I’m not sure whether that’s a fair statement. The Russian army had 2 years to arm itself, not to mention the critical ability of extensive strategic depth - a luxury neither of Germany’s previous opponents had.
However, if by “strong” you mean manpower and the Will to fight, then you’re right.
Regarding the ME-262…
The reasons why Mustangs were able to shoot some of them down were due primarily to the fact that in most engagements they outnumbered the 262’s 15-20 to 1. A typical U.S. bomber stream would have 600-800 escorting fighters.
They got most of their kills by circling German airfields and waiting for the 262’s to take off and land. Jet’s without afterburners are very slow accellerating and taking evasive action during take off and landing. The Germans set up flak corridors, and had piston engine patrols to help the 262’s, but in 1945, their resources were very limited. Other kills were made by flying high cover over bomber formations and diving on 262’s, thereby eliminating some of the speed advantage.
Still in spite of this, ME-262’s claimed over 500 allied aircraft, against a loss of 100 262’s in the air. They had several aces, one of whom shot down over a dozen mosquitos. Another shot down at least 10 mustangs. Several more shot down several 4-engine bombers, in spite their limited numbers, and intensive allied defensive counter measures. They were just perfecting the devastating use of rocket attacks on bomber formations (from outside of B-17 machine gun range) when the war ended.
The ME-262 simply needed to have been brought out sooner in the war for it to have been a war changing machine. Remember that the Allies did not start to control the skies over Germany until 1944. What would have happened if large numbers of ME-262’s were available at the end of 1943?
This certainly could have happend, but it probably would have been a worse outcome to WWII according to Adolph Galland, chief of the fighter arm. He had this to say about that in an interview in 1991. He stated similar things in his book (the first and the last).
In the case of the 262, there is no question that many mistakes were made. The design and development of the plane were delayed for a year by an order of Hitler, who wanted to accelerate short-range developments and cancel long-range projects. But this was completely wrong in the case of the 262. Hitler had little understanding of the Air Force at all, and for air combat - none at all. He couldn’t think in three dimensions. He was an army man. If everything had been done perfectly, we would have gained 4-5 months development. We would have gained 2-3 months production. We could have had about 600-800 Me 262s ready for combat, on permanent bases, by the end of 1943. This would have delayed the invasion, of course, without question, and would have changed the air dominion of the Allies, but the result would have been that the [Western] Allies would have moved more slowly, and the Russians would have come farther, certainly to the Rhine. There would have been more destruction. And so ultimately, this order of Hitler’s that was completely wrong had a good result.
Whether Galland is right about this is open to debate, certainly if the invasion would have been delayed, many more divisions could have been allocated to the Eastern Front. With German rail yards, fuel plants, panzer and airplane factories not being bombed, the Russians would have faced a stronger German opponent in the East.
Hmm. Pretty good. The Fuerer Prinzip didn’t just cripple the Nazis, but every group that surrenders free will to one person. One reason I enjoy reality shows is because the same exercise in human folly is repeated w/ few if any learning Hitler’s lesson. Coach from last season of Survivor & Dave from the current one are ‘fuereprinzip’ personified.
As for the EU, what a farce. Just read this article to see my point:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2009/gb2009086_977202.htm
The germans allowwed their once world class aerospace industry wither until they had to buy foreign to fulfill every military contract. EUROfighter, EUROcopter, EUROmissile, etc. When they built something themselves, Leopard 1 & 2, their numerous small arms programs, PzH 2000, they got their goods in only a few years. Whenever they let another country build something, Typhoon, Tiger, Meteor, it takes DECADES & BILLIONS of ‘EUROS’ overbudget. Hell, the Airbus A400, which was started in 1982, hasn’t even flown yet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A400M
It’s as old as I am and the only example is sitting in Spain. It’s more pathetic than the Spruce Goose, which was built in only a few years 7 actually flew. When the EU countries work together instead of alone, they FAIL UNITED, succeed DIVIDED!
