Losing the war

[Guderon]

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that Germany would have been more successful had they waited a few years to commence hostilities, only pointing out that there were several (probably even a majority) of Hitler's advisors that thought it was madness to start the war in '39 like he did. The variables are nearly endless. Stalin may well have attacked Germany on his own by '44. And assuming Japan started the war against the Western Allies when it did, they would have been in full war production by then too. The war would certainly have played out very differently if Germany had waited a few years, but I'm not even going to try to guess what course it would have taken.

[Guderon]

While I agree with you to a point, I think that some of the constant changes that Germany made in their equipment was a positive thing for them. Some examples - the French Char-B was a better tank than anything the germans had when they invaded France. The Russian T-34 and KV-1 were FAR superior to anything the Germans had when they invaded Russia, and the later JS series of tanks were arguably the best tanks produced in the war. It's difficult to imagine how badly the Germans would have fared if they tried to conduct the entire Russian campaign with Mark IIIs no matter how many they had.

[ChezDaJez]

Don´t think the Americans fought, fight or will ever fight to death! Japanese fought to death and "only" until the 2 big boys were dropped. I don´t know how many defeats they must take but also the "mighty" Americans would agree a peace. I don´t say they would official surrender but they would agree a peace treaty! Vietnam? Somalia? Other places? Retreats?

You can't compare those conflicts with WWII. Different time, different place. As FDR said, we were "suddenly and deliberately" attacked and we united in the common cause to crush the Japanese. There would be no American surrender, no negotiated peace, nothing short of the total defeat of Japan. The closest event to Pearl Harbor is 9/11 and even that isn't all that close.

Prior to WWII, we were an isolationist country. Afterwards, we became a world power. We experienced some growing pains, that is true and we've made mistakes but I would ask you to name a country that hasn't. Governments aren't infallible, ours certainly isn't. But we don't hide our mistakes either and we do learn from them, even if it takes awhile.

Chez

[DuckofTindalos]

Guderon, I don't think the JS tanks were the best tanks produced during the war. They were mechanically unreliable and not very heavily armoured. The late model Panthers and the T-34/85's were the best.

[DuckofTindalos]

And without the A-bombs, the invasion of Japan would have happened; it would have caused huge casualties for all parties, but there is very little doubt that it would have been carried through to the end. To do otherwise would have been to ignore the declared strategy of the Allies: the complete and unconditional surrender of the Axis powers.

[Guderon]

I know this really isn't the place for us to be discussing the relative merits of WWII armor, but the JSII was very well armored and the JSIII was massively armored. Please don't make me dig out my armor books and start quoting armor thicknesses! [:D] Anyway, I made a point of saying 'arguably the best'. Just my opinion...

[DuckofTindalos]

Oh, well...[:D]

[ChezDaJez]

While I agree with you to a point, I think that some of the constant changes that Germany made in their equipment was a positive thing for them. Some examples - the French Char-B was a better tank than anything the germans had when they invaded France. The Russian T-34 and KV-1 were FAR superior to anything the Germans had when they invaded Russia, and the later JS series of tanks were arguably the best tanks produced in the war. It's difficult to imagine how badly the Germans would have fared if they tried to conduct the entire Russian campaign with Mark IIIs no matter how many they had.

Don't mean to speak for Mike but I think what he was getting at is that they kept manufacturing variants of equipment that clearly should have had production stopped in favor of newer, better equipment. The Me-109 is a good example. They continued to produce it long after it had reached its maximum potential instead of concentrating on the production of newer aircraft such as the FW-190 or Me-262. Hitler's constant intervention demanding offensive capability also didn't help matters.

The Japanese did the same thing with the A6M series Zero.

Chez

[RUPD3658]

Don't forget that in 1949 the Reds got the bomb and all wars that the US was involved in had this in mind. The focus had to be on containing a limited war and basically fighting with one hand tied.

If the Soviets and Chinese did not have nuclear arsenals both North Korea and North Vietnam would still be glowing in the dark today.

[EUBanana]

I thought after the casualties at Tarawa there was quite the complaining in the United States over it?

I think by 1945 it was too far gone though, you couldnt stop then. Too many had already died to just call it quits then.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

The Germans were planning for the war to start in 1942. That's why they have so many mediocre AFV and planes in 1939. That's why they had a couple of battleships (and a couple more nearly finished), but hardly any subs or destroyers. They were going to make a second generation of AFV and planes and their subs between 1940 and 1942. It was Hitler who insisted on the invasion of Poland- he was absolutely certain that France and Britain would back down from their previously stated commitment to protect Poland's sovereignty. Especially after the Russo-German Non-Aggression Pact was announced.

The Germans were their own worst enemy, even though they were years ahead of their enemies when the war started (in doctrine and tactics) they allowed their enemies to catch up and over-take them. Industrial chaos prevented the Germans from turning their gains into useable industrial might. Questionable decisions by idiot political leaders and Hitler in particular led the German armed forces to an abyss which the Germans threw themselves into. Having Italy as an ally was another liability.

Hitler's early victories were primarily gained because he didn't play by the international rules at the time. But once his enemies realised this they were better able to meet the Nazis on even terms. Eventually turned back the German armies with their own blitzkriegs and aerial assaults. Of course one of Germany's biggest problems as lack of oil- none of which the Germans were able to capture (but Japan captured hers) and this shortage hindered Nazi war aims.

