

[Hjod]

Sorry, but what the hell is an wehraboo?

Informative thread, I love it. I'm wearing a Hugo Boss shirt while vacationing in Italy. History is fucked.

And as a Swede I have to say that we pussied out during WW2, not that we could do that much against Germany, but we could have tried.

 

[v1oz]

Not really. Nazi Germany had little colonies, and thus also not many resources, their economy was fucked for a long time after World War 1, which actually lead to the rise of the nazi's.

They mostly had a good start in World War 2 because their biggest enemy (USSR) made a deal to split Poland, letting them have free reign in the east. Then France fell quickly due to some superior tactics from the Germans. After that, what else did they really do except hold out for a bit against the UK and then getting fucked once the US and USSR joined in.

They could have chosen to fight the super powers one at a time. Instead of all at the same time.

 

[SerAardvark]

Sorry, but what the hell is an wehraboo?

Basically a play off weeaboo (a foreigner obsessed with Japanese culture). Wehraboos are people that are overly obsessed with/fans of the German military in WW2 (There's other versions, like Leeaboos for Confederacy apologists).

They almost always resort to illogical, dishonest and/or incorrect arguments about how Germany tanks/planes/generals/whatever were vastly superior and totally awesome and talk about how Germany was only defeated because the Soviets and Americans were able to swarm them with human wave tactics (Soviets more so in that case) and greater numbers of tanks, even though said soldiers and tanks were, of course, inferior to German ones. German generals were all geniuses who had victory stolen from them by Hitler, the particularly harsh winter in Russia in 1941 was unfair, the Italians were at fault for forcing a German intervention in the Balkans, etc.

And, of course, they're also a big source for the Clean Wehrmacht myth.

Edit: The Clean Wehrmacht myth being the (false) idea that all the bad stuff done by German military units in World War 2 was done by SS or other Nazi-specific units/people while the "real Germans" were in regularly military units that were not complicit in those crimes.

 

[Jacob]

Sorry, but what the hell is an wehraboo?

Like a weeaboo, but for the Wehrmacht (German military in WWII).

Weeaboo is a term for a certain kind of anime fan who fetishizes and is obsessed with Japan (or the version of it in their minds). Often correlates with denialism of Japanese war crimes in WWII, which is another parallel with wehraboos.

Edit: beaten like the Wehrmacht.

 

[Bubba_Sparks]

I feel like they are highly overrated. The United States and Soviet Union were the true powers of the time. Most people just hadn't realized it yet. So while they were able to beat up on other powers in Europe, once they ran into the Soviet Union they weren't able to easily defeat them. Same goes for Great Britain. I feel like they got a string of luck that eventually ran out.

 

[Hjod]

Basically a play off weaboo (a foreigner obsessed with Japanese culture). Wehraboos are people that are overly obsessed with/fans of the German military in WW2

Like a weeaboo, but for the Wehrmacht (German military in WWII).

Weeaboo is a term for a certain kind of anime fan who fetishizes and is obsessed with Japan (or the version of it in their minds). Often correlates with denialism of Japanese war crimes in WWII, which is another parallel with wehraboos.

Edit: beaten like Germany and Japan.

That was my guess, but thanks for the clarification.

 

[diehard]

I feel like the Norden bombsight really needs a mention here when discussing important technological advances.

 

[Moose Biscuits]

I like StuGs. And Wespes. And other assorted SPGs. Not exclusive to Germany of course, but I liked their general 'style' (hull layout).

Also, I like the Quacker. Tank gun on a plane, because why not.

 

[4Tran]

I like StuGs. And Wespes. And other assorted SPGs.

You are obviously a person of good taste! Honestly, these were more useful to Germany than all of their wunderwaffe.

 

[JettDash]

Speaking of, how does the US think about Wernher von Braun nowadays? Do they consider that Nazi Bastard as a national hero because after he shot rockets for the Nazis in other countries, he shot people to the moon? I once read a book about him, written a couple of years after the moon landing and I was disgusted how they hushed over that topic.

