Deleted member 1487
For what its worth (probably not all that much) my opinion is that the Germans might have been able to delay the Soviets substantially more than they did, but this requires major changes to their economic management. I tend to agree with ObsessedNuker that things like not doing Kursk, etc. is kind of just shuffling the chairs on the Titanic that might help a little, but not much. They need more resources.
Specifically, they need a Soviet style centrally controlled economy emphasizing mass production. In total, their economy (as I understand it) was actually somewhat larger than the Soviets, and they were spending a similar proportion of GDP on the war effort, but they were getting spectacularly little bang for the buck before 1944 because of so many inefficiencies and redundancies. I don't see that they would do this with Hitler in charge during 1941, because ubermensch, but lets say they do it in 1942 once the fighting in Stalingrad bogs down and it is clear they're not getting the oil fields.
For specific weapons, for God's sake, keep the good old Panzer IV, with the L/48 gun as the sole medium tank until 1944, when the Panther's teething problems can be worked out. It's cheap, reliable, and did very well even late in the war. Then ditch the Tiger tank series. Instead, put the 88mm L/71 gun on an assault gun/tank destroyer, using an existing chassis if possible. Put the resources left over, which should be substantial because of how ridiculously complex the Tigers were, into speeding up the Panther. Its not going to win the war, but it might have something of the effect the OP is looking for.
What all of this really brings out is how little chance the Germans had of making Barbarossa or anything like it work in the context of WW2. The Soviets were simply too advanced. Now, if it had been done earlier in the century, things might have been different. Actually, that sounds like an idea for a TL...![]()
The economic issue is heavily muddied by selective stats.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=201813
Basically the USSR had a much smaller economy by 1942 and didn't recover until 1945 parity with Germany; they focused on a few areas of production to the exclusion of all else and by the end of 1942 their economy was at the point of collapse and it was LL that kept them going and allowed them to outsource much of their production to the US, which delivered not only raw materials and high capacity machine tools of cutting edge technology that was massively labor saving, but also high calorie foods, finished products like trucks, tanks, aircraft, engines, ships, etc. while spending billions of 1940 dollars on building up Siberian and Persian infrastructure to make sure they could get LL to the Soviets.
Germany was screwed due to US and UK strategic bombing. After that the invasions they launched; strategic bombing collapsed the German economy and drew in huge elements of production; by late 1941 around 45% of German military spending was dedicated to combating the Allies and by 1942 it had gotten to over 50% and climbed thereafter. By 1942 on average less than 50% of German AFVs were on the Eastern Front, even if they weren't in combat with the Allies, as much of the AFV strength was held back to guard territory against the Wallies and rebuild units at home, as well as keep a reserve. From 1942 on there was never more than 47% of AFV strength deployed against the Soviet. By 1943 60% of the Luftwaffe on average was deployed against the Wallies. It was really the threat of the über-US production that swamped the Axis and destroyed them; there is simply no way to win the war or get a stalemate in the East because of US production and Wallied strategic bombing collapsing the German economy and with it the ability to produce weapons to fight the Soviets and have enough firepower to stop them. Even in the act of trying to stop the Wallies the Axis spent most of its budget on things to fight them, namely air defense. So raw numbers don't really tell the tale of what's going on in the German economy because so much production was lost due to bombing and dispersion of industry, an issue the Soviets didn't have to cope with after 1942. In fact they got external support for their economy from the moment the war started in 1941 in the form first of purchasing from the US and LL from the British and US, as well as the second fronts. By 1943 it was too late, but there were things the Germans could have done differently to hold up the Soviets far better than the did IOTL and inflict a lot more damage while preserving their forces and avoiding the OTL encirclements (Hitler's orders to stand fast were a major help to the Soviets trying to pull of Cauldron battles).
1 on 1 the Germans could have taken the Soviets and won handily, but with the British in the war its impossible for them to pull off a victory during WW2, but they could get a stalemate; with the US as an active belligerent the Axis is toast in the long run without ASB.
Fully agree. On all fronts the Pz IV was more than good enough, required less materials, had an effective gun, and having more of them keeps more men and machines alive, plus ensures that there are replacements and spare parts. I was actually thinking about asking that as a POD and did on another forum only to start a massive pissing match between two guys.For specific weapons, for God's sake, keep the good old Panzer IV, with the L/48 gun as the sole medium tank until 1944, when the Panther's teething problems can be worked out. It's cheap, reliable, and did very well even late in the war. Then ditch the Tiger tank series. Instead, put the 88mm L/71 gun on an assault gun/tank destroyer, using an existing chassis if possible. Put the resources left over, which should be substantial because of how ridiculously complex the Tigers were, into speeding up the Panther. Its not going to win the war, but it might have something of the effect the OP is looking for.
Anyway the 88mm Long was put on the Nashorn, which AFAIK worked pretty well. They just didn't have anywhere near enough of them (only ~350 produced IOTL). The Tiger had its uses, but on balance it would be better just to have more Pz IVs and Nashorns in 1943, with the Panther as the heaviest tank in 1944 (with 60mm frontal armor instead of 80 to keep weight down). Having double the number of Pz IVs and Nashorns in 1943 would make a huge difference. Actually looking at the numbers just in terms of weight alone they could have 2.5 times as many Pz IVs in 1943 if they didn't do the Tigers and Panthers; that's not accounting for economies of scale either, so its probably closer to 3 times.
Last edited by a moderator: