What if Germany won WW2......

[Ruprecht13]

All this banter makes me even more sure of my first opinion on the matter: had Germany been victorious, the end result would be a global rise in schnitzel production.

I defy you all to find a weak point in my deduction.

Beeeeyatch.

[KrazyKraut]

Originally Posted by Seth_Soldier

c'mon, like what you have demonstrate their technology advances were only in few domains so it won't have change the war. i should have said "war-technology" instead of technology.
so about german war-technology i really doubt about its superiority.
Tactics yes, but equipment no.
After their blitzkrieg failure they haven't been able to rebuild a concrete strategy in term of weapons, how can you advance with a big tank like the tiger wich need a citern convoy behind him and an army of engineers ?

From tank armor, optics, jet planes, avionic over to small arms, rockets, night-vision, the number of fields where German engineers were ahead of their time are numerous. Tell me one where they were really inferior to any of the allies or what else does "germany technology have ****ed !" imply? From a technical point of view the Panther was very much superior to the T34. We could forever discuss if Soviet or German tanks were better from from a larger perspective, but German tanks definetly were not technically inferior.

Hitler was really warned about that ? So why they have mistaken about the number of tank ( little mistake of 5000), why they haven't been able to know how many men ussr can raised ? (a little mistake of about 100 infantery division)? why the hell they haven't been able to know that ussr have already produced a good number of t34 to be a problem to the blitzkrieg ?
The reason why hitler have attack russian was to take their raw material ressource needed and he thought it was the perfect time. (because of the report).

No my source is not internet, it's just my brain, report from the witness and archives

Uh, it doesn't take a genious to estimate what the Russian war industry was capable of when running at full production. That doesn't mean he knew every detail about their setup.

Funny numbers you got there. The T34 made up for a whole 5 per cent of the Soviet tank forces when Germany attacked in '41. The tank force was for the major part made up of T26s and BTs. And last time i checked Germany pretty much rolled over Russia during the summer and autumn of '41. So if anything they were rather surprised about the lack of resistance in summer '41.

[BuddyLee]

If Germany was soo superior of am Army then why was their Chain of Command soo F-ed up? I am reffering to Rommel being affraid to wake up Hitler on the morning of June 6th. The reason USA has the Best Army the World has ever seen, is that a Non-Commisioned Officer has the Authority to improvise adapt and overcome the enemy to his own best judgment. He does not have to necessarely ask permission to get the job done. He knows the desired effect and uses whatever lay in his arsenal to get the job done.

The Japanese were the most Hard-Core fanatical fighters of WW2, they fought to the last man. The USA invaded Island after Island accross the Pacific 10,000+ miles away from our Homeland. Germany could not even launch one Sea-Born Invasion.

Most people in Europe don't remember that there was even a Japanese threat in WW2, They had more and larger Aircraft Carriers, and the Largest Battleship ever built. If they had German Made small-arms they would have been superior to the German Army. From youth the Japanese beat their kids mercilessly and encouraged fighting amongst their youth... just to prepare them for the war to come.

[KrazyKraut]

Yeah I bet you're an expert on Japanese society

And strategical or tactical superiority was never the question, technical superiority was. And to compare a military based around Navy to one based around the Army and say "If they had German Made small-arms they would have been superior to the German Army" is stupid to begin with.

And of course, invading Great Britain is very comparable to invading your typical Pacific island right?

The reason USA has the Best Army the World has ever seen, is that a Non-Commisioned Officer has the Authority to improvise adapt and overcome the enemy to his own best judgment. He does not have to necessarely ask permission to get the job done. He knows the desired effect and uses whatever lay in his arsenal to get the job done.

Wow, thanks for enlightening. Not like that sentence above isn't so general that it applies to pretty much every Army in the world.

[BuddyLee]

Originally Posted by KrazyKraut

Yeah I bet you're an expert on Japanese society

And strategical or tactical superiority was never the question, technical superiority was. And to compare a military based around Navy to one based around the Army and say "If they had German Made small-arms they would have been superior to the German Army" is stupid to begin with.

And of course, invading Great Britain is very comparable to invading your typical Pacific island right?

Wow, thanks for enlightening. Not like that sentence above isn't so general that it applies to pretty much every Army in the world.

Well I never said I was an expert on Japan, but I know what I've read, and have also heard a lot of "paragraphs" of book my Father has read to me, and He has read hundreds more books than myself. And My Grandfather fought the Japanese so I have also heard stories from him as well... k

An earlier post'er said something to the effect that if you don't have a strong Navy, you don't have the strength to roll with the Bigdogs. Strategic flexable- mobile deployment of your forces is one of the capabillities you must have to be a First Rate Army.