Americans don't think about him at all for the most part.

Certainly he is not a national hero. At best he is just a Nazi that the US used because he was useful.

 

[Keasar]

but how much damage can it do?

Mentioned it earlier.

The thought is sound, railways does let you bring along much larger artillery that would otherwise be confined to seaborne vessels like Battleships. Smaller ones worked on regular railway tracks. The Schwerer however had a problem with that it required a custom built track, so they had to build it to where the gun was going to be used to move it.

It had to be protected by two AA flak battalions because if the enemy realized where it was, they could easily send airplanes to shoot at it (not a hard target to hit).

As for its effectiveness, the gun was barely used except against forts and...well...
"Hans."
"Yes?"
"See that fort?"
"Yes."
"I don't want it to be there."
"Understood."
The actual shells were devastating as hell. They could penetrate meters of bedrock and shatter the walls and bunkers of forts. A crater of one shell could be as deep as 12 meters. However, the problem was that it took roughly 45 minutes to reload the cannon and you could only fire 12 a day or risk overheating and destroy the barrel. It was stupidly powerful was also stupidly inconvenient, the manpower required was simply too high (250 to man the gun, 2500 to lay the tracks and 2 Flak battalions to protect it).

It had quite decent (but slow, veeeeeeeeery slow) firepower. It, as mentioned, in the end had negative war effort value.

Like a great man said "It's less than worthless!"

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I mean they invaded three times the size of Germany into Russia in the first month of Barbarossa.

Yes, but this wasn't nearly enough to knock the USSR out of the fight, so what difference does it make? In order to win they would have needed to succeed to a much higher degree.

Their success in the opening phase of Barbarossa is most directly down to Stalin refusing to believe his numerous independent intelligence sources telling him an attack was coming, and therefore not allowing his forces to properly mobilize and prepare for the attack that a) his spies told him was happening, b) his frontline observers told him was being imminently prepared for, c) the British and Americans both told him was happening. He allowed his airforce to be crippled on the ground and numerous frontline formations to be overrun or encircled by his stupidity.

As with the Battle of France, success in Barbarossa relied on the enemy letting Germany succeed by cooperating with their plans. The Soviets needed to have their forces too far forward and needed to not see it coming. The French and British needed to move their forces north into Belgium and the Netherlands in order for the sickle cut to work. But after the initial shock, the Soviets had enough land and spare forces to halt the German advance - the French did not. Pointing to Barbarossa as some kind of success story is the WWII equivalent of saying you should have won the game because you had the best KDR.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Didn't German tanks become increasingly complicated, harder to produce and repair over the course of WW2? They had no answers to the Russian T-34 and the American tanks while inferior, we're mass produced in quantities the Germans could never keep up with.

 

[zer0das]

Then Germany took on France and got extremely lucky when they actually succeeded despite material and numerical inferiority and only technological parity. Then Italy joined them as allies and waged an unsuccessful war in North Africa.

The two sides were roughly at numerical parity during the battle of France, and the Germans had the numbers once the Italians entered the war (but only very slightly). Also, I wouldn't claim they had material inferiority (at least not broadly- also keep in mind, a lot of Allied equipment was obsolete), because they had a hell of a lot more aircraft. The French repeatedly begged the British to send more squadrons, but the British had a limit on how many they were willing to send because they were worried about being absolutely defenseless if France fell and they lost too many planes. Ultimately I think they were correct, because I doubt ~240 extra planes would have turned the battle of France.

Also to all the people parroting "Germany would have won if..." should probably sit down and listen to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I98P1AxQRUM After reading many books, it became clear to me the German High Command was a mess, and the only reason people think they were as good as they proclaimed is they blamed Hitler for literally every one of their shortcomings. Churchill's memoirs make it clear what a joke it was trying to get the German army, navy, and airforce to cooperate- they basically had no real plan to invade the British Isles and the branches would completely ignore the other branches when planning. If the German High Command was as good as they proclaimed they were (after they lost), they would have won the war even with all the disadvantages Germany had.

