Losing the war

[Nikademus]

Yes, i know it's a Jagd-panther. [;)]

The 75mm of the Sherman was certainly capable of penetrating 50mm of armor at close range. The gun was not spectactular in it's penetrative power but it could penetrate close to 95 to 100mm of armor at 100 yards or less. (I'd have to pull out Lorrin Bird's Tank excellent Tank balistics book to give you exact specs)

in the meantime, this fine Friday morning, A quicker way might be to boot up Steel Panthers and have a looksee at the encyc. [;)]

[Sharkosaurus rex]

For what the original T-34 faced it was a superior vehicle, but it did have some problems like the two man turrent and some breakdowns in the drive train. But the biggest problem for the T-34 was not it's paper stats, but the poor way in which it was initially used by the Soviets. Dispersed in small numbers with under-trained crews left the T-34 unneccessarily vulnerable to the Germans. Also the Soviet's very poor resupply "system" caused the loss of many vehicles. The T-34 was quickly upgraded with a better gun and ammo suite with a second generation model. Further improvements led to the M43 model with a hexagonal shaped turret that was less tiring to work in. And improved transmission.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The original T-34 was, thus, not super-tank, on contrary... only huge advantage in numbers saved the day for Russians... only with T-34/85 Russians were on equal terms (or better) with Germans...

Hi Leo....dont recall calling it a 'super' tank though depending on the circumstances, it might act like one at times [;)] At the time of the German invasion, the T-34 totally outclassed any of the German tanks in the basic fields of firepower/protection/mobility and came as a vast shock to the Panzer crews who were used to having (or consider having) superior equipment along with superior training. The 34 of course did have weaknesses like any other weapon and was still suffering teething issues. The worst fobiles could be considered the 2 man turret and lack of copula. As already mentioned however the worst problem it had was that it was as poorly deployed as the rest of the Russian tank forces, usually in penny packets so it's impact was largely diluted and entirely local in impact. However as with the KV, even a single T-34 could cause a Pz battalion coniptions as their 37mm and 50mm rounds bounced off the sloping armor at standard battle ranges or a T-34 darted around a Panzer faster than it's turret could track it.

German Infantry and armored tactics, command control and fire control remained superior but only a costly upgrade program for the Mark III and IV series would grant true parity with the T-34 on a tank for tank basis. Ironically, by the time the Red Army was fully equipped with matured T34's (T34 M43) as it's main battle tank, yes that Parity had been achieve and in the case of late mark Pz IV's, the firepower/protection aspect had shifted more in their favor.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Hi Leo....dont recall calling it a 'super' tank though depending on the circumstances, it might act like one at times [;)]

I didn't mean you (in regard to "Super" tank) in particular as origin of description... I was more relating to the "myth" behind it... [;)]

At the time of the German invasion, the T-34 totally outclassed any of the German tanks in the basic fields of firepower/protection/mobility and came as a vast shock to the Panzer crews who were used to having (or consider having) superior equipment along with superior training. The 34 of course did have weaknesses like any other weapon and was still suffering teething issues. The worst fobiles could be considered the 2 man turret and lack of copula. As already mentioned however the worst problem it had was that it was as poorly deployed as the rest of the Russian tank forces, usually in penny packets so it's impact was largely diluted and entirely local in impact. However as with the KV, even a single T-34 could cause a Pz battalion coniptions as their 37mm and 50mm rounds bounced off the sloping armor at standard battle ranges or a T-34 darted around a Panzer faster than it's turret could track it.

The French Char-B in 1940 also outclassed any German tank (on paper - just like T-34)... [;)]


But weapon (i.e. tank) is not "alone" - all other things matter as well!


I am not talking about technical difficulties - I am talking about doctrine (of weapon usage), actual tactics on field (deployment as you write), crew training and, last but not least, practical value of weapon through usage on battlefield...


Russians created tank that outclassed German tanks in domains of:

firepower / protection / mobility

but at this very same time they also created tank that was outclassed by all German tanks in 1941 (Pz-III and Pz-IV) in domains of:

crew number and positioning inside tank
crew communication (between themselves in tank)
tank communication (between tanks)
tank crew awareness of situation around them
tank optics
tank tactics as a whole (Russian piecemeal and unsupported usage of armour)
tank firing (Russians were taught to shoot on the move - Germans shoot still)


So... if you weight both "+" and "-" from list above things are not so "black and white" anymore...


