What are plausible decisions Nazi Germany could have made to improve their performance in the War?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Maybe a modular tank/vehicle program not unlike the 'E' system proposed much later with standardized parts to the greatest possible extent for just about everything motorized.
Pretty much this.

Settle on a design, even a design family, and simply incrementally improve on it rather than having the Pz IV (they built almost 50% more Pz IV in 1944 than Panthers), Pz V (Panther) and Pz 6 (Tiger) AND Pz 6B (Tiger II) in production AT THE SAME TIME along with assault gun versions of all of these chassis.

Just think of the logistical nightmare this presented, now add in the fact that Heer logistics were primarily reliant on horse-drawn wagon throughout the war.
 

thaddeus

Donor
Is their any other way? Like, are their other options for Germany to keep a semi alliance with the Soviets?

well, my points were they needed a different M-R Pact that does not leave they in total dependency on the USSR, that as much as any other reason forced their invasion.
 
well, my points were they needed a different M-R Pact that does not leave they in total dependency on the USSR, that as much as any other reason forced their invasion.
Oh yeah, definetely. Maybe they could establish a Pact which involves an alliance similar to what the Western Allies and the Soviet Union had in OTL, so basically, putting their ideological differences aside to battle a common threat to Fascism AND Communism.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
 
Settle on a design, even a design family, and simply incrementally improve on it rather than having the Pz IV (they built almost 50% more Pz IV in 1944 than Panthers), Pz V (Panther) and Pz 6 (Tiger) AND Pz 6B (Tiger II) in production AT THE SAME TIME along with assault gun versions of all of these chassis.
If having multiple models is a worse option than sticking with one design why did the Reich do it?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If having multiple models is a worse option than sticking with one design why did the Reich do it?
It wasn't simply having more than one model, it was having eight different models, all in production at the same time, many of which duplicated the mission of one or more models. As an example the Pz IV was literally still in production until the Allies overran the factories where they were being built in 1945 (for that matter the Reich was still building Pz III in 1943) despite being obsolescent.

As to why? Internal politics, inefficiencies in production methods that gummed up different production lines, and Hitler's severe case of "oooh, shiny" whenever he was shown something he liked.

German production was a nightmare. Forget about the pounding it constantly received by the CBO, it never approached anything like proper mass production, none of their primary panzer designs ever broke 10,000 units. As a counterpoint look at the Soviet; built 35,000 T-34/76 and then added another 45,000 upgraded T-34/85. As the war progress the Soviets didn't stop making the T-34, they built in improvements, that allowed them to keep up production while keeping the vehicle up to date (the U.S. did much the same with the Sherman, allowing the U.S. to produce nearly 50,000 of them). The Reich tended to do this with everything, aircraft were another nightmare, but the tanks are the absolute poster child for this hare-brained policy.
 
If having multiple models is a worse option than sticking with one design why did the Reich do it?

Reich was also run by humans (bad as they were) and humans make mistakes; no factory can switch between models by snapping the fingers; a factory that can make 25ton tanks might not be well suited to make 45 ton tanks, let alone 60+ ton tanks.
 
Last edited:
Some improvements Germans can do to their hardware - let's say they take a long & hard look at what they have now and what could be useful if the war prolongs from expected months into years. I will not add much, if anything, on the Kriegsmarine gear, there is a lot of people in the forum that are actually knowledgable in that field.
Delete the V2 program.
Luftwaffe: Outfit the V1 with radio-goniometer so it can home on radar stations. Same homing system install on free-fall bombs.
Trim down production of Bf 110, so you can ramp up production of Bf 109s without engines being that much of chokepoint; cancel the Me 210 and He 177 program. Bf 109 gets the drop tank installation at least 6 months earlier than it was historically so; try to make 90 rd drum for the MG FF(M) ASAP. Focke Wulf gets a contract to make prototype(s) of Fw 190 with DB 601 engine ASAP. Issue request for proposal for jet aircraft - 1-engined fighter, 2-engined multirole. Ju 288 remains not big, BMW 801 engines for it. Have Heinkel make He 219 as a bomber, not as a night-fighter.
Aero engine situation: once BMW 801C/D is working well, go with the 801E version (has a better supercharger). DB 601 and Jumo 211 with 2-stage supercharger. After that, only jets.
Guns for aircraft: belt-fed MG FFM (can go to a place where the MG 151/20 might not fit, like the outer wing position of the Bf 109; much lighter and with lighter ammo than MG 151/20); MG 151 as per OTL; a 'big MG FFM' at 25-30 mm of 50-70 kg and 700 m/s; tank busting guns.
AA defence: introduce 30mm AA gun ASAP, start thinking about proximity fuses and AA missiles.
Tanks: 40 tons is the limit past 1940.
Infatry armament: the 7.92 Kurz is excellent idea, don't stop with just assault gun with it, make the cartridge and weapons for it ASAP.
 
