A more capable German military in 1939

The Luftwaffe and radio in Panzers was the main reasons for the domination the Germans had in the Battle of France and in Early Barbarossa. While the Luftwaffe failed at the Battle of Brittian (because Germans planes were designed for close combat support not independent operations) They didn't have a four engine bomer. They massacre the Red Airforce entirely in the first two days of Barbarossa.

What they needed was a gerneric massed produced tank comparable to the T-34 not the countless varients of Pz4s, Panthers, and Tigers. I just don't know how the Germans didn't have the for sight to realize this, especially when the Russians were having success in late 42. I think there ideaology and strategic planning got in the way of their subperb tactical skills. The Soviets put everything they had into fighting the Germans. While the Germans had tons of other silly priorities that could have been put on the back burner until the real threats were taken care of.

Or What if the Panzerfaust and Panzerschrecks were designed and mass produced earlier? I think if the germans had these weapons in mass not just for themselves but especially for the Romanians. If the 2 million or so Romanians that fought in Barbarossa had better training and better arms it could have made the diffrence in the surrounding of Stalingrad.

I guess the reality is that they really had no chance against the Soviet Union. They preformed perfectly for the first few months of the war. They destroyed the Red Airforce completely, they destoryed almost all signifigant military hardware. They had cut off two of the three largest cities. If what they did IRL wasn't enough to knock the Soviets out then I doubt any real scenario can be devised short of ASB. Atleast in a 41 offensive. If they wait a two years and have the subperb Panerschreck and the economical Panzerfaust, along with their rocket program more time to develop. They might have got far enough ahead technoligical to have an even more signifigant advantage.
 
If what they did IRL wasn't enough to knock the Soviets out then I doubt any real scenario can be devised short of ASB. Atleast in a 41 offensive. If they wait a two years and have the subperb Panerschreck and the economical Panzerfaust, along with their rocket program more time to develop. They might have got far enough ahead technoligical to have an even more signifigant advantage.

If Germany had attacked the USSR later it would have been defeated quicker. In 1941 the Red Army was only about halfway completing its reforms and therefore it was kinda chaotic. Somewhere in 1942/1943 those reforms would have been finished. They would have 500 divisions, thousands of T-34s and KV-1s and many planes.If they wanted to win they should have attacked earlier, not later. I guess German superior leadership would compensate slightly. It isn't like the Soviet army leadership was going to get better. With Stalins purges it was likely to get worse. I could see Zhukhov and Konev getting purged. I suppose the German army would be better even without an eastern front. The African campaign already showed that the Panzer IVs gun was insufficient and needed improvement. But in the end I think the Soviets will win because of sheer numbers unless America is neutral and/or Britain has made peace in 1940.

But this is getting off topic. Here are some suggestions about what could improve the wehrmacht.

1) Produce only one tank in large numbers. The Panzer IV could fullfill this task if it is given better armour and a better gun like the KwK 42 75 mm gun which was mounted on the Panther. The Panther could also serve this purpose if they manage to rid it of the bugs that plagued it.

2) Better Lufwaffe. Develop a long ranged four engined heavy bomber to strike deep in Soviet territory. Give the Stuka some more armament. Introduce drop tanks early on. The Bf-109s range was ridiculously low. Introduce radar.

3) As much as I like big battleships and carriers, I think it's better if the Germans postpone those plans and focus on U-boats instead.

4) Switch to war production early on. Hitler forbade it. He said that mass production was good for toasters not for weapons. He eveb forbade the mass production and stockpiling of weapon and ammunition supplies before the war. Many arms manufacturers used any surplus resources they had to produce consumer goods. That's what I call a waste of resources This continued until 1943 when Albert Speer was put in charge of the economy. By then it was too late.
 
Reforms and armaments weren't the Soviets problem. It was tactics and leadership that was gained because of the German invasion. If the Germans don't invade in 1941 I really don't think the Soviets would have faired much better in 1942. But again to assume the Germans wait a whole other year just because they have a bad feeling is about of the same likeliness that the Soviets would be more prepared in 1942. I would argue that having more arms and men at the front would weaken them greater because the ammount of suprise and disorginization the Soviets were hit with in 1941 it wouldn't have matter if the Soviets had 2 times as many men. It would have just been that worse a slaughter.
 