True, the T-34 (or KV-1) could stop whole Panzer battalion but this, usually, didn't last long because of reasons in "-" list above - Russian tanks were outflanked and destroyed from side / rear at point blank ranges even from inferior German 37mm / 50mm guns (or lured into FLAK 88mm trap).

Also let us not forget that in 1941 Russians had almost 1000 T-34's against around 1000 German Pz-III's and PZ-IV's...

German Infantry and armored tactics, command control and fire control remained superior but only a costly upgrade program for the Mark III and IV series would grant true parity with the T-34 on a tank for tank basis. Ironically, by the time the Red Army was fully equipped with matured T34's (T34 M43) as it's main battle tank, yes that Parity had been achieve and in the case of late mark Pz IV's, the firepower/protection aspect had shifted more in their favor.

T-34/85 was whole new beast and it truly offered (together with newer JS-2 and JS-3) parity (or advantage) against all German tanks (Pz-III, Pz-IV, Panther, Tiger, KingTiger)...


On a different note - I am _VERY_ much looking forward "WiR" !!!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11




The French Char-B in 1940 also outclassed any German tank (on paper - just like T-34)... [;)]

Not like the T-34. The Char B captured the protection catagory but it's firepower wasn't anything spectacular and it's mobility was abysmal.

But weapon (i.e. tank) is not "alone" - all other things matter as well!

Yes....such is true of all weapons. Patton always said that a machine was only as good as the man behind it. This is why i was very specific in catagorizing the three primary attributes of a tank design, the most crucial attributes that on a tank for tank basis allow us to make comparisons.

Of the other factors mentioned, much of this can be compensated for by proper doctrine and crew training. Had the Russian crews been better trained, had their tank forces been equiped with radios and had the T-34 been more prevalant along with the KV, things would have been far different indeed. Its often not realized that even by late 42, the T-34 still only partially equipped the Russian tank forces and it wasn't everywhere all the time. In fact such were the Russian losses that they had to use the tank brigade as their basic unit for a time

In 41 there were about 660 T-34's onhand when the invasion occured and they were dispersed. One can gain a measure of the T-34 and KV's potential and dominance in the three primary catagories by the impact even single numbers of these tanks had. Yes, the Germans were able to counter the technical superiority of the T-34 with better tactics and command control, but it took a combination of these tactics, the training and also numbers (local superiority) not to mention the cooperation of the Infantry to counteract these two beasts. (One source i've read stated most effective German tactic was to place a mine under the overhang of a KV by infantry early on before the AT gun arm was upgraded with newer and better weapons

Put it this way, the 3 man turret doesn't do much good if the shell doesn't penetrate, and German crew superiority is wasted when the result of their efforts leads to a failed kill but the return shot does against them. In the end, the Germans had to respond and begin a costly program of upgrades for their tank arm. The Mark III would eventually have to be phased out as the Mark IV switched roles with it and became the MBT through a series of upgrades....upgrades which all cost lost production.

It might be argued that the T-34's greatest attribute was that it provided the Red army with a basic design that allowed them to go through the entire confict with but one tank design to build, and build alot of them they did.

[IS2m]

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

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

IIRC, the Germans originally classified the Panther as a medium tank, which is probably where the T-34 vs Panther debate began. The decision to use the medium classification was most likely a propaganda ploy. While I don't have the stats here, I believe the Panther wieghs as much as a Tiger I (a heavy), and used the gun originally designed for the Tiger I. I do know that the Panther wieghs more than a Stalin II (another heavy tank) I suspect that the 'medium-heavy' category was introduced after the war by revisionist historians. I still have an old copy of PanzerBlitz which describes the Panther as "The best medium tank in the world until 1950". [Rant mode off]

Of the other factors mentioned, much of this can be compensated for by proper doctrine and crew training. Had the Russian crews been better trained, had their tank forces been equiped with radios and had the T-34 been more prevalant along with the KV, things would have been far different indeed. Its often not realized that even by late 42, the T-34 still only partially equipped the Russian tank forces and it wasn't everywhere all the time. In fact such were the Russian losses that they had to use the tank brigade as their basic unit for a time