As for Stupid Jetpack Hitler, our own leaders are obsessed w/ ‘Silber Vogel’ The F-22, B-2 & F-35 are almost worthless in the ‘War on Terror’ Era. What are needed are more A-10’s, AC-130’s & B-52 analogues. Some F-5 Tiger/ F-20 Tigersharks, would work too. But yeah, he wasted resources. The Bismarck & Tiger were huge wastage of steel. After Taranto & Pearl Harbor, he should’ve finished the Graf Zeppelin & ‘Peter Strasser’ & used them to coordinate Wolfpacks. More Panzer 4J & Panther were better than Tiger.
Finally, it’s no surprise that people ‘What-If’ WW 2 ad nauseum, it was the last war of empires. When Germany lost, it forever lost it’s superpower status. Italy, Britain & France also lost relevance in the world, but Germany was like the Elves in the 3rd age of Middle Earth. There is no more Bundes Republic Deutschland, there is only Deutschland, a state in the European Union, capital, Brussels. So people who look at the glory of prewar europe & see the sad joke that failed to keep us from invading Iraq, or stop the genocide in Darfur, or fail in any endeavour not backed by the might of the united states, Russia, India or China, naturally wonder what would’ve happened if Hitler WON his war. Well, no Cold War for one. Israel wouldn’t be created (the final solution), so no War on Terror of Cultural Revolution, or Rwanda Genocide. And since Hitler hated smoking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany
So Nazi World Domination would’ve saved far more people than it would’ve killed. Since WW 2, around 24 million Americans died from smoking.
That’s because the programmes the attempted themselves were relatively simple designs where the development costs could be spread over a large number of items (the Leopard II is a prime example of this). Typhoon is at the other end of the spectrum - it is beyond the financial capability of Germany as a nation to develop. The delays and budget overruns are largely due to the desire to change specification mid-project to improve capability or reduce costs (Germany being the prime offender with Typhoon, as it happens).
F-22 and B-2 are arguably of little use if you want to assume the US will never fight a war again against another nation state. F-35 is not even then - the sensor fusion and reduced maintenance man hours/flight hour make it more suitable than any current aircraft for providing CAS. The A-10 is OK, largely as a result of the pilots rather than the aircraft (I know of someone who was calling in fire from an A-10 to within 10m of his own position in Helmand, and I’ve seen the video of it). The AC-130 looks flashy but isn’t as effective as SDBs or artillery, while the B-52 is about as much use as a B-2 and less use than a B-1. The F-5/F-20 are dangerously obsolete - they do not have the sensor capability nor room for upgrades required to call in attacks that are danger-close to your own position with anything bigger than cannon, nor do they have the carefree handling of modern aircraft types which is so important to freeing the pilot to concentrate on the target.
An even bigger problem today is that third party countries are reluctant to buy high-ticket defence equipment unless they are ‘part of the process’.
The Eurofighter and the F35 are good examples. ‘Participants in the F35 programme are the United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Canada,Turkey,Australia, Norway, Denmark, Israel and Singapore. These are not just purchasers of a fininshed product–they all have a voice in development and a portion of production. If the aircraft, as expected is sold to India, Brasil and South Korea-those countries’ substantial aerospace industies will also want a slice of the action. This means endless commitees, reports to go through multi-layers of bureaucracy and constant exposure to politicking
The process is called ‘Offset’: if you want to sell me your stuff–then give me some of the work.
Quite the doom scenario… :lol:
I think it is wide open to debate. delay = smaller front = less stress on resources = stronger eastern front.
And also = ME262 on eastern front, development, bomber…
Reminds me of the Iraq and Afghan wars of the US combining a lot of Belgian and German arms industries…
Belgium = small arms
Germany = armor canons and ammo
Just imagine how the scattered European decision(s) not to question the campaigns would have been altered if the US would have start using let’s say … chinese arms and ammo?
Hmm, pretty good. Although:
A 4 engine bomber would’ve been a waste unless they built a long-range fighter FIRST. The Bf 109 couldn’t even escort the 2 engine bombers used over britain beyond london.
The Navy was a HUGE waste, especially in the Norway campaign.
Dunkirk, hmm. They had the Royal Navy & RAF to consider.