What they needed was a gerneric massed produced tank comparable to the T-34 not the countless varients of Pz4s, Panthers, and Tigers. I just don't know how the Germans didn't have the for sight to realize this, especially when the Russians were having success in late 42. I think there ideaology and strategic planning got in the way of their subperb tactical skills.

quite simply, T-34s and KV-1s were comparable to PZ IV and Pz III, after initial problems and glitches were removed. Plus they had more of them. Therefore Germany had to come with something better rather then keep turning out same old models, something that would offset RA numerical superiority with quantity

The Soviets put everything they had into fighting the Germans. While the Germans had tons of other silly priorities that could have been put on the back burner until the real threats were taken care of.

Of course RA only had to concern itself with winning the war against German army while Germany had to fight RA, keep forces in western Europe to counter expected landings, fight war in Atlantic and fight wallied air forces over Germany. and no lend-lease either


to answer original question, logistics and mechanisation of infantry. More half tracks would allow more infantry to keep up with tanks thus closing the rings around RA faster and more effectively. and logistics would allow units to advance further faster. Of course those extra stuff has to come from somewhere but if resources are concentrated in several divisions it would give better effects. Plus standardisation of truck fleet would go a long way
 
While I agree with many of the commonly expressed points such as standardizing on at most two tank models and getting rid of Goering, I am going to out on the limb and bring up something I've mentioned before.

German army could've used more cavalry divisions.

During Barbarossa they had 1st Cavalry Division plus the SS cavalry brigade. I would submit at least 4 cavalry divisions would've been very useful in Russia where lo and behold there is a lot of things like marsh an dense forests ill suited for mechanized warfare. A corps of 2 cavalry divisions attached to Panzer Group Four could've made a big difference in the attack on Leningrad and even one cavalry division attached to Panzer Group Three could've allowed Hoth to seal the Smolensk pocket.

Interestingly Guderian of all people laments in his memoirs that the Germans were abandoning cavalry divisions and claims he had a ORBAT for those divisions that he since lost.
 
While I'd agree that horse cavalry could have been quite handy, so would plenty of other things. I'd suggest that what Germany needed was ruthless prioritisation, and when stacked up against other things that would take up as many resources as 2-4 cavalry divisions I'd think that cav. divs. would rate pretty low on the priority list.
 
@ Fearless Leader
The greatest asset of the Luftwaffe was its focus on army close support and the priority to divebombing was a direct consequence of that. The divebomber was of great use to the Wehrmacht, but diverting focus to strategic bombers would probably mean the Germans loosing WWII in May or June 1940. Strategic bombers are nothing but a poor substitute for armies in direct contact with the enemy. But a dedicated long range naval patrol and strike aircraft would be handy (the FW 200 was developed from a civilian airliner, and not really up to the job).
...

I was referring more along the lines of the Luftwaffe not insisting that their medium bombers be capable of dive bombing (ie Ju-88) a factor that would increase the quality of their medium bomber force dramatically IMO.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Reforms and armaments weren't the Soviets problem. It was tactics and leadership that was gained because of the German invasion. If the Germans don't invade in 1941 I really don't think the Soviets would have faired much better in 1942. But again to assume the Germans wait a whole other year just because they have a bad feeling is about of the same likeliness that the Soviets would be more prepared in 1942. I would argue that having more arms and men at the front would weaken them greater because the ammount of suprise and disorginization the Soviets were hit with in 1941 it wouldn't have matter if the Soviets had 2 times as many men. It would have just been that worse a slaughter.

