Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

How Germany could've won?

Discussion in 'Alternate History' started by Jborgen, May 5, 2011.

  1. Jadgermeister

    Jadgermeister Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    3
    The accounts of quality issues are vastly overblown. Reliability was on par with most equivalent allied weapons, that is, when they had spare parts they were just as reliable.
     
  2. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    The danger is that the story of the Slave Labourers will become a myth and its importance increasing by every post .
    Some figures (source :the wages of destruction)
    Spring 1941 :1.2 POW + 1.3 million civilians (mainly Poles),constituting 8.5 % of the German Workforce
    1-1-1942 :were added :1 million Poles
    1-7-1943:6.5 million :1.5 million POW and 5 million of civilians
    1-1-1944 :7.4 million =20 % of the workforce
    The big increase was between 1942-1943 :the Sauckel Program .
    But,what is missing,is the not negligible number of volunteers :in Belgium ,more than 58000.
    About the "efficiency",
    a snapshot in november 1942 (for Krupp) suggested the following :
    French civilians (slave or volunteer ?) ,French POW and East European women underperformed the Germans by 15-30 %.
    Male workers from East Europe by 43 %
    Russian POW by 58 %.
    Source :the Wages of destruction .
     
  3. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    Do you have any sources on that? Especially late war? From what I've read there were very real and noticable issues in this regard late war.
     
  4. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,543
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Location:
    Alabama
    Anecdotal comment on the reliability of German armaments late in the war.

    My friend, Old Hickory, related to me the story of his recon troop crossing the Rhine. After they were on the east bank, they stopped to wait on orders. Three artillery shells landed practically on top them and buried themselves in the soft ground without exploding. One was only about 10 feet from him. If any one them had detonated, he would have been wounded seriously or killed. He thought that they were probably 105mm, but he chose not to examine them too closely. They moved away from that spot, lest some good shells happen to land on them.
     
  5. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,793
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Obviously their accuracy of German gunners and expertise of German spotters didn't decline late in the war through attrition.
     
  6. Gunney

    Gunney Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    8
    Germany could have won if they had focused on one tank model and upgraded when it was possible, the preferable model they should have stayed with was the Panther model and just went from there, fitting new armour Weapons and engines when need
     
  7. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    Why do you think this ? I am very curious.
     
  8. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Location:
    God's Country
    I see three problems with this. First, no mater how many and how good a tank the Germans built, as long as they didn't have air superiority they were doomed to eventually lose. Aircraft are very effective tank killers. Second, it doesn't matter what type of tank the Germans built or how many, without adequate logistical support they're pill boxes. Germany should have focused more on this area, but it would have only delayed their surrender. Third, as soon as the atomic bombs were ready, Germany would have been done. Had they managed to hold out a few more months, the mushroom clouds would be what signaled the end of the Third Reich. So no, in my opinion, a single tank tyoe would not have changed the outcome.
     
    von Poop and A-58 like this.
  9. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    There there guys lets not all jump the newby all at once :D

    Welcome Gunney.
     
  10. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Location:
    God's Country
    I second Sloniksp's welcome. Welcome Gunney. I also didn't intend for my post to have a tone that appeared I was jumping on him. If it did Gunney, I assure you it wasn't meant to be mean spirited.
     
  11. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,793
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Don't mind him Gunney, he's just sucking up....

    Really though, it was "game over" for the Germans once the US got into the game with the a-bombs.
     
  12. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    289
    That was the finally "Game Over"! The "normal Game Over" happened in June 44. They had not a two front war, they had a All Front War and what they did to 1945 was only cleaning up the stocks.
     
    A-58 likes this.
  13. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Location:
    God's Country
    Yeah, and pretty darned good at it too....aint I! :eyebrows:

    Seriously, a long time ago I was in a discussion with someone and it started to devolve into a pissin' contest. I thought my initial reply had been cordial and concise. The other poster thought it was aggressive and mean. Brad contacted me by P.M. and let me know I had come across, in his words "as a di*k". I apologized, the discussion continued, the other poster understood what I was trying to say, and we became friends and have had many another worthwhile discussion. Ever since then if something I post appears to have come across in a tone other than what I intended, I clarify. (doesn't happen often) If I did intend the post to be aggressive because the other poster was a troll, idiot or a-hole, no clarification, game on!
     
    A-58 likes this.
  14. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    Actually they weren't all that good at in WWII from what I've read at least as far as getting direct kills.
     
