If the Germans manage to convince the Finns to join in the attack instead of just having them sit there in Karelia which they reconquered from the wrongful Russian invasion during the Winter War where the Russians got owned despite being and order of magnitude larger army and country. So if Finland invades the Germans can win, but otherwise Germany is screwed. Basically, if there is no Winter War/Continuation war mod then its over.
Do you think the Germans will ever win this war?
- Thread starter Branden
- Start date
Hmm.... let me check....
*looks up historical records and documents of WWII*
Nope.... it seems that they didn't quite win.... who would have thunk it?
Given Germany had trouble equipping their own men with enough equipment during the war, I do wonder where they would have gotten enough war material to to equip a million Ukrainians. Sounds like one of Guderians many questionable claims from his post-war memoirs. I am relatively skeptical he made such a suggestion (unless he believed the equipment to equip a million more men would fall from the sky), but honestly that is just my opinion.
Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make earlier in the post...
Also, a little factoid ....Stalin killed a hell of alot more people then Hitler....Both evil Tyrants ....But, Stalin think had the evil edge ....lol
I dunno you can blame a lot of deaths on Hitler. Damn near 20 million people died under German occupation (6 million Jews, 3 million Poles, 12 million Russian civies, an additiona few million across the other nations), and this happened in 5 years. 10-20 million "Soviets" died during Stalins rule, and it occured over 25 years. Plus given Hitlers plans for the east (large scale depopulation and murder), it is pretty obvious Hitler was the worst of the two. Would have been obviously so had he won.
Both are funny lines but both are equally as imaginary. The Panther did not break down nearly as mcuh as is often stated, and the Allies (well western ones) did not lose nearly so many tanks to kill a German one.
It's interesting to read what all you guys have said. To me, I just find it incredible how it all happened in 4 years. When I play Rise of Nations or something I don't spearhead my forces deep into enemy territory. I understand Hitler was excited about how well his tactics had worked against Poland and France... but Operation Barbarossa is just .... daunting to even imagine. It was really successful initially, but the regrouping of Russian forces was inevitable.
I didn't quite understand the OP but it seems the thread is about imagining different hypothetical situations in which the Germans could have prevailed. I actually think it seems plausible, albeit extremely unlikely. However, with Hitler in charge, no chance. The attack was far beyond ambitious. I forget what he said but I think he expected USSR to surrender in less than a year. I guess a lot of the guys from WW1 were just clinging to those old notions... but you can't just flatten the largest nation on Earth, kill everyone there, and cover it in asphalt and Beer Halls in less than a year. That would've taken 2 decades.
I didn't quite understand the OP but it seems the thread is about imagining different hypothetical situations in which the Germans could have prevailed. I actually think it seems plausible, albeit extremely unlikely. However, with Hitler in charge, no chance. The attack was far beyond ambitious. I forget what he said but I think he expected USSR to surrender in less than a year. I guess a lot of the guys from WW1 were just clinging to those old notions... but you can't just flatten the largest nation on Earth, kill everyone there, and cover it in asphalt and Beer Halls in less than a year. That would've taken 2 decades.
imho the war was lost in the atlantic for the germans, at one time (don't ask for a date) the brits were very short of supplies, and the morale almost crumbled. the germans were technically superior (rockets, jets, night vision...) but didn't have the resources or time to use these properly for their advantage. if spain would have been actively fighting against the allies as well the war would have lasted longer. but that probably would have caused the germans to get nuked like the japanese...
But if they nuked Germany, wouldn't they nuke their own men? And even if they retreated to safe areas, Allied soldiers would have to march through nuclear waste, highly radioactive areas. But I don't think the Amies would nuke Germany as it would bring dissatisfaction from their allies.
To answer just the first question - the USA had planned invasions into Japan, in case the Japanese did not surrender. I think it's safe to assume that they would have pushed troops and armour into Japan post-nuke, had they needed to. We can't really know where the US forces would be in this imaginary Germany - but the allies would be able to choose key targets and maneuver their troops, to open up a "safe" nuke attack.