In 41 there were about 660 T-34's onhand when the invasion occured and they were dispersed. One can gain a measure of the T-34 and KV's potential and dominance in the three primary catagories by the impact even single numbers of these tanks had. Yes, the Germans were able to counter the technical superiority of the T-34 with better tactics and command control, but it took a combination of these tactics, the training and also numbers (local superiority) not to mention the cooperation of the Infantry to counteract these two beasts. (One source i've read stated most effective German tactic was to place a mine under the overhang of a KV by infantry early on before the AT gun arm was upgraded with newer and better weapons

Put it this way, the 3 man turret doesn't do much good if the shell doesn't penetrate, and German crew superiority is wasted when the result of their efforts leads to a failed kill but the return shot does against them. In the end, the Germans had to respond and begin a costly program of upgrades for their tank arm. The Mark III would eventually have to be phased out as the Mark IV switched roles with it and became the MBT through a series of upgrades....upgrades which all cost lost production.

It might be argued that the T-34's greatest attribute was that it provided the Red army with a basic design that allowed them to go through the entire confict with but one tank design to build, and build alot of them they did.

I completely agree with you here.

Anyhow, this debate is getting tired. [>:] I would rather discuss game mechanics and strategy for WitP, although I am eagerly awaiting WiR II (Please Gary; put it at the very top of your list, work on it night and day and have it ready by Teusday [&o][&o][&o][&o])

O.K., maybe Wednesday [:D]

[Nikademus]

Well your right in that what the Germans considered a "medium" tank in terms of weight might be far different from another nation. The Germans tended to think big, and their heavy tanks in particular would almost be classifed as a "super-heavy" tank in another nation's arsenal. I believe Steven Zaloga even commented that the IS-2 was more fairly compared to the Panther vs the Tiger due to it's weight as you mentioned

Anyway, IMHO, the classificaiton of a tank is as much if not more so determined by it's role within that nation vs. strictly weight. As such the Tiger was considered and used as a "heavy tank" wheras the Panther which was meant to surplant and replace the Mark IV was used in the role of a medium, or to use a more modern term, the main battle tank.

Panther didn't use the Tiger's gun but used a newly designed long 75mm gun of 70 calibers. It actually was more powerful than the 88/56 of the Tiger but took second place to the awesome 88/71 of the Tiger II.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: IS2m

Anyhow, this debate is getting tired. [>:] I would rather discuss game mechanics and strategy for WitP, although I am eagerly awaiting WiR II (Please Gary; put it at the very top of your list, work on it night and day and have it ready by Teusday [&o][&o][&o][&o])

O.K., maybe Wednesday [:D]

awwww. well ok. The best strategy for playing WitP against me is to surrender immediately rather than face the long drawn out agony of defeat. [:D]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Well your right in that what the Germans considered a "medium" tank in terms of weight might be far different from another nation. The Germans tended to think big, and their heavy tanks in particular would almost be classifed as a "super-heavy" tank in another nation's arsenal. I believe Steven Zaloga even commented that the IS-2 was more fairly compared to the Panther vs the Tiger due to it's weight as you mentioned

Anyway, IMHO, the classificaiton of a tank is as much if not more so determined by it's role within that nation vs. strictly weight. As such the Tiger was considered and used as a "heavy tank" wheras the Panther which was meant to surplant and replace the Mark IV was used in the role of a medium, or to use a more modern term, the main battle tank.

I think that weight and gun should not be the "rigid" ways we describe tanks from WWII and I agree with "Nikademus" here 100%!


Today we have much better term "Main Battle Tank" which unifies many differently weighted tanks under same category like:

- T-72/80/90
- M1 Abrams
- Leclerc
- Challenger


Therefore in WWII we can (and should) accept that there were...

"Medium Tanks"

- T-34, T-34/85
- Sherman
- Pz-III
- Pz-IV
- Panther


"Heavy Tanks"

- KV-1/2
- JS-1/2/3
- Tiger I
- KingTiger


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
The Char B captured the protection catagory but it's firepower wasn't anything spectacular and it's mobility was abysmal.

The Char-B had 75mm gun in body (and usually another smaller caliber gun in turret - 40mm) - compare to that puny German 37mm guns!

Anyway the Char-B was great WWI (1917-1918) infantry support tank... it was just 20+ years too late... [;)]

Yes....such is true of all weapons. Patton always said that a machine was only as good as the man behind it. This is why i was very specific in catagorizing the three primary attributes of a tank design, the most crucial attributes that on a tank for tank basis allow us to make comparisons.

