What if Hitler Waited

[CommieTechie]

First post ever, so tell me if im doing anything wrong here.

What if Hitler hadnt broken the Hitler-Stalin Non-Agression Pact. USSR would have just sat there, content with Poland. The Nazis could have concentrated all their effort on breaking Britain, then turned their attention on the US.


1: Nazis Concentrates all effors on Britain
2: Britain is invaded and falls
3: Hitler controls the atlantic, and blockades US Coastline
4: US Invaded

[The Dean]

First post ever, so tell me if im doing anything wrong here.

What if Hitler hadnt broken the Hitler-Stalin Non-Agression Pact. USSR would have just sat there, content with Poland. The Nazis could have concentrated all their effort on breaking Britain, then turned their attention on the US.


1: Nazis Concentrates all efforts on Britain
2: Britain is invaded and falls

Germany could have starved out Britain, but an invasion in 1940 or 41 would not have got past the Royal Navy. Later as Britain grew weaker it would become possible but unnecessary.

[Mark AH]

An invasion of Britain must have been completed before 7 December 1941, because when the USA got involved officially the changes of Germany declined fast.
But In this scenario you assume that the USSR would sit down at the sideline and did not attack at some point?

[The Dean]

An invasion of Britain must have been completed before 7 December 1941, because when the USA got involved officially the changes of Germany declined fast.
But In this scenario you assume that the USSR would sit down at the sideline and did not attack at some point?

If Germany did not attack Russia would they declare war on the USA?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

First post ever, so tell me if im doing anything wrong here.

What if Hitler hadnt broken the Hitler-Stalin Non-Agression Pact. USSR would have just sat there, content with Poland. The Nazis could have concentrated all their effort on breaking Britain, then turned their attention on the US.


1: Nazis Concentrates all effors on Britain
2: Britain is invaded and falls
3: Hitler controls the atlantic, and blockades US Coastline
4: US Invaded

Welcome.

I'm not sure the Germans really had a chance of either starving Britain or successfully invading. I also don't see how it's possible for the Germans to ever succeed in blockading the US Coastline. How would this work? You would need bases all along the coast not just of the Atlantic but also the Gulf of Mexico - and transporting an invading army would be an insurmountable challenge.

Attempting any of this would be a sure invitation for a Russian attack, too.

[MerryPrankster]

I think the Soviets had plans for extorting more concessions from the Germans if the war with Britain dragged on.

[The Dean]

Welcome.

I'm not sure the Germans really had a chance of either starving Britain or successfully invading.

The UBoats damn near starved us out as it was so it is conceivable that without the Russian campaign draining German resources Britain could have been forced to capitulate. Then there would have been a potential invasion route through Canada.

[MerryPrankster]

The UBoats damn near starved us out as it was so it is conceivable that without the Russian campaign draining German resources Britain could have been forced to capitulate. Then there would have been a potential invasion route through Canada.

I think at this point Iceland is under joint occupation by the Brits and the US. That, plus the likely flight of the RN to the US, could make that plan a trifle difficult.

[Matt]

The UBoats damn near starved us out as it was so it is conceivable that without the Russian campaign draining German resources Britain could have been forced to capitulate. Then there would have been a potential invasion route through Canada.

Like hell; if Britain falls Canada well move firmly into the US camp. Even if, for some reason, Germany can use Mexico or Canada as a launching ground for invasion of the United States, they're up against a power who a) the potential Home of a "Free" British fleet, b) Someone who's own Navy is probably the largest in the world by this point, c) Has the industrial capacity to build an ungodly large fleet in a very short amount of time. Their supply lines would be dangerously exposed. Furthermore, the United States can safely hold off the Germans in the Atlantic and grind the Japanese into dust.

This presumed that the Soviet Union won't do anything either. Both parties shared a mutual distrust of the other, a preemptive war by the USSR is not out of the question before the proper termination of the Non-aggression treaty. Hitler completely ignoring the USSR runs very contrary to his stated objective of Lebenstrasum, which is very clearly laid out in Mein Kampf. He personally viewed the ongoing war with Britain as unfortunate, it merely was distracting him from achieving his true goal of a German dominated Eastern Europe. In addition to the racial undertones for the motivations of the invasion of the USSR, there are political ones too: National Socialism is incomparable with Communism, it's a political who's core tenant is to be in direct opposition of Communism.

[zoomar]

Welcome.

The basic problem is that, given Hitler's primary aim of expansion eastward, it is hard to see him showing such patience.