The Superiorety of the Tigers, Panthers etc. was neautralised by our superior Army Air Corps. Another area Germany could not compete with USA and Brittain. The P-51D was a better fighter than any Prop-Driven in Gemany. The P-47 was the best Close Air Support AirCraft of the War. The P-38 used in the Pac-Theater (with its' twin superchargers) was the Best long-range fighter of the war. Then there is the Corsair, the Hellcat, etc.
Having the Second best Tanks, and the best MG with a couple of novelty jets does not make Germany the best Army. IMO

[D3terioNation]

To be fair I think buddy made some valid statements!

But people like krazykraut only choose to argue with a blinkered view

Sure I will not disagree (and I havent) that german technology was, and is, pure quality & genius. But why sacrifise such hardware, when a more intelligent command chain would have been the difference between victory & total inhiliation..?

So why was the latter chosen for germany?

[Seth_Soldier]

Originally Posted by KrazyKraut

---stuff---

ah god

ok there:
- the panther is considered to be based on the t34. It was a good tank and have been considered by many to be the first and only real usefull tank which was able to handle a war with all its different objective.
- the t34 was produced but havn't been issued in tank unit because red army know that germany will attacked and have been kept until the very last moment. The failure of red army facing the blitzkrieg is normal, because the red army has still a very old structure which avoid to use better counter-attack. Moreover you shouldn't forget that the red army of '41 was composed a lot with ukrainian and other country russian have slaved. When germans are at moscow they face the real red army composed of russian and elite troops like siberian etc ...
- the best tank armor were basically the french, they were better worked (shape, mixed raw element etc ..)
- yes german have got good optics (even if it is the whole tank capacity which must be judge)
- the first jet plane is british.
- infra red was indeed in dvltp in other country (the fact was to make it mobile)

as i've already said, germans were not in advance in a lot of domain, but they have been the first to use them in the war.
Because they were desperated they have spent hugue amount of money in project, development and production.
On the contrary USA and his allies have prefered a rationnal way, economic way generally, to develop their weapons of war.
Look at usa, they could have spend more money (plenty) on their tanks to make them uber-tank but they have choose the most economic way by doing a reliable and cheap tank.

War is something rationnal !

[Hyperion2010]

I'll say that the chances of this were slim to none, BUT, if Germany had won here is what I think would happen (short):

I think that the Gau system would have ultimately have failed, leaving the basis for Nazi party power in shambles. Slave labor would have in theory temporarily boosted the German economy, any Gaus in the east (USSR) where ethnic Germans had started to colonize would be overthrown with the disintigration of the Gau system.

Thats what I think.

[Hans_klempner]

German Technology #1 was,is,will

Please do not start "OH NO3S WTFBBQQ!!! Your wrong..." posts.

I STUBBORNLY stand my ground, no frick frack posts will make my opinion tumble

End of story

[BuddyLee]

Originally Posted by Hans_klempner

German Technology #1 was,is,will

Yea, did you see they even went to space. Oh wait a moment that was on a US SpaceShuttle.

[Dheepan]

I would have to say the US and Japan are the most technologically advanced. Based on IT technology and progression in all fields. Germans has a much more manufacturing based economy than most advanced nations and that's why they were really struggling at the begining of the century.

[DingBat]

Originally Posted by Hans_klempner

German Technology #1 was,is,will

Please do not start "OH NO3S WTFBBQQ!!! Your wrong..." posts.

I STUBBORNLY stand my ground, no frick frack posts will make my opinion tumble

End of story

Any statement that broad is bound to be wrong, just on general principles.

German cars continue to be over-engineered, over-complicated, and over-priced.

German computer technology??

German aircraft technology??

Exactly what kind of technology are we talking about here?

[DingBat]

Originally Posted by BuddyLee

The reason USA has the Best Army the World has ever seen, is that a Non-Commisioned Officer has the Authority to improvise adapt and overcome the enemy to his own best judgment. He does not have to necessarely ask permission to get the job done. He knows the desired effect and uses whatever lay in his arsenal to get the job done.

Er, I think the germans beat the US to that by a few years. The blitzkrieg would not have been possible in the old central control command structures as found in the french and early british armies.

[BuddyLee]

Originally Posted by DingBat

Er, I think the germans beat the US to that by a few years. The blitzkrieg would not have been possible in the old central control command structures as found in the french and early british armies.

Actually Napoleon beat everybody to it(me thinks)
The US Armed Forces borrow a lot from Napoleon.

In regards to Comand Structure

[{YBBS}Sage]

Originally Posted by Boogerhead

You mean, inaccurate, and a major misallocation of needed war materials and labor? No.

With bad guidance and bad intelligence, the V-2s were pounding cow postures while German industries, and then German cities, were getting leveled.

The Germans came out with some "neat" weaponry that was very advanced. Fortunately for the rest of the world, Germany couldn't pick a weapon and focus on it, so it lost the production battles.

As a counter example: The Americans knew the Sherman tank wasn't particularly good. But they knew how to make it FAST.

From working on German cars vs other makes for a living, I'm going to toss out that German industry seems to have some wierd fascination with packing every "neat" doodad into whatever it is they're building. It only results in needless complexity, poor performance, and horrid reliability.