Of the other factors mentioned, much of this can be compensated for by proper doctrine and crew training. Had the Russian crews been better trained, had their tank forces been equiped with radios and had the T-34 been more prevalant along with the KV, things would have been far different indeed.

Lots of "could have" - "would have"... [:D]

Since France 1940 Blitzkrieg happened in May 1940 and Barbarossa was in Jun 1941 this gives 13 months of "free" time to Russians that they didn't properly use...

BTW, I remember reading two interesting tidbits about pre war Russo-German tank contacts...

a)
In 1940 high level Russian delegation was visiting Germany and, under Hitler's orders, they were shown everything in German tank factory (remember this was after France has fallen in May/Jun 1940).

The Russian delegation was extremely surprised to see that still the heaviest tank Germans had was Pz-IV and that main model was Pz-III.

b)
Apparently few Pz-III were send to Russia in 1940 (yet another way Hitler repaid his agreement with Stalin) and it made big impression on Russians. The T-34 design was influenced (and changed) by Pz-III.

Its often not realized that even by late 42, the T-34 still only partially equipped the Russian tank forces and it wasn't everywhere all the time. In fact such were the Russian losses that they had to use the tank brigade as their basic unit for a time

Hmm... where did you get this info from?

In 1942 almost all tank production was switched to T-34 (even for transferred factories) so it should be main type used in any case IMHO...

In 41 there were about 660 T-34's onhand when the invasion occured and they were dispersed. One can gain a measure of the T-34 and KV's potential and dominance in the three primary catagories by the impact even single numbers of these tanks had.

You are right... I checked my books...

Around 1000 modern tanks were in Russian inventory (under "modern" they considered T-34 and KV-1) at start of Barbarossa. Nevertheless the numbers of modern German tanks available (Pz-III and Pz-IV) were similar (i.e. around 1000) so the numbers were about equal.

Yes, the Germans were able to counter the technical superiority of the T-34 with better tactics and command control, but it took a combination of these tactics, the training and also numbers (local superiority) not to mention the cooperation of the Infantry to counteract these two beasts. (One source i've read stated most effective German tactic was to place a mine under the overhang of a KV by infantry early on before the AT gun arm was upgraded with newer and better weapons

Put it this way, the 3 man turret doesn't do much good if the shell doesn't penetrate, and German crew superiority is wasted when the result of their efforts leads to a failed kill but the return shot does against them. In the end, the Germans had to respond and begin a costly program of upgrades for their tank arm. The Mark III would eventually have to be phased out as the Mark IV switched roles with it and became the MBT through a series of upgrades....upgrades which all cost lost production.

It might be argued that the T-34's greatest attribute was that it provided the Red army with a basic design that allowed them to go through the entire confict with but one tank design to build, and build alot of them they did.

Again lost of "could have" - "would have" [:D] because there are always two sides of the story (advantage on one side and disadvantage in another)... but, in the end, I think we agree 99% and disagree 1%... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The Char-B had 75mm gun in body (and usually another smaller caliber gun in turret - 40mm) - compare to that puny German 37mm guns!

Anyway the Char-B was great WWI (1917-1918) infantry support tank... it was just 20+ years too late... [;)]

The Char's 75mm was a howitzer weapon of IIRC 18 calibers, about as useful for anti tank as the howitzer equipping the Pz-IVc. Worse, it was located low down in the hull and had an extremely limited traverse.

Its often not realized that even by late 42, the T-34 still only partially equipped the Russian tank forces and it wasn't everywhere all the time. In fact such were the Russian losses that they had to use the tank brigade as their basic unit for a time

Hmm... where did you get this info from?

In 1942 almost all tank production was switched to T-34 (even for transferred factories) so it should be main type used in any case IMHO...

Its been a while but i believe it came from Zologa. The Russians lost most of their pre-war inventory but not all of them. They still had some T-26 and BT class vehicles that they used to fill out the Tank brigades in 42 along with the steadily increasing supply of KV and T-34. EDIT...ah my bad, the other factor was in 42 the Russians expended a good amount of effort on light tank production too. (T-60/70/80) They were so short of tanks in 42 that they often had to fill out the brigades with light tanks....which proved woefully inadequate against the increasing AT power of the Germans.