The list of stupid things the Germans did is very long.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

I think that Japan was ready to surrender before the A-bombs were dropped. But they didn't handle it very well and diplomatic activities were slow and drawn out. Japan was already sending out peace-feelers in June 1945. But unfortuneately for them they used the USSR as their mediator- and the Soviets were delaying proceedings as much as possible so they could launch their own attacks.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez


Don't mean to speak for Mike but I think what he was getting at is that they kept manufacturing variants of equipment that clearly should have had production stopped in favor of newer, better equipment. The Me-109 is a good example. They continued to produce it long after it had reached its maximum potential instead of concentrating on the production of newer aircraft such as the FW-190 or Me-262. Hitler's constant intervention demanding offensive capability also didn't help matters.

The Japanese did the same thing with the A6M series Zero.

Chez

Yeah, but WWII did prove the Soviet adage that "quality has a quantity all its own". After all, the Germans manufactured in excess of 35,000 Me-109s.

[Nikademus]

Whether or not the German military wanted to start the war in 42, 44 or 46, either way they were foolish not to organize for a total warfare type output. With hostilities commenced, they should have immediately implmented increased shifts and output quotas for the factories. One might argue that in 39/40, it was looking to be a short war but after the BoB and with Hitler's plans for Russia gestating, maintaining the "banking hours" style of production was the heart of foolishness (but the rest of the world benefited from this attitude [:D] )

I wouldn't consider German AFV's to be all medicore. While the Pz III and IV series were nothing special in regards to the armor/firepower/mobility question, they were well suited for modern armored warfare in terms of command/control and they had decent range and reliability for the time. Having 5 man crews and an intercom system gave the Panzers a crucial edge over alot of other tanks, including most of the French tanks, some of which had very limited range and/or 1 man turrets. The heavier French tanks also had limited range and IIRC, an entire French armored force was wrecked by "inferior" German Panzers because they were caught during one of their frequent refueling stops!

Edit: another subtle advantage of the two series was their upgradability, particularily in the case of the Mark IV, from start to end of the war it remained a viable and dangerous opponent.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

Sure the MkIII and Mk IV were equal to many AFV they faced, but in 1940 they had a very small proportion of total vehicles used. It was the way in which they were used that won the Germans their early victories: radios, 5 man crew, panzer divisions, air support, knowledgeable leaders in comabt command, adequate supply support. the British were years behind in AFV control/combined arms when the war started and were still getting their AFV flamed in the desert repeating the same old mistakes.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Yeah, but WWII did prove the Soviet adage that "quality has a quantity all its own". After all, the Germans manufactured in excess of 35,000 Me-109s.

I think you got this backwards. "Quantity has a Quality all it's own" is the way I remember it. And in my original statement, I was referring to sillyness like the head of the Luftwaffe's Fighter Command telling the Minister of Production that "He didn't know what he would do with 300 fighters per month".

The "quantity vs quality" thing is more on the order of the "Panther" vs the T-34. Obviously the German "answer" to the T-34 was a great tank. But it was complicated and hard to produce. So the Germans wound up with 5,000-odd Panthers vs 50,000-odd T-34's. The "quality" of "quantity"

[Nikademus]

Thats part of why the T-34 always gets my vote for best tank of WWII. Even after it's flashy attributes faded (protection and firepower) it remained (with an upgrade to the 85 series) a viable enough tank to be "good enough" and continue getting the job down.

A Panther outclasses a T-34/85 on paper, but if i have 10 of them to face your 1.....i'm betting on me. [:D]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yeah, but WWII did prove the Soviet adage that "quality has a quantity all its own". After all, the Germans manufactured in excess of 35,000 Me-109s.

An oft suprising fact is that the Germans own the record for most produced fighter airframe (Me-109)

It again points to the question of how well the Germans might have done had they gone over to a total war production as even the Japanese managed to do. The Panther was a complicated and big tank, but with the full potential of German industry behind it, they might have built enough of them that it could have better negated the numerical advantage of the less flashy Sherman and T-34's

Makes for an interesting what if.......if nothing else.

[IS2m]

The "quantity vs quality" thing is more on the order of the "Panther" vs the T-34. Obviously the German "answer" to the T-34 was a great tank. But it was complicated and hard to produce. So the Germans wound up with 5,000-odd Panthers vs 50,000-odd T-34's. The "quality" of "quantity"

Comparing Panthers to T-34's is like comparing apples to oranges. The Panther was a heavy tank, while the T-34 was a medium tank. You might as well compare a Stalin II with a Panzer IV. There were a variety of reasons why the Axis lost the war, and AFV quality was only one of them; and probably a minor one at that.

Anyhow, not trying to re-start that old debate, just my $.02 worth.

[Nikademus]

well......if we want to get nitpicky, the Germans considered the Panther to be a "heavy-medium tank" [:D]

It certainly filled the "role" of a medium. Their "heavy" tank companion to the Panther was the Tiger II.

Now thats heavy......and i thought getting my foot stepped on by a Clydesdale hurt......

AIEEEEEE [X(]