 

[reckless]

Didn't German tanks become increasingly complicated, harder to produce and repair over the course of WW2? They had no answers to the Russian T-34 and the American tanks while inferior, we're mass produced in quantities the Germans could never keep up with.

The Germans had the Panzer 4 which would be comparable to the T-34 and Sherman. T-34/Sherman are both better. It also cost significantly more. A Panzer 4 cost almost as much as a Panther, so a lot less were made then the T-34 or Sherman.

 

[JettDash]

Nazis actually played themselves by being fanatical anti-semites.

Not only did they drive away some of the most talented scientists in the world, it also caused some of them, including two Nobel prize winners, to doubt "Jewish physics," specifically Einsten, and try to replace it with "Aryan physics". Because obviously, Einstein became so prominent and respected as a result of a Jewish conspiracy rather than him being right.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The two sides were roughly at numerical parity during the battle of France, and the Germans had the numbers once the Italians entered the war (but only very slightly). Also, I wouldn't claim they had material inferiority (at least not broadly- also keep in mind, a lot of Allied equipment was obsolete), because they had a hell of a lot more aircraft. The French repeatedly begged the British to send more squadrons, but the British had a limit on how many they were willing to send because they were worried about being absolutely defenseless if France fell and they lost too many planes. Ultimately I think they were correct, because I doubt ~240 extra planes would have turned the battle of France.

Germans had the advantage in airforce size, while the Allies enjoyed a nearly 2:1 advantage in the amount of artillery they had and a 1.5:1 advantage in tanks. The Germans had a larger number of good modern mediums, but completely lacked the powerful pseudo-heavies that the French had access to and also fielded a large number of obsolete Panzer I and Panzer IIs. Since most battles were not tank duels, the use of obsolete vehicles on both sides wasn't such a big deal given that they were still effective at attacking enemy infantry formations.

The Italian forces did not lift a finger until the French were already clearly defeated, so I don't bother including anything of theirs in the figures.

In a head on fight, the Allies, despite losing in the air, would have been victorious. In examining the historical record, it becomes very clear that rapid, decisive victory over France was the only viable way to win in the long term. Every day the equation stacked further against them and their alarmingly limited supplies of munitions would dwindle rapidly. Tooze in Wages of Destruction emphasizes this quite a lot.

 

[zer0das]

In a head on fight, the Allies, despite losing in the air, would have been victorious. In examining the historical record, it becomes very clear that rapid, decisive victory over France was the only viable way to win in the long term. Every day the equation stacked further against them and their alarmingly limited supplies of munitions would dwindle rapidly. Tooze in Wages of Destruction emphasizes this quite a lot.

But it wasn't a head on fight, because the French left a massive gaping hole near the Ardennes Forest. I've read Wages of Destruction, but that was like a decade ago so I scarcely remember what they claimed about munitions. Regardless, the French were so doctrinally inflexible (and half of them defeatist), I would hardly call the German victory a fluke, especially in light of how poorly the French were prepared to deal with a modern airforce. The French begged the British to not bomb German factories because they were worried the Germans would bomb French factories in return, and they did not have the antiaircraft guns or aircraft to stop that.

Also, Churchill paints a very different picture of the war. The French were falling behind in divisions every day because they didn't have the manpower to match the Germans 1:1. Before Germany annexed Austria or Czechlosovkia, the French had the numbers. They still had them after the invasion of Poland. They stood idle, and then they had to face a foe that had numerical parity with them. If the Germans invaded later, it arguably would have been worse (although increased arms production, particularly aircraft, might have swayed the numerical inferiority the Allies likely would have faced).

 

[Nikodemos]

Worth noting that all the German generals who wrote memoirs (instead of swinging from a noose) were a bunch of self-serving motherfuckers.