The second one is kind of fuzzy - I agree that allies would have had a dim view of the nuke once the cat was out of the bag so to speak. In times of war though, people and nations ARE known to do crazy things. Still, given the huge number of civilians in Germany - regardless of their allegiances or beliefs - I think a nuke strike would be the last thing on the list. Obviously we're talking about an imaginary reality here - but if we agree that all or most allies/axis had joined the war as expected, that places a huge number of allied troops in and around Europe. Meaning, the allies would (probably) still have had a sufficient invasion force to push into Germany. If they thought the German military was on the retreat and limited in number, I'm thinking they'd go for the (relatively) soft approach of traditional invasion/occupation.
Last edited:
The biggest prob for the Germans (and to some extent for the Russians too after the war, when they "liberated" countries) was that they were very bad at making friends. Germans may have occupied all of Europe, but they had guerilla insurgence or resistence movements in every last country they got into. Even their ally Italy was riddled with partisans.
Many of their "allies" were forced into being that and tried to avoid a deeper involvement (the Finns, though not big fans of Russians after being invaded, still didn't want to invade Russia beyond their old borders, Bulgarians wouldn't invade it either, Rumanians and Italians switched sides as soon as Soviets/Allies got there, etc). Apart from some people with deep fascist indoctrination (from Spain, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, also Flemmish, French and Scandinavian volunteers), noone was eager to help Germany win the war (and even these ones all also had a strong anti-nazi resistence).
Compare that with the Allies? Even though the capitalist west hated the communist Soviet Union, they still sent it tons of help to defeat the nazis. None of the Allies (Soviets included) had a network of insurgents, spies and saboteurs working in their rear areas, like the Axis were plagued with, where they could never be sure any train would reach its destination, etc.
Allies (Soviets included) used labourers to manufacture their arsenal, that wanted to defeat Germany, Germans used slave labour that also wanted to defeat Germany and sabotaged every little bit they could (even my grandmother suffered through a concentration camp that suplied workers to a slave plant that manufactured Junkers bits, and she testified they did try to screw up anything they could without getting caught).
Wherever Germans came, summary executions of civilians were the norm to keep the population in check. Even in places (such as parts of Ukraine and Baltic countries), where Germans were first welcomed with open arms, people soon realised they were far from civilised liberators they had hoped they'd be. Allies on the other hand? How many public hangings, shootings, etc did they do?
To sum up, the whole world hated the Germans. You cannot win the war like that. Even if they had avoided all the military mistakes we now know they made, they could have just kept the bloodshed going a while longer. In the end they couldn't succeed.
For the same reason the Soviet Union failed and fell apart in the end. You cannot rule, in spite of all your might, if too many people hate you, if you can't make friends. Somethings the remaining superpowers of today should also be more aware of.
Many of their "allies" were forced into being that and tried to avoid a deeper involvement (the Finns, though not big fans of Russians after being invaded, still didn't want to invade Russia beyond their old borders, Bulgarians wouldn't invade it either, Rumanians and Italians switched sides as soon as Soviets/Allies got there, etc). Apart from some people with deep fascist indoctrination (from Spain, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, also Flemmish, French and Scandinavian volunteers), noone was eager to help Germany win the war (and even these ones all also had a strong anti-nazi resistence).
Compare that with the Allies? Even though the capitalist west hated the communist Soviet Union, they still sent it tons of help to defeat the nazis. None of the Allies (Soviets included) had a network of insurgents, spies and saboteurs working in their rear areas, like the Axis were plagued with, where they could never be sure any train would reach its destination, etc.
Allies (Soviets included) used labourers to manufacture their arsenal, that wanted to defeat Germany, Germans used slave labour that also wanted to defeat Germany and sabotaged every little bit they could (even my grandmother suffered through a concentration camp that suplied workers to a slave plant that manufactured Junkers bits, and she testified they did try to screw up anything they could without getting caught).
Wherever Germans came, summary executions of civilians were the norm to keep the population in check. Even in places (such as parts of Ukraine and Baltic countries), where Germans were first welcomed with open arms, people soon realised they were far from civilised liberators they had hoped they'd be. Allies on the other hand? How many public hangings, shootings, etc did they do?