The main problem of the 1941 RA was that it was in the middle of both transition and expansion. Most units were much below strength in both men and equipment and the new generation of field and staff officers were either newly promoted or not yet out of the academies. Units at company and battalion level typically fought ferociously (more than the Germans had ever encountered before), but above that level with very little coordination. On top of that Stalin in the days preceeding the invasion refused his commanders to prepare for an attack. All in all this, and especially the un-co-ordinated operations meant disaster against a swift moving enemy like the Wehrmacht.

The units that in OTL started to defy the Wehrmacht in 1942 actually had simpler doctrines and TOE than the pre-war one, because training at staff level still wasn't up to date. When units and staff officers later could be trained more leisurely doctrines and ToE again got more advanced, but more becaise of better training than combat experience.

Combat experience in itself rarely improve an army, but it is a very effective way of identifying where your training is inefficient. The improvement is only reached with extra/new training however.

A careful study of the Winter war vs. Finland will reveal that the Red Army was capable of quickly transforming battlefield experience into better performance - not by reforms or changed doctrines, but by taking your own doctrine and procedures serious at staff level.

In that context I'll claim that a RA left alone until 1942 to complete its expansion and training will perform much better unit for unit than the OTL 1941 one - but be three times as big!

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Redbeard

Banned
A lot of posters have suggested a more standardized German tank production – I doubt that would be possible - I actually think the German tank production was among the most standardized. Try for instance comparing to British production or the many variants of M4s with very different production methods. The main limits on German production was first the limits of peace economy (until 42) and soon after shortage of factories, resources and labour and of course eventually allied bombing too.

Next the continued production of PzIV and various PzIII and Pz38 variations was an ingenious utilization of production lines that couldn’t be used for newer (and heavier) designs. The Hetzer tank destroyer is IMHO the most prominent example.

The PzIII and IV were quite expensive to produce and although the Pz IV underwent many simplifications you would not gain any significant production advantages by not introducing the Pz V Panther – which was optimized for production and only insignificantly more expensive than the Pz IV. I haven’t got the numbers here, put posters much more into the subject over on TankNet have documented it repeatedly.

The PzIV had reached the end of its development potential, for instance its suspension couldn’t carry any more, and redesigning its armour layout would not cost-benefit wise be better than a new design.
A design like the PzVI Tiger was extremely expensive, but considering how much the 1500 produced scared the enemy would appear worth it.

You could ask if the care and finish put into every German product was worth it considering how short it lasted in a combat situation, but the superb finish probably more was a product of craftsmanship than bad management, and anyway it is my impression that all possible corners were cut as the war went on (and skilled labour was replaced by forced).

The megalomania expressed in designs like the Maus sure was a dead end, but after all only took limited resources. The Pz VI King Tiger took up the scary effect of the “Diet Tiger”, but IMHO went too far into the dead end of little tactical value as few bridges could carry them. But again, by the time of the King Tiger, the war was lost anyway.

Of equipment improvements an earlier acknowledgement of the needs of Blitzkrieg could have been interesting. Could have produced thinks like an infantry fighting vehicle (a la Bradly, BMP, Marder) or earlier heavily armoured CAS planes like the HS 129 or Ju87D-3/G, or earlier SP artillery.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

burmafrd

Banned
JU-87 carrying 4000lbs?
OK- so what was its range with that much.
The B-17 could TECHNICALY carry 17,000 lbs of bombs in its bomb bay.
 

Redbeard

Banned
JU-87 carrying 4000lbs?
OK- so what was its range with that much.
The B-17 could TECHNICALY carry 17,000 lbs of bombs in its bomb bay.

AFAIK the Ju-87 D3 had a range of appr. 1100 km with standard load of 1000 kg of bombs and carrying the 1800kg bomb required that the gunner was omitted and probably meant much shorter range too (half fuel load?). Anyway for CAS planes range is much less critical than for naval planes, where it is crucial.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
To get combat radius for land planes in WW2 divide the range by 3, and naval planes by 4 and you'll get an approximate figure. But there are millions of exception to this rule, but all in all over time it is reasonably close. So the said Stuka would have a combat radius of 350km for example.
 
