Things Hitler could have done to win WWII

World War II German Military
#61

There are several good books on this subject. Of the half dozen on my shelf the ‘Battle of Wits’ by Stephen Budiansky is most complete on the subject of the Polish effort.

A. As pdf27 wrote it started with hiring some young mathmaticians. The Polish army captain in charge of the effort was frustrated with the failure of traditional techniques & hired a recently graduated Doctor of Mathmatics. This man had specialized in the mathmatics for insurance arcturial study, a obscure but demanding part of the statistical branch of mathmatics. Several others like him were recruited in the next year or two. & before 1930 this tiny group had through the analysis of thousands of German radio messages discovered the keys for several proving it could be done. They also gradually over several years came to understand the actual mathmatics underlying the rotor encryption system of the Enigma machines.

B. Polish intellegence agents managed to divert for a few hours a Enigma machine during shipment from its factory. They were able to unpack, examine, and photograph the machine without the Germans figuring it out. The Poles had already modeled what they thought the machines mechanical system looked like. This allowed them to build working models, confirm or refine their mathmatical models, and began reverse engineering the system of rotors and electrical circuts to build decryption machines.

C. A French spy passed a operators manual for the Enigma machine to the French intel service. The French knew the Poles also had a interest in this and gave them a copy of the book. That confirmed for the Poles how the machine was actually used and gave them some clues as to flaws or weaknesses in the operators use of the machine.

D. From the moment the Germans began using the Engima machines, around 1924, the Poles built a huge data base of the German message traffic using it. From this they were able to find flaws in the way the Germans used the system, which simplified finding the encryption keys or initial settings of the rotors and plug board.

The budget for the Polish signals intelligence department was extremely small and part allocated to the Enigma research was of course much smaller. It took about twelve years for a dozen or so mathmaticians, military intel specialists, and radio engineers, to pick apart the basics of the Enigma machine and devise a practical encryption breaking system to apply to it.

#62

I’m amazed at how distrustful the other European nations seem to have been of the Germans, even a decade before the Nazis ever got to power.

But I guess so were the Germans of them.

#63

They were all distrustfull of each other. The level of suspsion and parnoia in Europe were at a elevated level.

#64

And the sad thing is, they still probably are, it’s just ‘Classified’.

Things like ‘Enigma’ are only revealed when one side is destroyed & the victor wishes to show how they did it. Kinda like the TV Show that was “Gulf War One” w/ exposition by Collin Powell.

It’s ironic how the European Nations are fielding newer weapons despite not sharing borders w/ enemies, Kaliningrad Oblast, Dictatorial Belarus & Turkey notwithstanding. Doesn’t seem very ‘trusting’ of them. Is a Typhoon or Gripen really practical against insurgents?

But I was never aware that the Enigma was so… OLD! I thought it was one of the things ushered in by the Nazi Era (ie, NEW in 1939). No wonder it was cracked so early in the war, the Poles already had much of the homework (for almost 2 DECADES!) on it done already. They certainly contributed more than they are credited for by Mainstream Americans.

#65

Well, Comrade, in many ways the Europeans just don’t want their armies to trail behind the US too much. Partially, because

  1. They can afford new weapons/systems
  2. They still want to have some influence in the world
  3. They still don’t trust the Russians
  4. They had 1400 years of constantly fighting against each other, with only 19 years of peace and relative safety. (I subtracted the 40 years Cold War from it)
  5. I haven’t checked, but this has to be the longest time in history that the major European nations have not had a war.
  6. The political attitude at the moment is very much that if Europeans want to be a superpower again some time in the future, they have to unite (European Union), and part of being a superpower are strong armies. Now I’m not a big fan of the EU for several reasons, but that’s part of the notion of it.
#66
  1. I haven’t checked, but this has to be the longest time in history that the major European nations have not had a war.

The last time Europe enjoyed a period of relative peace (relative being the operative word here) was during the time of the Ancient Roman Empire. It was called the PAX Romana. Its timing was approximately 207 years (27 BC to 180 AD) and was started under Ceasar Augustus after he defeated Marc Antony and took control of the Empire.