  15. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    By the time they had Panthers the war was pretty well lost. It would probably have helped if they hadn't built some of the more extreme prototypes but I can't see it helping that much. I'm also not sure that most of their tank plants could handle Panthers. I think that's whey they continued with some of the earlier models.
     
  16. chris the cheese

    chris the cheese Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not when Germany made the rather foolish error of invading the Soviet Union too late in the year? Or when the Wehrmacht failed to capture Moscow? Or when the Navy failed to prevent the US supplying the USSR in vast quantities from 1943 onwards? Or when the Wehrmacht was defeated, and haemmoraged vast resources, at Stalingrad?

    I would argue that Germany was long beaten before 1945.
     
  17. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    What post was this in reference to?
     
  18. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    hm,these are all debatable statements.
    Very short reply (it is all of topic)
    1)That the date of 22 june was to late,maybe,but,untill today there is no proof that an earlier date was possible
    2) It never has been proved that the fall of Moscow would decide the war in the eastIMHO,the decision fell in the summer)
    3)I think that you are overestimating the importance of Lend-Lease,and,as only a minority was going via Archangelsk,there was no failure of the German navy
    4)Stalingrad :the last decennia,it has been proved that the German defeat at Stalingrad never was decisive,and that a German victory also never would be decisive.
    But all these things already have been debated .
     
  19. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Location:
    God's Country
    Or was the mistake invading the Soviet Union at all?

    LJAd wrote:
    I would say that "proved" is going a bit far. Perhaps, to say that during the last decade, the theory that the defeat of Germany at Stalingrad was not decisive, has gained gained support, would be more accurate. I don't buy it though. How can anyone say with certainty, what the effect on each sides morale would have been? Would a Soviet defeat, have not further eroded morale amongst the rank and file Soviet soldier? Victory definately helped Soviet morale and helped lay to rest the myth of German invincibility. I don't see how anyone can argue that the loss of more than 3/4's of a million men (German, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian) wouldn't have a pronounced effect on the Axis forces campaign on the Eastern Front. It is almost certain that the allocation of Luftwaffe assets, aircraft and more importantly fuel, to Stalingrad had a detrimental effect on German operations theater wide.

    As for the German Navy, I've always considered them with the exception of the U-boats, really a non-factor. No more than a nuisance.
     
  20. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    "Or was the mistake invading the SU at all"?That's totally of topic,but,IMHO,the Germans had no alternative in june 1941 .
    About Stalingrad :from a military POV,the fall of Stalingrad would have nothing,because,east of the Volga,there was nothing valuable ,and,the main objective of Fall Blau was the Caucasus,and,in september 1942,it was obvious that AGA already had failed .
    If we are talking on manpower,Stalingrad was a big blow for the Germans,but,it did not prevent a German strength in july 1943 (immediately before Citadelle)of 3.1 million men on the East Front,the biggest strength the Germans had since the beginning of the war .
    About the Russian morale,this only is speculation ,I could reply that in 1941,the Russian morale never collapsed,even after the fall of Kiew (and,IMHO,Kiew was more important for the average Russian than Stalingrad .
    About the 750000 Axis losses(a much cited figure),while this is not the place to split hairs,I will give here the official German figures(from july till december included),and you will see that I have some objections .
    These figures are combat losses only (no sickness or accidents),thus KIA,WIA and MIA,for the army and WSS.To facilate the reading,I am giving roughly figures.
    july :AGN:15000,AGC:23000,AGS :57000
    august :AGN:26000,AGC :71000,AG A:17000,AGB :48000
    september:AGN:38000,AGC:28000,AGA:21000,AGB:43000,
    october:AGN:16000,AGC:17000,AGA:18000,AGB:22000
    november:AGN:10000,AGC:12000,AGA:13000,AGB:11000
    december:AGN:16000,AGC:33000,AGA:8000,AGB:27000
    2 comments :
    1)If one is comparing the losses of AGN and AGC (305000) with those of AGS (later A and B)(285000),one will see that in the second half of 1942,there was bitter fighting on the whole front ,which later was overshadowed by Stalingrad .This bitter fighting (the transport of the 11th army to Leningrad was preventing a catastrophe) is ,IMHO,proving that the Red Army was already much stronger than the Germans.
    2) If one is counting the losses of AGB(151000) and adding the half of the losses of AGS from july,(29000) + 200000 who were encircled in november,the total for the Germans is 380OOO.That would mean that the losses for the German allies also was 380000.IMHO,this is to big .
     

Share This Page