Franco, yeah. He coulda leaned a bit more on the, “If it weren’t for Germany, you’d still be rotting in Morocco. So let us through to gibraltar.” W/ morocco & gibraltar taken, the west end of the mediterreanean woulda belonged to the Axis. The African campaign woulda gone smoother.
cutting panzer production was a bad idea. all tank built after france fell should’ve been high-end Panzer IVs. The Panzer IIIs were useless.
Declaring war on US. Hostilities were escalating to a head even before Pearl.
Norway. Getting there before Churchill invaded was a huge mistake. If Hitler waited a couple hours, he coulda been the ‘hero’ ‘liberating’ Norway from UK
‘no retreat’ bad idea. My best strategy is to retreat to a chokepoint every now & then to slaughter my enemies in various games. Hitler needed to read a history book.
Rascism. Hitler shoul’ve realized, he had all the time in the world to wipe out untermenschen AFTER he won the war.
17.Why they didn’t outflank the kursk defences & starve them out I have no Idea. Or opening up a can of ‘whoop’-gas, err. Nerve Gas. If no one survives no one4 can tatle on the Nazis.
It’s badly written, but I’m too tired to spell/grammar check.
I though that you all might be interested in this.
Cost of a Spitfire fighter June 1940
Engine £2,000 0 0
Fuselage £2,500 0 0
Wings £1,800 0 0
Undercarriage £800 0 0
Guns £800 0 0
Tail £500 0 0
Propeller £350 0 0
Petrol Tank (Top) £40 0 0
Petrol Tank (Bottom) £25 0 0
Oil Tank £25 0 0
Compass £5 0 0
Clock £2 10s 0d
Thermometer £1 1s 0d
Sparking Plugs 8s 0d
Screws, nuts rivets etc. £1000 0 0
Al-up cost £9 047. 19s 0d
About U$ 45,000 in 1940 money or US$644,850 in 2009 money.
During 1940 it was publicised that £5000 would buy a Spitfire–a huge amount in 1940, but a realisable sum. Thousands of Spitfire funds were set up all around Britain and the Commonwealth and even the US. £5000 was the amount of money a boy scout troop, a school, a village, a masonic lodge or a Ladies club could raise.
The Spitfire took 20 months from Air Ministry Contract to first delivery.
Keep in mind however, that if more Me-262s were available earlier, strategic air-power (already beginning to run out of practical, worthwhile targets in the cities) could have been shifted to carpet bomb Luftwaffe aerodromes. Something that was mainly left to tactical air-power making strafing runs…
Oh dear… as soon as a “better option then” (eg: ME262) is seen as a problem…
these quotes explain the possible dead end of a what-if fallacy.
Wow, beats the 20-30 years & $100 million it costs to get a F-22 or Typhoon nowadays. And a Spitfire would be more practical in the Wart on Terror.There’s a reason the A-10 is no faster than an end of WW 2 era fighter.
But what happens if a Gov’t can’t afford anymore weapons? Does it stop building? Or does it point it’s guns at the CEOs & demand weapons for free? ‘Donated’ airplanes as it were. That’s why I never understood war bonds.
When a government can’t afford fighting anymore, it has to make peace. That’s what counter-insurgents and guerrillas often count on - the governing principle of asymmetrical warfare:
If you can’t defeat the enemy on the battlefield, raise the costs of the war until he can no longer afford it.
Look at Spain after the Spanish Armada - the nation was bankrupt, the armies - which had not been paid for months - were in a state paralyzing mutiny.
Look at what happened to Germany after WW1 - even though the armies had also been bled dry on the battlefield (something that, ironically, the Germans had planned to do with the French, not expecting the major British/Commonwealth support) - another major reason for the German surrender was also that the Empire was bankrupt, and the state was effectively unable to function. That’s also the reason why after WW2, the US put billions of US-Dollars into the European economies, so that they can continue to function and could be rebuild effectively - otherwise Europe would have been in a state of chaos and anarchy - almost none of the European governments could afford to rebuild at the time. (The financial aid was, of course, not a purely selfless act - America needed a strong Europe to help counterbalance the Soviets - a bankrupt state would have been the perfect feeding ground for communists. America’s denial to waive British war debts after WW1 was a major factor for the British inability to re-arm in the face of an aggressive Third Reich, and America had learned its lesson.)