But it one assumes the Nazi-Soviet pact survives indefinitely, it is more likely that Britain would eventually be forced into an armistice than for it to be conquered outright, For this to happen, you probably have to do something to delay US entry into the war, so tell the Japanese to hold of on Pearl Harbor for a year or so. The only possible way for the Germans to "control the atlantic" would be for them to take possession of the Royal Navy, which would be a very unlikely possibility even if Britain is conquered outright (more likely the fleet would flee to Canada or be scuttled). Even with the entire British and French navies at their disposal it is hard to see Germany being able to control the western Atlantic, give the size and strength of the US navy and airforces. Also, remember that the USA has ready access to the entire north american continent for resources such as oil, food, etc. A naval "blockade" of the United States would have relatively little effect.

You also have to figure Japan in to this equation to give the Axis even a remote chance to attempting an invasion of North America. As long as the USSR remains merely "neutral" under the provisions of the Nazi-Soviet pact, it is hard to imagine Hitler leaving his back so exposed. Now, find a way to create an actual military alliance among Nazi western Europe, the USSR, and Japan against the United States and you have a nice, even fight on your hands. More likely such a war would, like Orwell's wars in 1984, be waged in peripheral places like Africa and Latin America before reaching the point on an invasion of the USA, probably no earlier than 1950.

And finally, don't forget about the bomb. Under your scenario, there is no reason to believe the USA won't develop the atomic bomb on schedule and use lots more than in our time line.

None of this means the US couldn't have been defeated - it just means it would take a very long time and probably be punctuated by intermittant periods of peace, "cold wars" and hot wars.

[DocOrlando]

I thought it was all-but-canon in historical circles that Stalin was preparing for an invasion of Germany anyway. The pact with Hitler simply bought Stalin more time to prepare. With the non-aggression pact in place and a west-facing Wehrmacht (to say nothing of the ability to stage even closer to the German border, thanks to their territory in Poland), Stalin would have giddily plunged a dagger into his ally's back.

[Matt]

I thought it was all-but-canon in historical circles that Stalin was preparing for an invasion of Germany anyway. The pact with Hitler simply bought Stalin more time to prepare. With the non-aggression pact in place and a west-facing Wehrmacht (to say nothing of the ability to stage even closer to the German border, thanks to their territory in Poland), Stalin would have giddily plunged a dagger into his ally's back.

It's hard to say, and part of that stand has been discredited by association with Neo-Nazis and Nazi apologists. Not to say that it isn't possible, or indeed likely, but it suffers from that association. The most extreme things I've read suggested the Soviet attack was a mere days away, but this is obvious bunk.

I've read serious studies that go both ways. Some suggest, Nazi ideology aside,
Stalin honest to god trusted Hitler as a sort of kindred spirit. Other studies I've read suggest that Stalin was merely trying to buy a few years time to rebuild the Red Army after it's humiliating defeat at the hands of the Finns and the gutting of it's officers corps in the purges.

If the Germans do keep a Western orientation, obviously the garrisons in the East would have to suffer. In the Germans somehow, against all laws of probability, invade the USA(or more likely the majority of the Heer dying in their transports in the Atlantic) with the Soviet Union intact Stalin would be foolish not to take the time to dispose of a predestined enemy.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The UBoats damn near starved us out as it was so it is conceivable that without the Russian campaign draining German resources Britain could have been forced to capitulate. Then there would have been a potential invasion route through Canada.

That's simply not true - even at the height of the campaign's success Britain was not even close to being starved. The RN had the situation well in hand.

[Redbeard]

It's hard to say, and part of that stand has been discredited by association with Neo-Nazis and Nazi apologists. Not to say that it isn't possible, or indeed likely, but it suffers from that association. The most extreme things I've read suggested the Soviet attack was a mere days away, but this is obvious bunk.

I've read serious studies that go both ways. Some suggest, Nazi ideology aside,
Stalin honest to god trusted Hitler as a sort of kindred spirit. Other studies I've read suggest that Stalin was merely trying to buy a few years time to rebuild the Red Army after it's humiliating defeat at the hands of the Finns and the gutting of it's officers corps in the purges.

If the Germans do keep a Western orientation, obviously the garrisons in the East would have to suffer. In the Germans somehow, against all laws of probability, invade the USA(or more likely the majority of the Heer dying in their transports in the Atlantic) with the Soviet Union intact Stalin would be foolish not to take the time to dispose of a predestined enemy.


The debate over what actual plans existed indeed has been poluted by a lot of people you don't like to agree with, but it appears there is consensus also among serious historians that the Soviet Army ran over in OTL 1941 was in the middle of a transition into a 500 + Division force with a high degree of mechanisation that would have been ready by mid 1942.

That IMHO makes the question of what the plans said very superflous, as the Soviets by mid 1942 would have had the capacity to conduct major offensive operations, and that is what counts - not the plans.