Again lost of "could have" - "would have" [:D] because there are always two sides of the story (advantage on one side and disadvantage in another)... but, in the end, I think we agree 99% and disagree 1%... [;)]

Not sure what you mean by could have-would have but 99% i can live with [;)]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Its been a while but i believe it came from Zologa. The Russians lost most of their pre-war inventory but not all of them. They still had some T-26 and BT class vehicles that they used to fill out the Tank brigades in 42 along with the steadily increasing supply of KV and T-34. EDIT...ah my bad, the other factor was in 42 the Russians expended a good amount of effort on light tank production too. (T-60/70/80) They were so short of tanks in 42 that they often had to fill out the brigades with light tanks....which proved woefully inadequate against the increasing AT power of the Germans.

I knew that the T-60/70 were numerous even in 1942 but I would think that by 1942 T-34's would be in majority... I will try to search/dig some numbers...


BTW, I have two good reference books about WWII tanks (amongst my other book):

#1
Encyclopedia Of German Tanks Of World War Two: The Complete Illustrated Dictionary of German Battle Tanks, Armoured Cars, Self-Propelled Guns and Semi-Track

by Peter Chamberlain,


#2
British and American Tanks of World War Two: The Complete Illustrated History of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, 1939-45

by Peter Chamberlain, Chris Ellis, Peter Chamberlain


Do you (or anyone else), perhaps, know of any similar book dealing with Russian WWII tanks?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

"Nikademus" I re-discovered this site:

BattleFieldRU


Here is what they say about T-34 (76mm variant) production (and developement) amongst other things:

Developement History of T-34/76


Do you think those are reliable numbers?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Nikademus]

IIRC the Russians exaserbated their tank problem with the failure of the Karkov offensive in the spring of 42. Because of it, they had to use whatever they could get their hands on to build up their reserve of brigades. Speaking very roughly i'd say it was on average 1/3 -1/3-1/3 in mid to late 42 for the preportion of light tanks to mediums to heavy (before the removal of the KV into seperate Hvy tank battalions after it proved too hard to have the 34's and KV's work together due to their mobility differences) There were also still a good number of BT and T-26 class light tanks to work with as well.

Add to that the lend lease tank component and it dilutes a little further. I'll pull out Zaloga tonight....he has some good diagrams on the Russian Tank Brigade structure.

#1
Encyclopedia Of German Tanks Of World War Two: The Complete Illustrated Dictionary of German Battle Tanks, Armoured Cars, Self-Propelled Guns and Semi-Track

Own it.....its one of my "precious" assets, not to mention well worn from many hours of use. [;)]

Soviet tanks and combat vehilces from 1917 to WWII by Zaloga is another very good source.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11



Do you think those are reliable numbers?


Leo "Apollo11"

The Russian Battlefield is a pretty solid resource on Russian armor. Whether or not his numbers are more accurate than Zaloga's would be hard to say. (i'd have to look at Zaloga)

One thing i do remember from Z.....he pointed out in his chapters on Russian tank numbers during the war that you simply couldn't use production figures as a mean indicator of Russian force levels on the front. They tended to give an impression that the Russians had a mass superiority of armor but this was not always the case.

[Tom Hunter]

When debating the might have beens of Axis decision making we have to remember that a Hitler and a sizable portion of his entourage were inrational, and possibly even clinically insane.

The Japanese leadership was less inclined towards actual mental illness but was deeply irrational as well.

So when people say things like "if the Germans had been more rational with production of X, they might have won the war." My answer is that if the Germans or Japanese had been rational in the 30s and 40s there would not have been a war. Irrational decision making is a prerequisite for the war to start at all, you can say "If a group of people nutty enough to start a global war had suddenly stopped being nutty in the middle of it, they might have fought more effectively" but don't expect me to respect you a lot.

Its certainly true that if the Germans (or the Americans for that matter, what about keeping the Sherman in 44? ) had made smarter decision the war could have been longer or shorter, but ounce you look at the macro level in the paragraph above you can see that this was impossible, its a sterile debate, its like saying "if Hitler had been a woman he would have stayed home having kinder, and everyone would have lived." Its true, but so what?