Of course, during the Pax Romana there were numerous boarder skirmishes and internal revolts that had to be quelled. Marcus Aurelius fought the Germanic tribes along the boarder of the Empire for about 10 years.

Some European historians call this time of peace the Pax Americana.

And since the concept of the Modern Nation State was established, this is the longest peried of modern peace.

Let’s hope all the world’s leaders have learned the lessons fo WWII: War Sucks.

#67

Really doubt that any worthy historian would refer to the period of Pax Romana as Pax Americana.

However like the period of Pax Romana was not totally peaceful nor any age known as Pax Americana. The cold war period or any period post ww2 was not really all that peaceful. It was only peaceful in the sense we didnt have global war on the scale of ww2.

#68

Well, I think he tried to say that for the Europeans, this right now is the time of Pax Americana, because there is simply no point in starting a war without the support of the US, and whatever nation knows that the US will be on the other faction’s side will rather back down and negotiate than face certain military defeat - no nation in Europe can take on the US, as much as some of us dislike them.

In a way, America has become a Big Brother watching the European states, making sure they don’t lead wars against each other as they used to do. It simply wouldn’t be in their interest if Germany, England and France fought.

If the EU became a unity, and therefore turned into a serious political, economical and military threat for US domination, however, things might change very quickly. Look at the UK and the German Empire at the end of the 19th/early 20th century - Friends turned Foes as the Union of German states threatened British dominance.

#69

Some European historians call this time of peace the Pax Americana.

Um…

The ‘this’ in the above sentance refers to ‘THIS CURRENT’ time of relative peace in Europe. I was not trying to call Pax Romana a Pax Americana.

I thought that was obvious, I should have added the part about the current peace in Europe.

Schultz seems to have gotten my point.

#70

Anyhoo…

Back on topic … the more Hitler got involved (military decisions) in the war the worse the Germans did. If he had not micro-managed so much they might have done better.

Obviously the treatment of second class citizens didnt help in any matter. Just tied up logistics and supplies that could have been better used.

Not listening to Goering would have helped.

IMO the worst idea was declaring war on the US. This did nothing but help to lose complete control of the seas. Was a great asset to the Russians because it gave the UK the proper means to conduct military operations. Also it made it clear thru many means that Japan was not going to invade eastern Russia (yes i know Russians spies did the job). It gave a huge manufacturing asset to the allies from a nation that could hardly be touched. The ingenuity of the US/UK and the “brute force” effort put forth by Russia is what won the war. The entrance of the US into the war did not usher in a complete or confident conclusion but it did not aid Germany or her allies in anyway.

Declaring war on the US would have only been beneficial if it was certain that Japan would have aided Germanys effort to crush Russia. This was not really possible for the Japanese.

As any type of historian I hate to deal in “what ifs” but I do feel that Germany (+ allies) could draw a stalemate with Russia and the UK if they would not have had the support of the US.

Also the enigma code really should have been changed. They dropped the ball on this one for sure.

Im sure alot of this has been mentioned before so feel free to skip this post (didnt have time to read the entire thread).

#71

Are you KIDDING ME?! Even before Pearl Harbor, the US Navy was escorting transports (Reuben James anyone?) & trying to goad the Germanys into a shooting war. Even if Hitler DIDN’T wage war on us, the Atlantic Charter dictated a ‘Germany First’ strategy.

Why does everyone ignore this little fact?! Germany declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor had NO EFFECT in the long run. It’d be like if Saddam declared war on us after 9/11. He didn’t, but we killed him anyway, even after he surrendered to us. (The Shia lynched him after a show trial)

Part of the ‘micromanaging’ by Hitler was a result of the escalating revelations of the betrayals he faced. Wilhelm Canaris, Rommel (There had to be a reason we suffered so few casualties on D-Day) eventually even Himmler betrayed him to save his own skin. Who nows how the war would’ve changed if the Anglophile Canaris was killed or sacked earlier.

BTW, the European Union will only be truly unified when only one language & culture reigns supreme. The likely winners are English & Arabic. And if the UK & France weren’t so selfish hogging their nukes & if the EU replaced UK & France on the Security Council.