I have never seen any indications of the Nazis knowing this by OTL 1941, they thought the Soviets were collapsing and "untermenschen" anyway, but had Hitler for soime reason waited with the invasion of SU the battle of Berlin might have occured in 1942 or 1943.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Mike Stearns]

I thought it was all-but-canon in historical circles that Stalin was preparing for an invasion of Germany anyway. The pact with Hitler simply bought Stalin more time to prepare. With the non-aggression pact in place and a west-facing Wehrmacht (to say nothing of the ability to stage even closer to the German border, thanks to their territory in Poland), Stalin would have giddily plunged a dagger into his ally's back.

I've read this too. Supposedly Stalin's plan to sit back and let the Western Powers club each other into submission and then take the rest of Europe while everyone else was still too weak to defend themselves.

[cra0422]

The German military needed about another 5 years to prepare before the war started in 1939. So waiting to invade Russia would not have much difference. Russia's strength lay in its vast expanses of land, and Germany developed blitzkrieg warfare because they lacked the resources to fight a long-term war.

On invading Britain, Operation Sealion was a recipe for disaster. There are plenty of other threads & discussions that point this out, but the bottom line is that Britain was only vulnerable enough to be invaded in 1940 and Germany was too weak to invade. Besides Hitler never planned on a long-term war with Britain anyways because his territorial goals were always in the East.

Invading the U.S. was even more unlikely than invading Britain. U-boats are terrific for commerce raiding, but don't fare as well against heavily armed and well defended warships. The U.S. was already fighting an undeclared war against Germany in the Atlantic and was developing more anti-submarine warfare weapons. To top it off, FDR and his commanders had agreed on a "Germany first" campaign when war was declared.

Hitler's best bet was to attack through the Mediterranean and seize control of North Africa and into the Middle East. The British would have lost control of the Suez Canal and would've had to sail around Africa to protect India while Germany gained access to oil fields in the Middle East. Hitler also could have demanded territory by threatening Russia from the south. But he just didn't see this opportunity and his commanders knew their jobs depended on not rocking the boat.

[M79]

Plan Z was set to have Germany ready to go in 1944 but Hitler decided to up the timetable. A German army using assault rifles, Panthers as front-line tanks, jet aircraft, and other such gizmos en masse would be very tough to defeat. But Stalin would have invaded in 1943 and created a potential three-way war that would have dragged out for *much* longer, the US eventually copying the Tanaka Memorial and setting off mushroom clouds in Russia, Europe, and perhap Japan.

Hitler could be thought of as a poker player, he played one hand at a time and IMO lacked any serious sense of long-term strategy. Replace him with someone who is more strategic in the chess player sense (Wilhelm Canaris, Albert Speer?) and Germany could eventually become a very dangerous country by 1945-1950. Especially if they can diplomatically force a solution with Poland for dual control of Danzig, which would eventually go to Germany in all probability anyway.

[Matt]

Plan Z was set to have Germany ready to go in 1944 but Hitler decided to up the timetable. A German army using assault rifles, Panthers as front-line tanks, jet aircraft, and other such gizmos en masse would be very tough to defeat. But Stalin would have invaded in 1943 and created a potential three-way war that would have dragged out for *much* longer, the US eventually copying the Tanaka Memorial and setting off mushroom clouds in Russia, Europe, and perhap Japan.

Nazi-tech wank... fact of the matter is alot of Germany's advance technology was created because of demands of the front. The StG-44 was developed from experience on the Eastern Front; Hitler froze small arms development in order to concentrate on producing rifles and SMGs, the developers secretly continued worked and tried them out at the front. Only once good word come back was further work allowed. The Panther tank was developed as a direct response the the T-34 being faced in combat, Jet aircraft in response to higher and higher bomber streams destorying the Reich.

[DominusNovus]

What about the fact that Germany wasn't the only one that was gearing up? Nobody trusted Germany, and they were all gearing up, just in case. The longer Germany waits, the harder it'll be for them.

[M79]

1) Germany flew a jet in 1939

2) Panthers themselves were as you stated, but equivalents are not out of the question if Germany waited; 75mm tank guns were already under development by 1939, so delays might give Germany time to assess the tank and build on that.

3) StG 44 is based on refinements from MP-42 and attempts to produce assault rifles were being made by 1940 (Italy developed a weapon with notable characteristics in 1938)

4) Some research will continue independent of state control, especially high-risk high-payoff for companies willing to gamble

[Matt]

1) Germany flew a jet in 1939

And so did a British one; Without the urgent need to get the thing into combat as quickly as possible development would have continued at a slower pace. Germany would probably just produce Fw190 in larger numbers.