They blamed Hitler for every failure, when in fact it was him who actually helped the army gain ground early on. The man was a total idiot when it came to grand strategy, but he was a considerably better tactician than many of the OKW's 'greats'. The one time his orders were disobeyed during the Battle of France, it would end up biting the German army hard in the arse later on: his order for the army to keep charging headlong into Dunkerque was ignored, and the BEF escaped.
Of course, his strategic dumbarseness would eventually catch up with him in Russia, with entirely predictable results. His LEEROY JENKINS approach to military maneuvres was painfully useless when the enemy had sufficient strategic depth to withdraw into.

Regarding the French, it's worth remembering that the old guard were a bunch of fascist treasonous defeatist shitstains. The younger cadres (who were in their mid-late 40s during the 1930s) like Juin, Lattre de Tassigny, De Gaulle didn't have enough clout in the byzantine structure of the French Army to effect a sufficient amount of changes.

 

[Moose Biscuits]

My favourite of the wunderwaffen (one might day wackywaffen) is the VTOL coleopter fighter aircraft known only as the Heinkel Lerche. Designed to take facing vertically then transition to horizontal flight, then go back to vertical for landing.

Modelled here in IL2:1946 (with some wire-guided missiles) the Lerche never saw actual production. In a way, that makes me sad, as it's the closest we've ever come to an actual Luftrauser.

 

[dpunk3]

The Schwerer Gustav 80 cm railway artillery:

Lol this is probably where Konami got the idea from for the Superdreadnought Rail Cannon Gustav Max.

 

[Pesmerga00]

Germans had the advantage in airforce size, while the Allies enjoyed a nearly 2:1 advantage in the amount of artillery they had and a 1.5:1 advantage in tanks. The Germans had a larger number of good modern mediums, but completely lacked the powerful pseudo-heavies that the French had access to and also fielded a large number of obsolete Panzer I and Panzer IIs. Since most battles were not tank duels, the use of obsolete vehicles on both sides wasn't such a big deal given that they were still effective at attacking enemy infantry formations.

The Italian forces did not lift a finger until the French were already clearly defeated, so I don't bother including anything of theirs in the figures.

In a head on fight, the Allies, despite losing in the air, would have been victorious. In examining the historical record, it becomes very clear that rapid, decisive victory over France was the only viable way to win in the long term. Every day the equation stacked further against them and their alarmingly limited supplies of munitions would dwindle rapidly. Tooze in Wages of Destruction emphasizes this quite a lot.

I don't have the knowledge to form an opinion on these matters. I just wanted to express appreciation for your informative WWII posts. They seem to pop up every couple of weeks.

 

[Bastables]

Rome?



Also don't forget they had to fight against Hitler's consistently terrible military strategies.

That's certainly what the German officer class said after their failures in Russia.

Nazi's war-gamed a war with the Soviet's in Operation Otto, during their actual invasion they outperformed the war-game results of disappearing Soviet divisions. They never calculated for the Soviet's ability to rebuild and learn though and kept underestimating them ignoring the beatings that should have forwarned them like Yelnia in 1941. But you know Slavs were subhumans and riddled with the Jewish conspiracy of Communism so victory was assured.

Hint the Nazi's did not get to Moscow because of lack of winter clothing/stupid Hitler decisions. The Germans were defeated by the Soviet army on the approaches to Moscow https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0891417311/

 

[UCBooties]

I've been searching and there aren't any. Nazi medical research was worthless.

No, but we payed the Japanese a boatload for the medical research data resulting from their war crimes.

 

[Dmax3901]

Yes, but this wasn't nearly enough to knock the USSR out of the fight, so what difference does it make? In order to win they would have needed to succeed to a much higher degree.

Their success in the opening phase of Barbarossa is most directly down to Stalin refusing to believe his numerous independent intelligence sources telling him an attack was coming, and therefore not allowing his forces to properly mobilize and prepare for the attack that a) his spies told him was happening, b) his frontline observers told him was being imminently prepared for, c) the British and Americans both told him was happening. He allowed his airforce to be crippled on the ground and numerous frontline formations to be overrun or encircled by his stupidity.