To sum up, the whole world hated the Germans. You cannot win the war like that. Even if they had avoided all the military mistakes we now know they made, they could have just kept the bloodshed going a while longer. In the end they couldn't succeed.
For the same reason the Soviet Union failed and fell apart in the end. You cannot rule, in spite of all your might, if too many people hate you, if you can't make friends. Somethings the remaining superpowers of today should also be more aware of.
Last edited:
Awesome post MtTriglav Also yet another great one in this thread (I'm not including my own! heh) - and yet more proof of how good this community is. Several pages on a very sensitive and touchy subject, and still an excellent discussion going on I'm impressed on a daily basis, just how much knowledge this community has between them, and how much I can learn from a humble forum. Keep it coming please guys
:IS2:
Also yet another great one in this thread (I'm not including my own! heh) - and yet more proof of how good this community is. Several pages on a very sensitive and touchy subject, and still an excellent discussion going on I'm impressed on a daily basis, just how much knowledge this community has between them, and how much I can learn from a humble forum. Keep it coming please guys :IS2:
Superior materiel on the German side compare to the Russians is somewhat of a myth I hear. Early war, the T-34 and KV-1's were unstopable to all but the 88's. Russian small-arms easily matched German ones in effectiveness (with the exception of DP-28/MG34 matchup), their Yaks and MiG's and La's were quite capable of dogfighting German planes, and only in the mid-war were the T-34's in a trouble spot against enemy tanks, as a result of a lag of upgrades, which was fixed with the T-34/85. The only sound problem I know of is the high-tolerance manufacturing standards communist Russia was famous for, and their horrendous kill/death ratio (it's the only term I know) was in large part due to arrogant and reckless commanders and constant assaults, and the fact that German troops and commanders were just tops, with probably no contemporary equals. I can't post sources because this is just what you pick up in the course of a nerd's life, so make that what you will.
Anyway, I think this thread could go on for ever as to who should have/why have they won the war. It's mind-boggling all the reasons that the war should have ended right there for either side. If Chechoslovakia hadn't been forced to surrender their good territory to the Germans, they could have tied down the Germans for years with their small yet modern army and forts. Remember that lots of the German tanks were built in Czechoslovakia during the war and that their strengh was largely in Panzer II's at the time, which the Czechs could match while the British and French got their head's out of their [...]es. Same thing during the invasions of Poland and Norway, if the "superpowers" had the cojones to honor their agreements.
If Hitler had held off some of his crazier schemes, or even held off on deathcamps to liberate troops and resources for the war, it could have given him an edge. If Italy had been able to handle Greece on its own, it would have spared 6 weeks that were delayed from Barbarossa, possibly giving Hitler Moscow before winter (whether that would have won the war is doubtful, if Russians have retreated further before).
If the Nazi's had put their troops where Rommel wanted instead of at the Pas-de-Calais Operation Overlord probably would have been stopped at the beach. The list goes on, there's just so many things that could have gone just slightly differently and changed the outcome. Ultimately though, it's the cooperation of all the Allied nations that brought down Germany, I'm sure that 1vs1 Germany's superior all-round army could have beaten any single nation, giving the Allies trouble with only 20% of their army and the Soviet's with the rest. By the end of the war, even Russia was running out of recruits, the U.S. were sending engineers to the front (and they were nowhere near as effective in combat as their German pioneeren counterparts), so I figure we are pretty lucky it didn't go a lot worse, and it's a shame it didn't go a lot better.
For the Czechoslovak and the concentration camp parts, I would like to at least credit Len Deighton's "Blitzkrieg" since the rest I can't say exactly where it comes from (probably a mix of history channel and some other books).
Anyway, I think this thread could go on for ever as to who should have/why have they won the war. It's mind-boggling all the reasons that the war should have ended right there for either side. If Chechoslovakia hadn't been forced to surrender their good territory to the Germans, they could have tied down the Germans for years with their small yet modern army and forts. Remember that lots of the German tanks were built in Czechoslovakia during the war and that their strengh was largely in Panzer II's at the time, which the Czechs could match while the British and French got their head's out of their [...]es. Same thing during the invasions of Poland and Norway, if the "superpowers" had the cojones to honor their agreements.