2) Panthers themselves were as you stated, but equivalents are not out of the question if Germany waited; 75mm tank guns were already under development by 1939, so delays might give Germany time to assess the tank and build on that.

Ah, and the 75mm was being designed to be put in improved versions of the Pz IV.

3) StG 44 is based on refinements from MP-42 and attempts to produce assault rifles were being made by 1940 (Italy developed a weapon with notable characteristics in 1938)

Wartime demands lead to it's production an development.Weapons that were on the pre-war drawing board are more likely to be pursued, like the Gewehr-41. Indeed without the test of combat, Germany is just as likely to chase technological dead ends. Without the negative feedback on the FG-42 it's just as likely to be produced.

4) Some research will continue independent of state control, especially high-risk high-payoff for companies willing to gamble

Some, but not much. Germany's economy was being carefully managed in the lead up to war. Without the Reich being bombed back into the stone age, military planners are more likely to pursue things that have a less risk to payoff model. Germany's most advance weapons were pursued in a desperate attempt to stave off full disaster in the closing years of the war. Without this developments are likely to be refinements of existing technologies. Militaries are inheritingly conservative, and the environment of Nazi Germany doesn't exactly breed risk taking.

[Cockroach]

1: Nazis Concentrates all effors on Britain
2: Britain is invaded and falls
3: Hitler controls the atlantic, and blockades US Coastline
4: US Invaded
1. Happened in OTL until Hitler decided to head east. See Battle of Britain.
2. Either the Germans wait and the British rebuild the RAF (hence 1 must be repeated) or they attempt Operation Seelowe. Rhein River Barges with minimal escort vs the guts of the Royal Navy? Needless to say the Germans would not stand a chance.
3. No, the small surface german surface fleet would have been virtually destroyed in any invasion of Britain and the Royal navy will either have been destroyed in battle, scuttled in port or fled to the USA and the dominions and colonies. So you have to somehow blockade the USA with U-Boats alone.
4. Given the low probability of Seelowe working how the f***ing hell do you think this will turn out? Lets see: Virtually no German surface fleet left after 2 and 3; out of range of any meaningful airsupport.
So you propose protecting your troop convoys with U-Boats? U-Boats may be quite capable of massacering convoys of 10-knot merchantmen but against dozens of 30-knot Cruisers and Destroyers they are rather ineffective... hence the troopships are as good as lost.

[esl]

1) Germany flew a jet in 1939

2) Panthers themselves were as you stated, but equivalents are not out of the question if Germany waited; 75mm tank guns were already under development by 1939, so delays might give Germany time to assess the tank and build on that.

3) StG 44 is based on refinements from MP-42 and attempts to produce assault rifles were being made by 1940 (Italy developed a weapon with notable characteristics in 1938)

4) Some research will continue independent of state control, especially high-risk high-payoff for companies willing to gamble

Essentially right on all points. Hitler/Goering froze all special weapons projects cause they had stumbled into a shooting war 'unexpectedly' and were unprepared.

Panther original form was VK-20 [twenty tonner] , which worked as Panzer III replacement. The original plan envisaged 50L60 gun & 50mm face hardened armor ,but when the 75 L46 gun became available, it was modified to go into production in 1942 as was sloped front hull armor. It was a mini Panther , but it could be built as a 1:1 replacement for the Panzer III on the production lines and it could match & defeat the T-34/Sherman.

The Tiger I would still be adapted on time from the VK-30/36 development program since this evolution was dependant on experiences fighting in the west and predates the Invasion of Russia .

Remember most of Germans best tank victories were with simple Panzer III/IV , so a quantum leap is not needed. In many respects Panther was an overreaction. Preparing industry for total war was more important than technology at the beginning. But should have been planned for and was not, which was Hitler’s mistake/fault.

Biggest problem with war tech research is the weapons were rushed into production before the needed testing was finished. Magnetic trigger torpedos is a good example, so most failed and the lack of timely research meant the problems could not be ironed out until mid war, by then it was too late. In Norway 1940 only 4 out of 38 torpedo attacks worked on RN vessels. It was later recognized that the trigger mechanism failed 65% of time. That translates into two dozen more RN warships crippled or sunk by torpedos. Later when combined with Snorkel and Acoustic Torpedo guidance , allied ASW missions become more costly.

The bulk of the German special weapons made famous at the end of the war were in development when the war began. The halt order was reversed after the defeat at Stalingrad, but 3 years had been lost so they could not ready until mid 1945/46. Removing that failed decision pushes all these dates back 2-3 years , resulting in mass production by the end of 1942 and in operational use within a year. So by 1943 they have helicopters [Fl-282] on the warships [Torpedoboot up] for routine OTH scouting and ASW mission , as well as Helicopters in army korps artillery units to control mass fire and fill scout/liaison missions. This helicopter can augment/replace seaplane /liaison planes on the production lines.