Being on the cutting edge is nice in the pictures, but when your crap won't work, it's the guy using 10 year-old tech that's been proven and de-bugged that's going to win (and as mentioned with the Shermans... it's cheaper, so he'll have 3x as much of it. :P )

Example: The V2's.. Yay! We has a missile that can hit.. umm... a city-sized target... on a good day.

Looks impressive, and quite scary, BUT, during a war, you don't want to go ironing the bugs out on some huge, expensive, resource-drain that's not yielding results. Better to improve what's already good and make it great rather than build something with the potential for greatness that'll only MAYBE see "fair" on a performance scale.

Another: the Me 163. A rocket-powered interceptor, very cool idea.... except that it was too experimental. Useless drain resources. The time and money would have been better spent on incrementally upgrading on the Fw 190 or Me 109 platform, or a larger incremental, using knowledge from those platforms to design a new one.

[{YBBS}Sage]

Originally Posted by DingBat

Any statement that broad is bound to be wrong, just on general principles.

German cars continue to be over-engineered, over-complicated, and over-priced.

He's 100% right on the cars. They stuff every single little thing they can into them.

Last time I tried to count, a BMW 3-series car has, at a guess, over 100 fuses. The damn things are wired like jets, and that's not a good thing unless you want to maintain the electronics like you would a jet... And worse when the car doesn't have the redundant electronics that a jet would.

I had high expectations for European cars when I started getting my hands on them after moving to CA... I'm less than underwhelmed by them.

[Wolfstuka]

Originally Posted by BuddyLee

The P-51D was a better fighter than any Prop-Driven in Gemany.

no it was called the focke wulf190 D9

[BuddyLee]

Originally Posted by Wolfstuka

no it was called the focke wulf190 D9

Well the P-51D had triple the range, could carry 4 times the weight in bombs, plus carry rockets. Not to mention it had way more enemy kills.

The specs can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-W...28Fw_190D-9.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51D#F-51D

The Mustang also shot down MIGs in Korea.

[Wolfstuka]

[FONT=Century Gothic]its range is listed as with external fuel tanks so it cannot have triple the range as we dont know its real range without external tanks. The D9 has a higher loaded weight than p51
only a two thousand pound difference in max takeoff weight so no four times weight in armament. I dont know if D9 could fire rockets. The D9 didnt have as many kills because it was newer than mustang and there were not nearly as many D9s as p51s. The allies had the Luftwaffe whooped before the D9 could show its true power or have enough time to amass the kills that the p51 had. As for the p51 shooting down migs in korea the D9 had no chance to even do such a thing so that can't really compare.
The 51 was a great plane but the D9 was faster, had better manuverablity, a comparable bombload capacity, more powerful guns and something else but i have not read much in the way of ww2 aviation in a bit all i really remember is that the D9 would have brought hell to the allied airforce were it given a chance and the Luftwaffe destroyed so soon after its introduction.
basically they were about even with the D9 having a bit of an adavantage
[/FONT]

[{YBBS}Sage]

Originally Posted by Wolfstuka

[FONT=Century Gothic]its range is listed as with external fuel tanks so it cannot have triple the range as we dont know its real range without external tanks. The D9 has a higher loaded weight than p51
only a two thousand pound difference in max takeoff weight so no four times weight in armament. I dont know if D9 could fire rockets. The D9 didnt have as many kills because it was newer than mustang and there were not nearly as many D9s as p51s. The allies had the Luftwaffe whooped before the D9 could show its true power or have enough time to amass the kills that the p51 had. As for the p51 shooting down migs in korea the D9 had no chance to even do such a thing so that can't really compare.
The 51 was a great plane but the D9 was faster, had better manuverablity, a comparable bombload capacity, more powerful guns and something else but i have not read much in the way of ww2 aviation in a bit all i really remember is that the D9 would have brought hell to the allied airforce were it given a chance and the Luftwaffe destroyed so soon after its introduction.
basically they were about even with the D9 having a bit of an adavantage
[/FONT]

Fw 190-D9: Power/mass: 0.30 - 0.35 kw/kg (0.18 - 0.21 hp/lb)
P51D: Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)

Similar, slight edge P51. Power/weight is important, it's got a lot to do with rate of climb and acceleration.

Yep, the D9 had more powerful guns, but were they better? Eh, depends a bit on the pilot and the use the plane is being put to. 6 .50's are going to put more lead out for better deflection shots (read: good for killing other fighters, most ground targets, esp. troops and vehicles), but for point-blank stopping power, the 20mm cannon would be great (read: good for intercepting bombers or against harder ground targets.)

Also, the P51D's max speed is rated 11mph higher (not much, I'll grant) at about 5,000 feet higher altitude than the Fw190-D9? Faster?

Ya got him on ordinance... the P51D could only carry twice the ordinance, not quadruple.

The P51 was one of the most successful fighter designs ever.