If Hitler had held off some of his crazier schemes, or even held off on deathcamps to liberate troops and resources for the war, it could have given him an edge. If Italy had been able to handle Greece on its own, it would have spared 6 weeks that were delayed from Barbarossa, possibly giving Hitler Moscow before winter (whether that would have won the war is doubtful, if Russians have retreated further before).
If the Nazi's had put their troops where Rommel wanted instead of at the Pas-de-Calais Operation Overlord probably would have been stopped at the beach. The list goes on, there's just so many things that could have gone just slightly differently and changed the outcome. Ultimately though, it's the cooperation of all the Allied nations that brought down Germany, I'm sure that 1vs1 Germany's superior all-round army could have beaten any single nation, giving the Allies trouble with only 20% of their army and the Soviet's with the rest. By the end of the war, even Russia was running out of recruits, the U.S. were sending engineers to the front (and they were nowhere near as effective in combat as their German pioneeren counterparts), so I figure we are pretty lucky it didn't go a lot worse, and it's a shame it didn't go a lot better.
For the Czechoslovak and the concentration camp parts, I would like to at least credit Len Deighton's "Blitzkrieg" since the rest I can't say exactly where it comes from (probably a mix of history channel and some other books).
History Lesson.
History Lesson.
History Lesson.
Russia, at the time of Operation Barbarossa, had approx 12.5 Million Men and Women in the army. However, they were poorly trained and their equipment was severly outdated.
To the contrary, they were an effective fighting force. They had the rugged determination that powers through enemy morale, and, when in situations where in an open battle they would be decimated, the improvised to their own tactics. Not the first, nor the best to pioneer geurilla tactics, but certainly one to develop it.
Contempary History Lesson - Operation Barbarossa was Doomed From The Start
A certain article in the very good magazine Military History Monthly proposed an idea which I shall recite here.
'The failure of Barbarossa is really quite straightforward: in the end, it all depended on petroleum.
Moscow was not important to Stalin. He was quite prepared, and had indeed planned, to retreat with as much industry as possible behind the Urals, and continue the fight from there
History Lesson.
History Lesson.
Russia, at the time of Operation Barbarossa, had approx 12.5 Million Men and Women in the army. However, they were poorly trained and their equipment was severly outdated.
To the contrary, they were an effective fighting force. They had the rugged determination that powers through enemy morale, and, when in situations where in an open battle they would be decimated, the improvised to their own tactics. Not the first, nor the best to pioneer geurilla tactics, but certainly one to develop it.
Contempary History Lesson - Operation Barbarossa was Doomed From The Start
A certain article in the very good magazine Military History Monthly proposed an idea which I shall recite here.
'The failure of Barbarossa is really quite straightforward: in the end, it all depended on petroleum.
Moscow was not important to Stalin. He was quite prepared, and had indeed planned, to retreat with as much industry as possible behind the Urals, and continue the fight from there
World War II began on September 1, 1939 and ended on September 2, 1945. It lasted exactly six years and one day, with VE Day being declared on May 8, 1945.
F
Field Marshal Rommel
Guest
I would say that as soon as the Pak40/KwK40/Stuk40 was encountered in numbers was when the T-34 was in trouble spot. The T-34/85 didn't fix anything. It was still the same inadequate 45mm thick hull tank with a new weapon that only "caught-up" and/or matched the KwK40 L/48 and the 76mm M1 in performance.
.
Last edited:
I thought for sure the tank was up armored, but I quick look at wikipedia confirms that it had the same armour, just a bigger turret ring for the bigger turret. But most importantly was that the T-34/85 could penetrate Panthers, at least it was an acceptable gun, while the 76mm gun was hopelessly outclassed by then. Thanks for the correction though.
Well the rounded cast turret with 90mm of armor was ballistically pretty good (assuming the armor was up to snuff), but the hull armor was in no way improved. The gun was the big thing, the 76mm was by that point have trouble with even the German mediums due to low velocity and mediocre shells/lack of capped shot.
F
Field Marshal Rommel
Guest
Not really if speaking about frontal panther armor. Here is a bunch of book stuff:
Keep in mind the mantlet covers 90% of the turret front face.