[Nikademus]

LOL Leo, it turns out it was actually that very site (Russian Battlefield) that drew my attention to the fact that it was only by mid 43 that the T-34 became the Red Army's "main battle tank" in terms of numbers. I pasted this from the T-34/76 'in action' page:

The T-34 became the main battle tank of the Soviet tank troops only by 1943.
It's shown on the example of the Center and Voronezh Fronts right before the

Thus, among all tanks of two fronts in July 1943, T-34s were 62% in total and
stood the hardest Battle of Kursk, including famous Prokhorovka.

As for Zaloga, here was a 'typical' Russian Tank brigade org as of 7/42 (after the removal of the heavy KV from the brigade org):

21 T60/70
32 T-34/76

Other brigades might have lend lease tanks or a preportion of BT or T-26 tanks.


By 11/43, a typical non-lend lease filled Sov tank brigade would be all T-34

65 x T-34 or T-34/85

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

When debating the might have beens of Axis decision making we have to remember that a Hitler and a sizable portion of his entourage were inrational, and possibly even clinically insane.

The Japanese leadership was less inclined towards actual mental illness but was deeply irrational as well.

So when people say things like "if the Germans had been more rational with production of X, they might have won the war." My answer is that if the Germans or Japanese had been rational in the 30s and 40s there would not have been a war. Irrational decision making is a prerequisite for the war to start at all, you can say "If a group of people nutty enough to start a global war had suddenly stopped being nutty in the middle of it, they might have fought more effectively" but don't expect me to respect you a lot.

Its certainly true that if the Germans (or the Americans for that matter, what about keeping the Sherman in 44? ) had made smarter decision the war could have been longer or shorter, but ounce you look at the macro level in the paragraph above you can see that this was impossible, its a sterile debate, its like saying "if Hitler had been a woman he would have stayed home having kinder, and everyone would have lived." Its true, but so what?

Gotta disagree a little there Tom. I dont think Hitler, for one, was irrational at all during the lead up to the war and during the happy time. (before the setbacks) After said setback's yes, i'd fully agree that Hitler became increasingly irrational and paranoid...a victim of the very system he set up. Its true that the whole Nazi system as designed was in some ways little more than a thug's paradise with Hitler purposely playing various key players off each other in order to maintain the balance of power but had Hitler entertained the notion that the war might be a longer one, with the US a likely opponent along with Soviet Russia, he might have allowed Speer and co. to better prepare the German economy.

Which leads to:

So when people say things like "if the Germans had been more rational with production of X, they might have won the war." My answer is that if the Germans or Japanese had been rational in the 30s and 40s there would not have been a war. Irrational decision making is a prerequisite for the war to start at all, you can say "If a group of people nutty enough to start a global war had suddenly stopped being nutty in the middle of it, they might have fought more effectively" but don't expect me to respect you a lot.

I dont think either power was being irrational. On the contrary, especially in the case of Japan, there was a logic behind their timing for war and with the US embargoing Japan's most precious import completely and demanding nothing less than the complete release of all Japanese gains since 37 (whatever the moral justification) it was felt by many that it was better to go down fighting vs go down in disgrace which was how many of them felt in the gov and military.

For Germany....Hitler's only real mistake was in thinking that England would back down one more time (over Poland) which of course didnt' happen. He then compounded the error by thinking for months after that the UK's heart wasn't in the war and a peace would be negoiated when instead he should have been gearing for the long haul.

Now dispensing with the Japanse at this point, who's enconomy never had a prayer of matching the might of the Allies....we're back to the question of what kind of a threat Germany would be, going to a total war output 2-2.5 years ahead of when she did.

I remain of the opinion that it could have been much scarier for the democracies and of course was why Germany always occupied the "first" target seat in the eyes of the top political leaders. They knew that Germany had the economic and scientific potential to dominate the Continent and make any attempt to topple the Nazi Dicatorship a potentially too bloody affair.

Given the nature of the Nazi leadership, i'd agree all of the above is unlikely.....yet the Japanese managed to do it.....perhaps with a bit less hubris, the Germans might have too.

[Captain Ed]

Well they must have known that the losers of WW2 would end up being financial powerhouses after the end of the war, thanks to the various reconstruction effort`s of the Victors.[:D]

[Caltone]

Theres a good book called "Imperial Tragedy" by Thomas Coffey that describes the first and last days of the war from a Japanese perspective. It's out of print but used copies are around. It was fascinating to read how even after the Nagasaki bomb, so many of the leaders believed the war could still be won. Without Suzuki and the steps Hirohito took at his requests, who knows how long it would've dragged on.