I think they could have but they put to much into bigger better stronger. Like the Tiger tank it was a damn good tank but it was to much money to build and maintain. But the 88mm main gun was a monster. could kill a Sherman from like 1600ms but their slow. and easly out flanked. But If the Germans did the same as the Americans build easy and fast they could have won maybe.
What do you all think?
And please explain why you think that way because some people may missunderstand you so Explain.
In both wars the Germans fought a coalition of powers with substantially greater industrial strength and manpower reserves than they themselves had. Therefore, in any extended war they were going to lose - the “Aryan Superman” being of course a myth.
Well, predominantly the Germans did just that, they had far more Stugs and PzIV than Tigers.
As for defeating the Germans, Id say the T-34 did far more than the Sherman…
Ok I will say the T-34 was a good tank, with the sloped armer. It was a Damn Good idea. And the Sherman was not made to ram the German tanks.
So I will give the T-34 what it needs. GOOD JOB!!!
Maybe if they hadn’t fought multiple front wars, and had kept upgrading the Panzer IV untill it was as good as the Panther, they might have pulled it off. If they had upgraded the Panzer IV to come out of the factory with sloped armour, it would have been a little more resistant. Also, if they hadn’t over engineered them, they would have kicked butt.
Well the PzIV was continually upgraded throughout the war and was the equal to a Sherman or T-34 in most circumstances. The 75mm gun could kill any Allied vehicle, even a JS-2. Not sure about the sloped armour as the Panther was meant to take over from it, a good tank but maybe too hard to produce.
Same goes for the workhorse, STUG III, good gun, could kill any allied vehicle and you were more likely as an Allied combatant to meet one of these rather than any other German fighting vehicle.
yes germany could have won both but thats considering that in both wars there was not 2 frons to deal with and in the second one hitler would have stopped medling in the whermacts buisness
true but with Germany only fighting on one front would Russia attack germany even thow they were allies? So maybe , maybe not.
Irrelevant. Germany was ideologically committed to attacking the Soviet Union in order to carve out a new empire for themselves in the East. No matter what the Soviets did, a Nazi regime would have attacked them within a few years of when they did in @.
But if Hitler were somehow disposed of then maybe Germany would not have attacked Russia. Do you say it was Germany that was bent on invading Russia or was it mainly Hitler?. I think Germany would have conqured Europe and made it one nation but I am not sure if a Germany without Hitler would have invaded Russia. There were a lot of difference of strategy opinions amongst the military leaders and it would have been interesting to see how Germany would have done if Hitler was assasinated early on in the invasion of Europe.
Problem is, the German General Staff (the only plausible alternative to Hitler) had about as much instinct for rebellion as a poodle, and did exactly what Hitler told them to (so much so that two of them were hanged for War Crimes at Nuremberg - although most of them were in it up to their necks).
Possible if the Japanese can hold on in the far east and tie down the siberian divisions and then let Germany finish off Moscow…
Germany could treat the Jewish better since they only want to take ostland. Then maybe they can have the bomb earlier
Or maybe Italy could have conquered Greece (or anywhere else Italy coveted in WW II :rolleyes:) so that Germany had full forces and the time of its choosing for Barbarossa instead of being forced into Greece and Crete by Italian ambitions which exceeded Italian military ability.
So far as fighting Germany is concerned, Japanese holding Soviet armies in the east mattered little against the fact that the Soviets could, and did, retreat east while still maintaining huge manpower and industrial capacity to meet and defeat the Germans whose LOC were extending exponentially, and a lot of them drawn ineffectiently by horses.
I copy anything you wrote but sometimes due to mud and snow the horses/-carts were the only possibility of transportion available in Russia. Of course far from being the perfect alternative.
All armies used horses to some extent in that period (and rather a lot at times, albeit mules with Merrill’s Marauders etc) but Germany used horses a lot more than most.
The military problem is less with the speed and load capacity of animal v. trucks etc but with the huge logistical problem of feeding horses v relatively compact and highly efficient fuel for motor vehicles.
Also, there is the field hygiene problem caused by vast quantities of horse manure and the flies which love to breed in it, which is absent in oil powered armies.
Quite probably true, but that just demonstrates poor planning by the German general staff. Not only do horses not have the range/payload to support an army the size of the German one moving at speed across Russia, but they couldn’t survive on the steppe in winter. This is actually one of the things that doomed the Sixth Army at Stalingrad - their horses (150,000 of them) had been sent to the west for the winter so they had little or no mobility and no chance of escaping from the pocket.
Poor planing? Rather miscalculation! I don’t know. In their boundless overestimation of one’s own capabilities the nazis thought the USSR would be defeated within fall time 1941, so no need for horses.
On the other hand, RS*, yes fuel facilities can be bombed but no enemy bombs lawns and acres where you find the horses main needs. Talking of the cold, the small but tough russian panje horses defied any weather, they quickly replaced the common german horses.
The argument about Germany’s enemies having greater resources and population does not seem like the sole factor. If this is so important how did America lose in Vietnam and how did the Soviets fail in Afghanistan?
The German forces for the Greece crete campaign was not more than 10% and Hilter only intend to start Barbarossa the exact date Napoleon invaded Russia, to show the world only he can succeed.
If the Japanese can hold the far east and maybe win a little, Stalin may not move all the heavy industries to Urals. And of course if only Hilter ‘liberated’ the occupied territories and all fight the communists.
They could of won, if Germany forced thier weapons manufactures to work together as a team rather than submitting thier own designs at slow pace.