The Luftwaffe has 540mph Me-262 Jets to intercept known bomber threat. Historically the UK had no idea of Me-262 until intelligence in mid 1943 reported its development. The Gloster Meteor was developed in reaction to the vulnerability exposed in BoB. So 415mph Meteor would still appear in 1944 and thus offer no improvement over the existing prop driven fighters. By that time the 565mph Me-262 would have been in service for over a year and would have reached more than 300 per month production of the improved models with more reliable engines [100 hours +] . The improved 585mph Meteor version would appear at the end of 1944/45, but at that time the higher thrust 600mph Me-262 version would be in production to as much as 1000 per month .

For the Germans the Me-262 interceptor can replace Me-109 on production lines on a 1:2 basis, while the improved versions of the FW-190 remain as the main tactical fighter. German cities would get ringed by a belt of HS-115 SAMs mounted on converted 88mm Flak Gun carriages making any bombing of Germany and later Europe extremely costly from the end of 1943 on. Redundant 88mm gun production could be converted in to tank guns for greatly expanded Tiger-1 production.

German bomber force would compose of 320-400mph Ju-88 Schnell bombers /night fighters/recon and 300 mph He-177 long range bombers carrying Hs-293 standoff air to surface PGMs , for precision strikes. Combined with the armor piercing Fritz -X anti shipping glide bomb , double their anti shipping kill rates. Augmenting this from 1943 on would be the 2.3 hour endurance , 460mph Ar-234 jet photo recon/bomber.

A year later, follow on technologies would still produce wire guided air to air missiles to protect bombers from enemy fighters [Ru-334] , mounting newly developed proximity fuses. To use on fighters, two seater models are needed , so trainer versions of these fighters could be readily adapted to missile fighter planes. Similar models can be mounted on Stukas [X-4 ATGM] to deliver low level tactical anti tank /light anti shipping strikes.

Light Infantry /paratrooper can carry a mini version of this ATGM for effective tactical precision strikes [X-7 ATGM] . Starting in 1944 these troops can be combined with newly developed large troop carrying Helicopters [Fa-223] to enhance light infantry tactical/operational employment [follow on to Storch troop carrying missions in 1940]. Same large Helicopter can be adapted to weapons carrier to drop D/C in support of larger surface vessels. This helicopter could augment/replace Ju-52 on production lines at that time.

Since allot of the rocketry technology is similar to the Nebelwerfer technology , most of the guided missile industry could be produced by diverting some of that industry. In addition financing/industry for the V-1/2 programs can diverted .

BTW Russian tank production out side of German invasion would not have exceeded 4000-5000 per year as it did in 1940. So rearming the Red Army would take along time. The decision to go to 500 division army only occurred after the German invasion...although the plans to do so were in place before hand.

So by 1943 ,they would have 25,000 tanks, mostly T-34-1940 & T-60/70, since there would be no need for improvements. But likely 1/3 would still be BT-5/7 and some KV-1/II. They might have held on to some of the T-38/40 in reserve to add to Infantry divisions.

[Redbeard]

The decision to go to 500 division army only occurred after the German invasion...although the plans to do so were in place before hand.

So by 1943 ,they would have 25,000 tanks, mostly T-34-1940 & T-60/70, since there would be no need for improvements. But likely 1/3 would still be BT-5/7 and some KV-1/II. They might have held on to some of the T-38/40 in reserve to add to Infantry divisions.

According to David M. Glantz, who certainly can't be called a nazi apologist, the 500 Division plan was in full execution when Hitler invaded.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Matt]

Nazi tech wank plan and simple. The Nazi mentality didn't exactly bred creativity, even during extreme stress of war. If nessescity is the mother of all invention, then the Germans well just continue developing refinements of early war technology.

[Adam]

4: US Invaded

This goes straight into ASB territory. In case ye forgot, there's a thing called the Atlantic Ocean separating both Europe and the Americas, and its pretty wide and dangerous for starts.

[Tom Veil]

The invasion of the U.S. was always an impossibility because of flaws inherent in the Nazi ideology. Compared to virtually every other empire in history, the Germans' ability to recruit non-Germans into their armed forces was pathetic. As a result, their army could not scale up to meet the expanding challenges even as their empire expanded.

[Adam]

*snip ASB Stuff*

You're forgetting that a) Implementing all those projects successfully would bankrupt the German economy b) They would be a major drain on precious German resources c) They still cannot match against the industrial might of the Allies.