German radar and other electronics seem to have been under-appreciated early on. I'd like to see a well thought out and practiced pathfinder unit by the BoB, Kg 100 comes close but their target making etc left a bit to be desired. Similarly I would like to see and earlier and better Kamhuber line, with a lot of the refinments of the RAF system. Indeed with a good fighter control system the Germans would be in an excellent position because their radars were better in 1939-40.
 
Or What if the Panzerfaust and Panzerschrecks were designed and mass produced earlier? I think if the germans had these weapons in mass not just for themselves but especially for the Romanians. If the 2 million or so Romanians that fought in Barbarossa had better training and better arms it could have made the diffrence in the surrounding of Stalingrad.

I guess the reality is that they really had no chance against the Soviet Union. They preformed perfectly for the first few months of the war. They destroyed the Red Airforce completely, they destoryed almost all signifigant military hardware. They had cut off two of the three largest cities. If what they did IRL wasn't enough to knock the Soviets out then I doubt any real scenario can be devised short of ASB. Atleast in a 41 offensive. If they wait a two years and have the subperb Panerschreck and the economical Panzerfaust, along with their rocket program more time to develop. They might have got far enough ahead technoligical to have an even more signifigant advantage.

The Panzerfaust (or at least a German shaped charge weapon) was already being produced in 1942 as the Faustpatrone Klein, 30mm. This was the forerunner of the Panzerfaust, but it had such a weirdly shaped warhead that it bounced off T-34 armor. It also didn't have a sighting device (however primitive) and they only began to realize this when already 20,000 had been ordered and 500 delivered. IMO it's plausible that the Germans develop this faster, seeing that the Panzerbuchse AT-rifle was below adequate.

No chance? It's not as bad as that. Remember the Germans reached unprecedented distances penetrating the Soviet Union. The Germans crushing the SU is not so likely, but I wouldn't call it ASB.

And the Germans invading the SU earlier is not going to improve their performance in any significant way. The Luftwaffe wouldn't have the time to prepare all those forward airfields and the May season brings a lot of showers. The river Bug overflowed in May.
 
Retractable Stuka landing gear maybe will improve the plane speed? It also can be fitted for carrier usage if I am not mistaken.

Put Manstein in charge of the Eastern Front, Rommel in Western Front. Don't help the Italian in Balkan, focus on Stalingrad or Caucasus instead of diversing the force. Let Hitler commander take care the fighting matter, give them free movement instead of "no retreat" order.
 
Retractable Stuka landing gear maybe will improve the plane speed? It also can be fitted for carrier usage if I am not mistaken.

Put Manstein in charge of the Eastern Front, Rommel in Western Front. Don't help the Italian in Balkan, focus on Stalingrad or Caucasus instead of diversing the force. Let Hitler commander take care the fighting matter, give them free movement instead of "no retreat" order.

Well, yes, that's the History Channel assessment.

Except.

If you don't help Italy, then Italy loses in Greece, and the British promptly rush in to shore up the place. That alienates the Italians, weakens Mussolini's hold on his own country, threatens the entire region of the Balkans - from which Germany supported its economy and division count in OTL, and (critically) leaves British bombers in easy range of the Romanian Oil Fields.

If you focus on Stalingrad or the Caucasus, you just succeed in exposing more of your flank to the Russians. Furthermore, by stripping other fronts, you'd almost be guaranteeing Russian breakthroughs further north. Even if you take the Caucasus, the Russians had already moved their oil facilities across the Caspian to Turkmenistan, so you aren't hurting them. Much of the Baku infrastructure would have been destroyed, so Germany's not benefiting much, and what oil you can get can't be shipped back to Central Europe without further taxing already awful supply lines. And then everyone in the Caucasus is trapped when the Russians break through to the Black Sea.

If Hitler doesn't give any "no retreat" orders, the first result is a disaster, because the first time he did it the retreat would have allowed substantial German forces to be pocketed and destroyed.
 
What about a more capable Kreigsmarine? A bit more uboat production, better ships designs for surface warships and accelerated building schedules, a practice carrier before the war to create an FAA, operational control of LRMP sqns.
 
Top