In order to understand war bonds, you have to understand the principle of a currency:
In the US at the time, the value of the US Dollar was bound to the federal Gold reserves - that means, theoretically, everybody who had a US-Dollar, owned a share of the federal financial reserves. The value of a single US-Dollar was determined by the amount of dollars X over the market value of the US-financial reserves Y.
By buying war bonds, and therefore giving the US some of their financial shares back, the government its financial obligation to its citizens temporarily reduced, and could use those resources to buy more weaponry without endangering its economy by devaluing the Dollar.
The alternative route, namely that if a government does not have enough financial resources/people don’t buy war bonds, would be to print more money. However, this changes the ratio of currency in circulation to the actual financial value of the state, therefore devaluing the currency.
If X (currency) is 100 and Y (financial resources in Gold) is 1000, that means that each currency, is worth 1000/100 = 10.
Now, if a government is broke and prints large sums of currency, X goes up, for example to 200. Then the worth of every currency is 1000/200 = 5.
This is called inflation of the currency (the opposite would be called deflation).
It would give the warring nation more money to purchase arms, but would at the same time devalue the currency, slowly wrecking the economy. That’s the reason why Post-WW1, a loaf of bread could cost up to 10,000,000 Reichsmark. The government had printed so much currency, that its value had gone done drastically, and basically destroyed the lifetime savings of its citizens. Just imagine if tomorrow, the Dollar was suddenly worth 1/1000 of its current value, and instead of $2.99, a Big Mac was $2,990.00 - how much would your savings be worth then?
If anything is wrong with the way I explained things (in, admittedly a basic manner), please correct me - this is the best I know, and I’d hate to live under wrongful assumptions. 
War bonds are a form of mid/long term private savings you deposit by the state, yet at a lower yield than normal market terms. Led by patriotism, trust or even fear, civilians withdraw capital away from the banks and give it away to the state asured with the government’s commitment to pay the debt (usually) after the war. As Schuultz explained, the monetary balance is far from disrupted, preventing inflation and in many cases actually tending to go to deflation, as soon as the low growth of money mass (because of the low yield) crumbles to the raised production of goods (in this case: military capital).
It is not that different than long term savings at the bank, except it is mixed with nationalism and emotional ingredients rather than pure financial motives.
From another forum, illustrating why the idea of Spitfires as practical modern aircraft is risible…
Note that the above costs are in at-the-time dollars - so the equivalent cost of the B-17 formation would be roughly $700 million in 2009 dollars. Additionally, you should note that the A-10 has a payload big enough to make it a super-heavy bomber by WW2 standards.
Only significant comment to make is that a number of countries abandoned the Gold Standard at about this time, after which point the link of currency to gold reserves is broken. The British for example were not on the Gold Standard from 1915-25 and 1931-present.
I’ld like to add one thing: on a point after a war, many of the military spendings are becoming useless and often obsolete. This is the starting point of a fragile balance. The use of the war bond material is therefor lengthened as much as possible (recce, training, civil) to reduce the spendings at the time the bonds have to be redeposited to the civilians. Partly because of this, a continued threath (think of cold war) can prevent a collapse, since the government has to keep spending and can actually tempt the population to accept funding the bond debt with new bonds.
Very true - I tried to avoid mentioning Gold later on in my explanation, but it simply appeared to be the most simple way of explaining things.
By now, I don’t think there’s a tangible thing the US-Dollar is bound to - I haven’t really bothered to look into it yet, but afaik, it’s a really weird system.
China has adopted a really shady system, too - they haven’t bound their currency to something universal - such as Gold - but rather the US-Doller. A Yuan is always something around $0.65 US-Dollars, if I’m not mistaken.
However, if I remember correctly, the Euro is still bound to the collective Gold reserves of the EU-member states, isn’t it?
Try oil.
Iraq breaking away from paying for oil in USD and breaking the oil backing of the USD has been argued as the primary reason for the Iraq war. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html
Things, Hitler could have done to win WW2??..hmm…well one thing I know for sure…If he hired RS to be one of his Field Marshall’s, he’d of had an undoubtedly great chance of winning the war, thats for sure. 