[M79]

Nazi tech wank plan and simple. The Nazi mentality didn't exactly bred creativity, even during extreme stress of war. If nessescity is the mother of all invention, then the Germans well just continue developing refinements of early war technology.

Germany had major tech advantages even w/ Nazis out of the equation. They had the guys behind scanning electron microscopes *in the 1930s* among other things, the focus on military technology just bring more things to light. Also, wartime needs caused the horrbile lack of coordination that caused severe inefficiencies in research (there were what, 38 different teams w/ plans for an anti-aircraft fuse?!). Bring Type XXI subs online, improved ASW technology, synthetics that cause less stress over oil supplies, and other stated military improvement, the Germans will cause more bloodshed and might have a crack at uniting Europe.

[Adam]

Germany had major tech advantages even w/ Nazis out of the equation. They had the guys behind scanning electron microscopes *in the 1930s* among other things, the focus on military technology just bring more things to light. Also, wartime needs caused the horrbile lack of coordination that caused severe inefficiencies in research (there were what, 38 different teams w/ plans for an anti-aircraft fuse?!). Bring Type XXI subs online, improved ASW technology, synthetics that cause less stress over oil supplies, and other stated military improvement, the Germans will cause more bloodshed and might have a crack at uniting Europe.

That's Nazi-wank mate. The Allies didn't need to use all those 'fancy' technology because they had the massive industrial advantage. Add to the fact that you had a fascist regime that implemented their genocidal fantasies on the territories they've conquered and a leader who was incompetent in military matters, the scenario of a 'united' Europe under Nazi Germany becomes very, very unlikely.

[rick007]

I saw an ASB episode of Star Trek like this once.:)

[M79]

That's Nazi-wank mate. The Allies didn't need to use all those 'fancy' technology because they had the massive industrial advantage. Add to the fact that you had a fascist regime that implemented their genocidal fantasies on the territories they've conquered and a leader who was incompetent in military matters, the scenario of a 'united' Europe under Nazi Germany becomes very, very unlikely.

I'm not saying this was all Nazis, the tech edge was there arguably before they were. The Allies would have *loved* the tech, they just didn't have it. Certainly the Nazis were psychos, but there were many talented Germans before/during/after that contributed to arguably the strongest scientific/engineering community in Europe. Heck, in some places studying German is still encouraged if one takes certain science majors.

[Cockroach]

I'm not saying this was all Nazis, the tech edge was there arguably before they were. The Allies would have *loved* the tech, they just didn't have it. Certainly the Nazis were psychos, but there were many talented Germans before/during/after that contributed to arguably the strongest scientific/engineering community in Europe. Heck, in some places studying German is still encouraged if one takes certain science majors.
Which elements exactly are you talking about? In fact in most areas the allies had a similar tech level to the Nazis:

The poms had more reliable turbojets, which entered service only slighly later than the Germans... and if the Krauts had got the '-262 into service earlier I don't doubt the Meteor would have been accelerated as well.
The US also developed a variety of glide bombs and guided bombs (http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_04.html)equal to the German developments... again deployed somewhat later than the Germans, but still shows the Germans largely did not have that much of a tech advantage. Of particular note is the USN developed Bat (http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_04.html#m3)- unlike all German weapons it was equiped with a radar based guidance system rather than controlled from the launch plane.
When the allies finally tried they were capable of vuild tanks more than equal to their german oposition see: Comet and Centurion cruiser tanks; M26 Pershing medium tank.So in effect the only areas the Germans had any decsive advantages were long ranged rocketry (V-2) and synthetic fuels (which simply wasn't needed by the allies due to plentiful acess to oil in the USA and in the Middle east).

[Wendell]

This goes straight into ASB territory. In case ye forgot, there's a thing called the Atlantic Ocean separating both Europe and the Americas, and its pretty wide and dangerous for starts.

Why are you expecting Nazis to behave rationally?:confused:

[Adam]

Why are you expecting Nazis to behave rationally?:confused:

Because they don't have the capability mount a transoceanic invasion in the first place?:rolleyes:

[Adam]

I'm not saying this was all Nazis, the tech edge was there arguably before they were. The Allies would have *loved* the tech, they just didn't have it. Certainly the Nazis were psychos, but there were many talented Germans before/during/after that contributed to arguably the strongest scientific/engineering community in Europe. Heck, in some places studying German is still encouraged if one takes certain science majors.

Which becomes irrelevant once Allied Industrial Might was brought to bear.