As with the Battle of France, success in Barbarossa relied on the enemy letting Germany succeed by cooperating with their plans. The Soviets needed to have their forces too far forward and needed to not see it coming. The French and British needed to move their forces north into Belgium and the Netherlands in order for the sickle cut to work. But after the initial shock, the Soviets had enough land and spare forces to halt the German advance - the French did not. Pointing to Barbarossa as some kind of success story is the WWII equivalent of saying you should have won the game because you had the best KDR.

Ha, good post (and final line). I was just specifically responding to "what else did they do after taking Poland and France", a large part of that success was definitely due to Russia's unpreparedness, but it was still a huge success (initially) for such a small country.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Also, Churchill paints a very different picture of the war. The French were falling behind in divisions every day because they didn't have the manpower to match the Germans 1:1. Before Germany annexed Austria or Czechlosovkia, the French had the numbers. They still had them after the invasion of Poland. They stood idle, and then they had to face a foe that had numerical parity with them. If the Germans invaded later, it arguably would have been worse (although increased arms production, particularly aircraft, might have swayed the numerical inferiority the Allies likely would have faced).

The French alone could not match Germany, being as they were half as populous as the enlargened German state. But they already had 94 divisions facing Germany's 124 on that front, with the help of 13 British and ~18 Belgian.

Over the period of September 1939 - May 1940 it may have been the case that the Allies struggled to get enough manpower into the field, but the total populations in play make Allied superiority quite inevitable over a longer timeframe. The primary difficulty is getting the vast manpower of the French and British empires into Europe. In terms of direct territory, Britain has 47 million citizens, the French have 42 million, the Commonwealth's Dominions provide another 30 million total citizens, and although only a small fraction of the Indian population at this time is available for the British to draw upon, it still historically provided a large number of recruits for service in North Africa and Europe.

In terms of military production, the Germans outproduced the Allies in 1939 in terms of aircraft, but Britain alone produced 1.5x as many aircraft in 1940 compared to the Germans (this includes captured industry in the back half of 1940!). Adding in French aviation, the long term equation for air superiority is completely in the Allies favour (as it went historically even with the fall of France). Armoured vehicle production was actually in the Allies favour overall in 1939 and 1940. Without the fall of France and the capture of French industry, resources and stockpiles, Germany's production levels as of late 1940-1941 would have been completely impossible and the material shift would have gone even further in favour of the Allies.

The window of opportunity for Germany was 1939-1940. By the end of 1940, the German advantage in aircraft would have been overcome, the Allied advantage in tanks would have been increased, and the overall division count would gradually shift in the Allies favour as Dominion formations began arriving in Europe and, most importantly, the British army itself swelled to many times its peacetime size.

The Germans achieved their decisive breakthrough and completely shifted the balance of power in their favour by encircling the best formations in the BEF and French Army. But the fact that they did win does not imply it was inevitable based on the forces in play. The French and British forces were very much a match for the Germans, and only through taking a major strategic gamble did they achieve victory.

 

[andythinkpad]

It's worth noting that the French actually had the biggest tank of WW2, but it ultimately wasn't very useful. Lots of videos of it crushing walls and houses, but the slow speed (15km/h), needing a crew of 12-13 people, and tall profile took it out of the war fairly quickly. Looks like it would have had enormous blind spots as well.


The Char 2C

French can't make Ultimate Driving Machine.

 

[Ogodei]

The trope for a lot of German WWII tech is "awesome but impractical." A lot of it was designed almost like they wanted to inspire terror in their enemies first, and actually kill their enemies second.

 

[zer0das]

The French alone could not match Germany, being as they were half as populous as the enlargened German state. But they already had 94 divisions facing Germany's 124 on that front, with the help of 13 British and ~18 Belgian.