Ideally the politicians in Germany would grow a pair & start expanding their military (10 Divisions would be enough) & going full native w/ their equipment. Multinational consortia are very inefficient. (look at the Airbus A400 Tac Airlifter) Can the Germans even DESIGN an airplane anymore? The last one I saw was their Hansa Jet from the 60’s. I mention them since they are Europe’s strongest economy and as such should be able to nearly equal the US in military strength. Their fleet is virtually nonexistent, a few LHDs would be a useful addition.

Now back to the Nazi what ifs. We should stop discussing their racist policies. They were voted in on them so any major change would affect public opinion. The US politics in WW 2 for example didn’t change so much. From the get go it was ‘Unconditional Surrender or Annihilation’ Such a rigid policy guaranteed a greater bloodshed.

#72

How does this sit with pre-Pearl Harbor American isolationism and overwhelming popular reluctance to get involved in another European war, not to mention the desire of some major and influential American capitalists (e.g. Henry Ford) to continue to profit from the European war by supplying one or both sides without America getting involved in the war?

Where is the evidence that America was trying to goad Germany into a shooting war compared with, say, just providing protection to merchant shipping carrying its goods?

No, it didn’t.

It merely referred to a world after the defeat of Nazism.

The Germany First policy was possible only because American grand strategists had decided in the late 1930s that America’s interests were best served by supporting Britain in a European war. Consideration was given to supporting Germany, or staying out of a European war. It wasn’t inevitable that America would support a Germany First policy, or even that it would support Britain.

Pretty true, as public opinion swung from being largely against war with Germany before PH to being largely for it after PH.

This is new to me.

Could you expand on it?

Research the GDP of Germany and compare it with America.

The EU can challenge America but Germany on its own ain’t got a chance.

Germany might be struggling to match California.

The Nazis were never voted in by anything approaching a majority of German voters. They never did better than about a third of the vote in the elections which paved their way to power. The Nazi vote actually fell by about 15% in the second of the 1932 elections, which made Hitler realise that he had to sieze power as he wasn’t going to get it through the ballot box.

It is a misconception to claim that the Nazis were voted in on racist policies, as if that was the only policy they had. It wasn’t a major part of whatever electoral appeal they had, which related more to dealing with problems besetting Germany in the midst of the Great Depression.

#73

Germany’s declaration of War made it quite a bit easier for FDR politically. You’re not only ignoring what was still a large segment of Isolationist sentiment that had changed its mentality to “let’s remember Pearl Harbor!” Not, let’s remember Munich!

If fact, without Hitler’s declaration, things could have evolved much differently as there was a virulent strain of Anglophobia in the US high command at the time. Even after the German declaration, officers such as Admiral King favored a ‘Japan first’ strategy. There is little doubt that Pearl Harbor removed all roadblocks to the US supporting Britain, nor was there much doubt that the FDR administration would have forced the issue and caused some sort of incident enough to justify War. But it was by no means an easy sell to politically justify a Germany First strategy to the American people, who were still very cynical regarding European adventures. And even if the US had declared war, things might have unfurled quite a bit differently…

#74

I think this indicates that there were different opinions in different segments of American society, government and the military.

The pre and post Pearl Harbor Gallup polls swung about 180 degrees from majority against to majority for war with Germany.

This might have been influenced by FDR etc banging the drum against Japan as an Axis power aligned with Germany etc, but my recollection is that it was a pretty sudden change. This suggests that people were more influenced by the PH attack than any political influence.

As for Admiral King, I’ve always liked his crusty anti-imperialist “I’m not going to help the Limeys regain their colonies.” approach.

Perhaps a lot of American lives would have been saved and Japan would have been pushed back quicker if the American leadership had paid a bit more attention to King’s “Japan first” attitude and put resources into the Pacific in 1942. America was fully engaged in a real and grinding war against Japan for all of that year. Rather than putting resources into Europe for a future war which didn’t involve American troops actually fighting anyone until the end of the year in North Africa, and then not very well compared with the air, naval and ground operations in the Pacific, a useful fraction of the resources devoted to Europe would probaby have had a much greater impact against Japan.