[backstab]

Which elements exactly are you talking about? In fact in most areas the allies had a similar tech level to the Nazis:

The poms had more reliable turbojets, which entered service only slighly later than the Germans... and if the Krauts had got the '-262 into service earlier I don't doubt the Meteor would have been accelerated as well. ).This maybe true but the Poms did not have good pilots to fly them



The US also developed a variety of glide bombs and guided bombs (http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_04.html)equal to the German developments... again deployed somewhat later than the Germans, but still shows the Germans largely did not have that much of a tech advantage. Of particular note is the USN developed Bat (http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_04.html#m3)- unlike all German weapons it was equiped with a radar based guidance system rather than controlled from the launch plane.

wont argue there.....

When the allies finally tried they were capable of vuild tanks more than equal to their german oposition see: Comet and Centurion cruiser tanks; M26 Pershing medium tank.

These tanks were not equal to the German Panthers/Tigers/King Tigers (Only in mechanical reliability) also again, the allies did not have good enough crew to use them in anything else than mass attacks

[The Dean]

[/list]This maybe true but the Poms did not have good pilots to fly them

That does not even deserve an answer.


[/list]These tanks were not equal to the German Panthers/Tigers/King Tigers (Only in mechanical reliability) also again, the allies did not have good enough crew to use them in anything else than mass attacks

The Centurion tank with the 17lb gun was better armoured, faster and more reliable than any of the German tanks and at had equal firepower to the PAK 88 of the tiger and more than the panthers 75mm. The IDF used Centurion tanks and had nothing but praise for them. Incidentally they met tigers fielded by the Syrians and defeated them.

[Wozza]

[/LIST]This maybe true but the Poms did not have good pilots to fly them

Yes it is well known that British water means that people in the UK have no sense of balance.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Australians living upside down find the whole business much easier. Perhaps you should read about the Battle of Britain. Or even the air battle for Athens in 1941, when the British had 12 planes and the Germans 200. In terms of casualties inflicted the British actually won that battle.



wont argue there.....

Best not, preserve some dignity while you can.

[Wozza]

The Centurion tank with the 17lb gun was better armoured, faster and more reliable than any of the German tanks and at had equal firepower to the PAK 88 of the tiger and more than the panthers 75mm. The IDF used Centurion tanks and had nothing but praise for them. Incidentally they met tigers fielded by the Syrians and defeated them.

I did not know that. Which war?

The Centurion defeated T72s fielded by the Syrians too. The Centurion is a good demonstration of the importance of time in weapons design, and does demonstrate that one of the reasons Britain had designed so many poor tanks for so long was the rushed design.

[Cockroach]

This maybe true but the Poms did not have good pilots to fly them
No that is largely wrong. Perhaps during the latter half of the war the Germans may have had a small advantage in pilot experiance as pilots who bailed out wouldn't be captured and damaged aircraft stood a better chance of limping back to base (as most combat was over German controlled soil).
However take a pilot fresh out of training from either side and they are both likely to be of about the same skill level.
These tanks were not equal to the German Panthers/Tigers/King Tigers (Only in mechanical reliability) also again, the allies did not have good enough crew to use them in anything else than mass attacks
The Centurion and M26 are more than equal to the Panther and Tiger I, but are perhaps inferior to the King Tiger. The Comet is admittadly inferior to all but is still a capable tank.
Also crew quality isn't a problem. Rather the problem is that with Shermans rolling off the production line in massive numbers the allies couldn't bring themselves to put these better tanks into production sooner.

[birdy]

Yes it is well known that British water means that people in the UK have no sense of balance.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.

It could be that he means British Pilots wernt well trained in Jets or something- though if thats the case, the Germans would have that problem too.

btw i have no idea of the skill of RAF Jet Pilots in WW2, only that there better then me:D

[Adam]

It could be that he means British Pilots wernt well trained in Jets or something- though if thats the case, the Germans would have that problem too.

btw i have no idea of the skill of RAF Jet Pilots in WW2, only that there better then me:D

Hell, even Adolf Galland had problems controlling a Me262 when he first flew one.

[The Dean]

I did not know that. Which war?

The Centurion defeated T72s fielded by the Syrians too. The Centurion is a good demonstration of the importance of time in weapons design, and does demonstrate that one of the reasons Britain had designed so many poor tanks for so long was the rushed design.

I saw news footage after Syrian forces pressed a few old tigers into service of their burnt out but recognisable remains. I don't know where they came from, but they would not have been far from Army Group South's theater of action. I can't remember which war it was but I am quite certain I am not imagining it.

[Cockroach]

I saw news footage after Syrian forces pressed a few old tigers into service of their burnt out but recognisable remains. I don't know where they came from, but they would not have been far from Army Group South's theater of action. I can't remember which war it was but I am quite certain I am not imagining it.
Not sure about Tiger tanks but I am 100% certain that the Syrians did make use of Panzerkampfwagon IVs up until at least the mid '60s.