Some improvements Germans can do to their hardware - let's say they take a long & hard look at what they have now and what could be useful if the war prolongs from expected months into years. I will not add much, if anything, on the Kriegsmarine gear, there is a lot of people in the forum that are actually knowledgable in that field.
Delete the V2 program.
Luftwaffe: Outfit the V1 with radio-goniometer so it can home on radar stations. Same homing system install on free-fall bombs.
Trim down production of Bf 110, so you can ramp up production of Bf 109s without engines being that much of chokepoint; cancel the Me 210 and He 177 program. Bf 109 gets the drop tank installation at least 6 months earlier than it was historically so; try to make 90 rd drum for the MG FF(M) ASAP. Focke Wulf gets a contract to make prototype(s) of Fw 190 with DB 601 engine ASAP. Issue request for proposal for jet aircraft - 1-engined fighter, 2-engined multirole. Ju 288 remains not big, BMW 801 engines for it. Have Heinkel make He 219 as a bomber, not as a night-fighter.
Aero engine situation: once BMW 801C/D is working well, go with the 801E version (has a better supercharger). DB 601 and Jumo 211 with 2-stage supercharger. After that, only jets.
Guns for aircraft: belt-fed MG FFM (can go to a place where the MG 151/20 might not fit, like the outer wing position of the Bf 109; much lighter and with lighter ammo than MG 151/20); MG 151 as per OTL; a 'big MG FFM' at 25-30 mm of 50-70 kg and 700 m/s; tank busting guns.
AA defence: introduce 30mm AA gun ASAP, start thinking about proximity fuses and AA missiles.
Tanks: 40 tons is the limit past 1940.
Infatry armament: the 7.92 Kurz is excellent idea, don't stop with just assault gun with it, make the cartridge and weapons for it ASAP.
Not bad! How would you change things strategetically?
 
Yeah, sure!
Declare victory after the Polish campaign. Punish any individuals who were involved in "wrong doings", war crimes etc.. during the Polish Campaign. Treat Poland and its inhabitants as per international law and invite outside observers to verify this.

Make public peace offerings to the Allies and hope they don't have the stomach to invade Germany. If (or much more likely when) the Allies launch a seemingly successful invasion of Germany depose the Nazi regime and ask for terms.
 
Last edited:
The most obvious thing would be to plan for a multiyear campaign in Russia.

Measured, achievable goals for year 1 with planning for winter, consolidation and improvement of the rail network of their rear area, more motorization of the army before the campaign, an earlier adoption of the Kampfgruppe system for defensive purposes at the tactical level and the backhand blow at the strategic level, etc.

A bigger focus on the Northern front for the year 2 offensive would help, with tactical and limited offensives in the South. Getting fullblown Finnish participation in the Leningrad and Murmansk areas would help.

Selling a multiyear war in Russia I think would be doable to Hitler. He conceived of the war as a civilizational level struggle against JudeoBolshevism. Winning, even at the cost of patience, would be able to be sold to him.

But the logistical messes cannot be fixed by an earlier Speer miracle. You would need German industrial practices after WW1 to be very different. And German economic mobilization needed to have less inefficiency, even at the cost of regime popularity increasing measures.
 
Last edited:
If having multiple models is a worse option than sticking with one design why did the Reich do it?
One thing to understand is that despite the much vaunted "efficiency" of fascist states the reality was the exact opposite. It was an incredibly inefficient system, with incompetence built into the economy and rife with corruption, to the point it can hardly even be called corruption rather than just a built-in way that the economy was supposed to function. Enriching the highest party officials and the wealthy industrialists was the way everything was supposed to work. And as such making things less messed up results in less profits for the people important for people making the decisions.

To put this into perspective, in 1940 Britain outproduced Germany in everything from tanks to planes, with the only exception being small arms. This despite the British economy being smaller.

There was some of this in all of the WWII powers of course, but the Nazis had it worst.

Who is going to pay for that (in whatever resources), especially with another 2 fronts still active?

The obvious way is not to get involved in North Africa. Ever. Under ANY circumstances. The entire campaign is a horrible waste of resources, that cannot end well for Germany. Even ignoring the problems with supplying armies in the desert the reality was that even with victory in Egypt nothing changes. They gain nothing beyond territory that needs to be garrisoned and supplied, and can only be held with significant difficulty, against an enemy who has a vastly easier time doing both.
 

marathag

Banned
Just because of that? No.
Declare Peace, and move on.
No BoB, call the U-boats back to base and then short patrols, with order thst only warships are to be attacked, if past some yet to be declared line.

This should keep the USA out of the War..let them ship goods to the UK, it's not like they will invade on their own.
 