#75

(Sadly I lost a post I just typed. This is a retype)

Part 3: The Army

While the deficiencies of the Heer are not as crippling as those of the Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine, they were still significant, culminating in the Crete Massacre that led to Hitler banning all further Airborne operations.

Infantry/Fallschirmjager:

The bulk of soldiers carried into battle a rifle that was over 4 decades old, the K98. While of revolutionary design in it’s time, by 1939, it was sorely outdated, of use only as a sniper rifle. The basic squad was armed as follows 1xMP-38, 1xMG-34, 7xK98 & 2xPistol (gunner & ammo carrier) The Ideal Squad should’ve been; 6xMP38, 2xMG15 & 4xPistol.

Am I right in guessing that a box-fed (ie Bren or BAR) or Drum (MG 15 or DP) machine gun reloads faster than a belt-fed (MG 34 or MG 42)?

Why haven’t there been any historians comparing these weapons side by side on TV?! A WW 2 Weapons Olympics would sweep the Nielson Ratings!

The K98 only had 5 shots, the Enfield, 10. The Germans knew this since WW 1 & had a full 3 decades to do something about it. Like WIDENING the magazine well so it too can hold 10 shots, w/ a new 10 rd stripper clip to load it with. The MP 38 had it’s own problems, most serious was its flimsy magazine well & lack of a foregrip.

Making a full-sized pistolgrip for the magazine well would’ve cured both problems, a heavier gauge wire stock would be useful as well.

The MG 15 drum feed would be less likely to foul up than a belt-fed MG 34and carry more shots, 75 vs 50. (I may be wrong, I haven’t found any sources contradicting the 50 rd belt that was standard for the Germans.

Finally, the P38 should’ve been given a staggered magazine like the Browning High Power since an 8-shot capacity is too little.

The paratroopers should’ve been given a large capacity weapon to jump with since most of their weapons were in containers. An MP-38 may have weighed too much, so a p38 w/ a 15 shot magazine & a longer barrel might have been sufficient.

Panzers:

One can really call the Pz I & II REAL tanks, they were essentially all-terrain scout cars. So let’s look at the Panzer III & IV. It was clear that the British were set on the 2 pdr as standard & the French the 47 mm. The Panzers armor wasn’t even close to surviving hits from those weapons let alone anything heavier. And the 37mm KwK 36 & 75mm KwK 37 lacked the punch to threaten the Matilda & French Vehicles. The Germans should’ve given ALL Pz 3 & 4 the Kwk 37 gun, but w/ a longer barrel & increased cartridge capacity. The Battle of France & Dunkirk would’ve been VERY different If the bulk of the Panzer Arm was equipped w/ WunderPanzers.

Also, the ‘vertical-horizontal-vertical’ glacis the Germans used on all their tanks except the Panther & Konig Tiger (which FINALLY used SLOPED armor) really had to have been abandoned. There wasn’t any damn sense to it! :confused::confused: A sloped Panzer 4 (w/ plates of the same thickness as it’s regular, BOXY self) would almost be a match for even a Panther. Later in the war, a secondary turret housing a Panzerschreck on the commander cupola would’ve allowed it to deal w/ KV-1 & Stalin tanks.

BTW, how much increase in velocity would the KwK 37 get if it’s barrel length was doubled form L/24 to L/48 w/out an increase in propellant?

Well, that’s it for my dissertation on the ways Germany could’ve done far better in WW 2, WITHOUT all the outlandish ‘WHAT IFS?’ that most people focus on ad nauseum. I could’ve gone even farther into all the support vehicles & humble artillery, but I can’t find any GLARING flaws there.

I’ll work on a later dissertation, on the Evolutionary timeline of the ULTIMATE WERHMACHT!

However, because of the greater success of these humbler changes, the Nazis would likely be even LESS liable to make changes. But, at the same time, doing so much better, earlier in the war, would put them in a better position to WIN the war before Pearl Harbor. I would really like if some computer wiz could cook up a simulation to compare the CLASSIC German forces vs my IMPROVED versions a la the Deadliest Warrior or RealTimeStrategy.

#76

Or the Heer could just have been a more modern army and used trucks instead of horse carts, which would have improved its mobility, logistics and performance considerably more than the points you have mentioned (and with which points the Heer did rather well, anyway).

Although that then introduces a problem about getting fuel, and manufacturing the trucks etc.

#77

Or the Heer could just have been a more modern army and used trucks instead of horse carts, which would have improved its mobility, logistics and performance considerably more than the points you have mentioned (and with which points the Heer did rather well, anyway).

Although that then introduces a problem about getting fuel, and manufacturing the trucks etc.

You just refuted your own statement. Oil was at a premium. Although, late in the war, some lighter Panzers were converted to coal burning engines, I think I saw them on this site as well. But the limited supply of oil was needed most for the Luftwaffe. It was the Stukas that blasted a path through the French Army on the way to the channel. More trucks would’ve just clogged the roads further. Plus if worse comes to worst, you can’t EAT your truck. :wink: Whereas horse steaks are quite tasty. Also horses are stealthier than trucks. Remember the infiltration of Ardennes when France was invaded? A convoy of trucks rumbling through forest roads would’ve tipped off the Allies.

Also, when you quote me, it’s okay to cut everything aside from what you want to focus on. It was indeed a lengthy post. :mrgreen:

As for the liability of the Kar 98, if games like Medal of Honor bothered to let you play a German fighting the Allies, you’d quickly grow frustrated by the limited capacity & slow-operating bolt compared to the Garand.

A 10 man squad w/ Garands can slaughter a 120 man company armed w/ K 98s. The only exception to this would be a static, WW 1 situation involving long-range aimed fire. But most combat ranges give the Garand a superiority comparable to a Winchester vs a Brown Bess.

I have a personal anecdote that has some bearing on this.

My dad’s stepfather was involved in an attempted robbery of his tire shop… He has a revolver of the type where you have to pull the hammer back for each shot. He had 5 shots against 6 Black Panthers w/ semiautos. In seconds, he dropped 5 while the last made a run for it. If he’d been armed w/ a K98 he wouldn’t have gotten one shot out. On a further note, they had combat experience in Vietman, while he spent WW 2 as a guard at an Japanese-American Interment Camp, where he’d killed several inmates during his tenure. Whether he did so in cold blood will never be known. He was a cruel man, so I wouldn’t have put it past him. But that doesn’t change the fact that w/ a decades old gun, he wiped out a gang who had even killed several police during their crime spree. Which is VERY impressive. The point to this anecdote is that a fast firing gun, even manual, is far superior to a slow firing weapon.

There were straight-pull bolt action rifles which outmatched Mauser style bolt actions by a vast margin. I own one, a Swiss Schmidt-Rubin. I’ve outshot modern semi-auto’s w/ it. So the use of the K 98 as a mainstay in WW 2 was an inexcusable folly.

Ah dear, I didn’t mean to run-on like that, sorry. When I’m passionate about something, I get long-winded.

#78

Didn’t the Canadians try a straight-pull rifle in WW1 (the Ross?). IIRC it was rapidly dropped in favour of the SMLE as being not much use outside a range, with the SMLE being a massively superior Battle Rifle.

#79

Interesting points, but it should be said that the Heer and SS believed that small unit infantry tactics should be centered around the machine-gun, whereas the Allies tended to believe in the primacy of the rifleman. The Germans believed that the rifleman supported the machine-gun and the Allies believed the machine gun supported the rifleman. So yes, the Allies enjoyed an overall advantage in personal weapons. But the Germans had better machine-guns and are generally regarded (although I think it is often overstated) to have had better infantry tactics and combat training and to have been more effective in most small unit engagements, at least initially…

#80

There was nothing wrong with the Ross as a peacetime rifle - it was extremely accurate.

The problem was that the design of the mechanism was extremely susceptible to fouling and could not stand up to the harsh conditions in the trenches.

Regards

Richie