[The Dean]

Not sure about Tiger tanks but I am 100% certain that the Syrians did make use of Panzerkampfwagon IVs up until at least the mid '60s.

That figures the soviets never threw away captured kit and were well prepared to use any NATO kit they might have captured. They even have an example of the Mouse, that most people thought was only a rumour. Syria was on the old lease lend supply route to Russia and the Soviets used it in reverse to supply their middle eastern allies. If Syria used Pk IVs they would not have hesitated to use the far superior tigers.

[Matt]

The Centurion tank with the 17lb gun was better armoured, faster and more reliable than any of the German tanks and at had equal firepower to the PAK 88 of the tiger and more than the panthers 75mm. The IDF used Centurion tanks and had nothing but praise for them. Incidentally they met tigers fielded by the Syrians and defeated them.

Remember the American Pershing too; the Pershing could kill a Panther and Tiger at ranges of 2000m and 1300m respectively, while they could only match it at 600m and 1800m. When the Pershing entered service it was nicknamed the "Panther Killer" after all. All this without the pesky problems of ruptured fuel lines and spontaneously explosive engines that the German tanks were known for from time to time.

[Redbeard]

No that is largely wrong. Perhaps during the latter half of the war the Germans may have had a small advantage in pilot experiance as pilots who bailed out wouldn't be captured and damaged aircraft stood a better chance of limping back to base (as most combat was over German controlled soil).
However take a pilot fresh out of training from either side and they are both likely to be of about the same skill level.

The Centurion and M26 are more than equal to the Panther and Tiger I, but are perhaps inferior to the King Tiger. The Comet is admittadly inferior to all but is still a capable tank.
Also crew quality isn't a problem. Rather the problem is that with Shermans rolling off the production line in massive numbers the allies couldn't bring themselves to put these better tanks into production sooner.

Actually the quality of German pilots declined sharly in late war, as the training schools couldn't follow demand, and anyway had to do with mediocre instructors as the vetarans were left to fall to attrition in the operational squadrons. That proved to be a very short sighted decision compred to the allied practice of withdrawing veretans to train loads of new pilots to a reasonable standard. The huge commonwealth training programme (Imperial something...) was a great success, and alreday by late 1940 demand was basically met.

Regarding tanks I think however that King Tiger was the worst of them all, as its cumbersome size and mechanical unreliability made it close to useless. The M26 wasn't much better in terms of reliability and AFAIK the early Centurions had similar problems, anyway very few if any were in combat.

But a late war Panther G was a splendid tank, and the Comet and Easy Eight Shermans OK too. The Tiger I probably produced the biggest impact per tank ever, only 1500 made and it scared every tanker on allied side.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Calgacus]

I did not know that. Which war?

The Centurion defeated T72s fielded by the Syrians too. The Centurion is a good demonstration of the importance of time in weapons design, and does demonstrate that one of the reasons Britain had designed so many poor tanks for so long was the rushed design.

One reason for this was the effects of the Battle for France. The losses of equipment sustained at Dunkirk meant that a large part of the British Army were underequipped (in summer 1940, I believe there was only one battalion of tanks ready to fight any German invasion) and with deployment in North Africa increasing, the British factories went into overdrive producing already obsolescent and inferior designs that were needed immediately. Only later were resources put into developing improvements on those designs. As you say, it was only in peacetime that Britain was able to perfect a really good tank design.

One wonders what could have been achieved, particularly in the desert war, if we had developed and mass-produced a decent design in 1938/1939...

[Calgacus]

No that is largely wrong. Perhaps during the latter half of the war the Germans may have had a small advantage in pilot experiance as pilots who bailed out wouldn't be captured and damaged aircraft stood a better chance of limping back to base (as most combat was over German controlled soil).
However take a pilot fresh out of training from either side and they are both likely to be of about the same skill level.


As far as I remember, any deficiency in pilot quality in both wars was simply due to number of flying hours clocked up during training. British pilots I think did less than their counterparts, particularly the Canadians, who were very highly valued because of their experience, not to mention the Poles and Czechs.

[Calgacus]

The Centurion tank with the 17lb gun was better armoured, faster and more reliable than any of the German tanks and at had equal firepower to the PAK 88 of the tiger and more than the panthers 75mm. The IDF used Centurion tanks and had nothing but praise for them. Incidentally they met tigers fielded by the Syrians and defeated them.

I know that they used PZIV's as static defence units but I didn't know about the Tigers. Any source for that?

[The Dean]

I know that they used PZIV's as static defence units but I didn't know about the Tigers. Any source for that?

I am trying to remember where I saw that report as I said in my post

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=941535&postcount=44

I think it was a news report or documentary on the Arab/Israeli conflict. I am looking into it, I am sure I got it right.