Over the period of September 1939 - May 1940 it may have been the case that the Allies struggled to get enough manpower into the field, but the total populations in play make Allied superiority quite inevitable over a longer timeframe. The primary difficulty is getting the vast manpower of the French and British empires into Europe. In terms of direct territory, Britain has 47 million citizens, the French have 42 million, the Commonwealth's Dominions provide another 30 million total citizens, and although only a small fraction of the Indian population at this time is available for the British to draw upon, it still historically provided a large number of recruits for service in North Africa and Europe.

In terms of military production, the Germans outproduced the Allies in 1939 in terms of aircraft, but Britain alone produced 1.5x as many aircraft in 1940 compared to the Germans (this includes captured industry in the back half of 1940!). Adding in French aviation, the long term equation for air superiority is completely in the Allies favour (as it went historically even with the fall of France). Armoured vehicle production was actually in the Allies favour overall in 1939 and 1940. Without the fall of France and the capture of French industry, resources and stockpiles, Germany's production levels as of late 1940-1941 would have been completely impossible and the material shift would have gone even further in favour of the Allies.

The window of opportunity for Germany was 1939-1940. By the end of 1940, the German advantage in aircraft would have been overcome, the Allied advantage in tanks would have been increased, and the overall division count would gradually shift in the Allies favour as Dominion formations began arriving in Europe and, most importantly, the British army itself swelled to many times its peacetime size.

The Germans achieved their decisive breakthrough and completely shifted the balance of power in their favour by encircling the best formations in the BEF and French Army. But the fact that they did win does not imply it was inevitable based on the forces in play. The French and British forces were very much a match for the Germans, and only through taking a major strategic gamble did they achieve victory.

I think you're vastly underestimating the problems the Allies faced. Of course if you include the British dominions they dwarf Germany's population. But Germany had around 80 million people once it annexed Austria and the Sudetenland. The Allies would not have had a means to equip or train a large mass of men in a short amount of time even if they could get them to Europe in a timely fashion. Churchill goes into enormous lengths about how they shuffled divisions around, and it wasn't a fast process nor did they have a means of quickly mobilizing large parts of the empire. You seem to think the the Allies were extremely well equipped, but the reality is they had just as many if not more problems with manufacturing munitions. They had large numbers equipment on paper, but they were by no means representative of effective strength. Meanwhile the Germans went from 100,000 officers in 1935 to 144 divsions by the end of 1939. In the short term, Germany would almost certainly be able to mobilize more men and have them fight in a war against France.

It isn't 100% certain the British would have continued producing aircraft at the rate they were. They had serious financial issues due to submarines wrecking their shipping, and if Germany had not invaded France, I suspect the US would not have been as willing to finance their war effort on credit (at least not on the scale or timescale they actually did).

The Belgians essentially refused to cooperate with the British and French in forming a united front, which was part of the reason Dunkirk happened- the Belgian king surrendered quite quickly (and predictably). Leading to the British line "I don't give a bugger about the Belgians" (quite the contrast to World War I).

I never claimed it was inevitable, but I would say 9 out of 10 times, the Germans smash the French given the same conditions for the Battle of France because the French had major strategic problems with their defensive plan, were extremely inflexible, the Belgians weren't coordinating effectively with the British and French, and the French had no means of effectively dealing with a modern airforce. Even one of these issues is a massive problem. I don't think having more time fixes the majority of these issues. Maybe the extra aircraft would have helped stall things out, but I don't see an immediate French triumph happening. I suppose whatever happened, it would probably have been better than losing 9 out of 10 times.

 

[pigeon]

The trope for a lot of German WWII tech is "awesome but impractical." A lot of it was designed almost like they wanted to inspire terror in their enemies first, and actually kill their enemies second.

A dedication to maximalism over effectiveness would seem pretty much in line with the fascist ideology, after all.

 

[pigeon]

edit: our enemies caused me to double post

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I think you're vastly underestimating the problems the Allies faced. Of course if you include the British dominions they dwarf Germany's population. But Germany had around 80 million people once it annexed Austria and the Sudetenland. The Allies would not have had a means to equip or train a large mass of men in a short amount of time even if they could get them to Europe in a timely fashion. Churchill goes into enormous lengths about how they shuffled divisions around, and it wasn't a fast process nor did they have a means of quickly mobilizing large parts of the empire.