Well, I have some scenarios in mind:

1) Get bold (more lol) at the Munich Agreement and flatout tell Chamberlian that Germany's ambition is to regain everything lost in Versailles minus Alsace-Lorraine (this one being excempt because it would never get accepted). You see, most of the West saw Germany as having the right to reclaim what was lost to Versailled, what really turned everyone against Germany was no the annexations themselves, but Hitler repeteadly going against his own word and violating international agreements. It is a long shot, but if the UK agrees to some sort of plan that they will keep themselves out of war if Germany only limits itself to Versailles gains then likely Germany can invade the Sudeteland and then Danzig with impunity. OTL Germany got a "free" invasion card when they invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia and got away with it until he broke its word once again and invaded Poland. Taking this in consideration, Germany can likely invade Czechoslovakia and then the USSR withut war in the West. Without the looting of France Germany would be weaker but so would the USSR and a 1 front war would help tremendously.

2) Similar to 1. Reach the original Munich agreement and respect Czechoslovakia, there was important industry and gold there, but going by some comments in a thread where this was discussed, the Czech government was already a quasi puppet to Germany and what they asked they got. Then use your "free invasion without war" card and attack Poland instead. The allies will be mad, but just like OTL they will not go to war. Then invade the USSR, the allies are not going to go to war over protecting the USSR, no way. One of their dream scenarios was to have the USSR and Germany duke it out and destroy themselves in the process. Hitler can invade the USSR now in 1939 or 1940. Again, without Czech industry (unless Germany can bully them into becoming an ally) and France looting Germany is weaker than OTL, but so is the USSR which went through the purges and having just a 1 front war would help a lot.

3) Go as OTL, with the exception you capture the British Army at Dunkirk. Then sue for peace publicily and officially. Churchill was already under tremendous pressure to agree to peace as it was, it was a very close call with Churchill having to promise Halifax scenarios in which he would agree to peace. A disaster at Dunkirk can likely shift the situation. Almost guarantee to succeed, if not just give generous enough peace terms until Britain agrees.

4) If things go per OTL and you can't crush Dunkirk, then offer Britain in a very public an official way that you will be withdrawing from everywhere minus Poland in exchange for peace. Harder to achieve without the Dunkirk card, but there is a shot it would work.

5) Accept the USSR into the Axis, shift Lebensraum to Africa instead. Stalin got very close to joining the Axis, he actually made a final proposal to do so, which Hitler alone vetoed against the advice of nearly everyone:


Give Stalin as a condition to join the Axis to declare war on Britain. A huge chank the sinks Britain's morale, fighting a Germany that controls everything from Calais to the Warsaw was already a daunting proposal. Having your only continental ally join your enemy, and now face a combined enemy that holds land from Calais to freaking Vladivostok would simply look impossible, even Roosevelt would likely begin sweating at the prospect of entering the war. If the UK refuse to make peace, then just pummel it in the Mediterranean until they agree or just fight a defensive war and keep killing British military and shooting down planes until they get tired. They will eventually HAVE to come to terms. This is in my opinion the 1 war winning strategy Germany could had, used that gives him a guaranteed victory.

6) If you must go for a 2 front war, then end the war quickly. There is evidence, albeit not very good that in 1941 Stalin was willing to come to terms with a Brest Litovsk style peace. Hitler of course would have nothing else but A-A line or the Urals. If Hitler or the military can appreciate just how bad the situation in the USSR can get, when you are rampaging through the USSR sue Stalin for peace with Brest Litovsk terms. While not guaranteed, there is a good chance he would accept. The effect of this would also be that it would cause a shock at Britain and worldwide, while Germany dodged a bullet, it would look to everyone that Germany defeated the USSR in less than 3 months (even less time that Hitler anticipated). It would look like a Battle of France victory on steroids. Now Britain's only potential ally on the continent has been crushed, Germany took out with utter ease 2 out of the 3 powers that could oppose it aside the USA. Sue for peace with Britain, if they refuse just fight a defensive war until they come to terms. To me this scenario is the second most likely victory chance for Germany.

7) Bomb and mine British ports in particular Liverpool. I am not really informed on the chances of this strategy, but I have seen it posted here as a way Germany could had used to defeat the UK.

8) Follow a Mediterranean strategy against Britain and scrap Barbarossa. Not sure how well this would work, but I think it has good chances of working.

9) Starve the USSR into submission. Again, I don't know how plausible is this, but I have seen people here claim that Germany OTL plummeted food production in the USSR by occupying some of its richest farmlands, and that had Germany just kept the occupation in those areas longer (the Kuban region I think) the USSR would had eventually starved out and be forced to give Hitler what he wants.

In all scenarios apply the rule: Avoid war with the USA at all costs.
 
Last edited:
Top