Germany is slightly outnumbered by the French and British direct home territories. Their colonies and dominions are what catapult them beyond the Germans in long term capabilities, both in population and industrial terms. I do note that the central difficulty is getting them to Europe, but it's not long after the fall of France that they begin showing up in force. But that's what I'm saying - Germany must try to win quickly, lest it find itself dramatically outnumbered and outgunned. In 1940 things are pretty even overall, and Germany has the advantage in the air. But in 1941 the situation would not be the same.

You seem to think the the Allies were extremely well equipped, but the reality is they had just as many if not more problems with manufacturing munitions. They had large numbers equipment on paper, but they were by no means representative of effective strength. Meanwhile the Germans went from 100,000 officers in 1935 to 144 divsions by the end of 1939. In the short term, Germany would almost certainly be able to mobilize more men and have them fight in a war against France.

They were well equipped! Everybody would have liked more than they had, but the situation in France and Britain was not like the Soviet or Italian situation where many of their formations were only a fraction of their theoretical paper strength. A raw division count has a slight German advantage, while an accounting of the total number of field guns, tanks and soldiers puts the Allies at an advantage. Obviously the Luftwaffe had a numerical advantage as we have been discussing at several points, but on the ground the Allies were at a modest overall advantage.

It isn't 100% certain the British would have continued producing aircraft at the rate they were. They had serious financial issues due to submarines wrecking their shipping, and if Germany had not invaded France, I suspect the US would not have been as willing to finance their war effort on credit (at least not on the scale or timescale they actually did).

If you've read Tooze then you should also recall the manner in which the German war economy was sustained through the pillaging of their conquered territories - France being particularly ripe pickings because of its highly industrialized and wealthy status. As to the financial issues - I don't see how France not falling in a hypothetical alternate scenario would lead to harder financial times. The French navy and mechant marine would be taking part of the burden, not just the RN, the French economy would be serving the allies, not the axis, and every category of German production would be reduced as a result.

The German economy was in much more dire straights than the Allied economies were, being as they were locked out of world markets by blockade, having no colonies to support them and being 100% reliant on their mortal ideological enemy the Soviet Union for shipments of critical raw materials.

I never claimed it was inevitable, but I would say 9 out of 10 times, the Germans smash the French given the same conditions for the Battle of France because the French had major strategic problems with their defensive plan, were extremely inflexible, the Belgians weren't coordinating effectively with the British and French, and the French had no means of effectively dealing with a modern airforce. Even one of these issues is a massive problem. I don't think having more time fixes the majority of these issues. Maybe the extra aircraft would have helped stall things out, but I don't see an immediate French triumph happening. I suppose whatever happened, it would probably have been better than losing 9 out of 10 times.

I definitely don't agree with that assessment but obviously that's why we're having this discussion in the first place.

 

[Liljagare]

NM!

 

[wandering]

A dedication to maximalism over effectiveness would seem pretty much in line with the fascist ideology, after all.

I was gonna say, prioritizing aesthetics is pretty much the fascist modus operandi.

 

[Rourkey]

Not really. They would only have "won" had they not used their military, by not attacking the USSR and going for a peace treaty with England as soon as possible. Their military could never have matched the USSR or US, even if only because the lack of resources to produce their stuff.

They got lucky at the start, then held out for a bit. But no matter how you look at it, Nazi Germany was going to lose in the end.

They did go for a peace treaty with the UK, Churchill told them to get lost

 

[Strain]

Speaking of, how does the US think about Wernher von Braun nowadays? Do they consider that Nazi Bastard as a national hero because after he shot rockets for the Nazis in other countries, he shot people to the moon? I once read a book about him, written a couple of years after the moon landing and I was disgusted how they hushed over that topic.

My eighth grade teacher was obsessed with him but, that was 10ish years ago.