What did Germany need to win the war?

Germany from a reality view point is just fouled up on so many levels and in so many different areas changing a few probably would have really done little to change the outcome of the war.
Some of the "tweaks" suggest in the last page or two of the thread really just pale in insignificance as possiblities too. Suggesting that reequipping with a new small arm for example (the SG 43/44) would have some strategically significant impact is just wrong. This would have changed nothing above the most tactical level of combat and even then little at that level. A different tank or one that is modified from historical models? Insignificant.

Changing strategy or grand strategy would have an impact. This means Hitler and the OKW devise a different course for the war than happened historically. This could have significant impact. For example, if Hitler put his plans for eastern expansion on hold until the war with Britain was resolved fully after France fell. This might have resulted in a war winning scenario. At sea the Germans were finished. Introducing even the Type XXI earlier doesn't change this. Germany is not going to be able to have a large standing army and a navy capable of challenging the Royal Navy at the same time.

Helping the historical course of the war would have been a far more rational approach to development and production of war material. Along with this a far greater appreciation for civil engineering would have helped too.
In war production the fact that military officers without manufacturing experiance and background were responsible for design and production decisions was bordering on idiotic. The plethoria of vehicle designs and constant modifications, many of minor significance, killed efficent production. Yet, these officers continued to make such changes right up through 1945. This goes for everything from tanks to aircraft to artillery and beyond.
Once the war started it was also myopic for German industry to continue propriortary practices they had in peacetime. That is, some manufacturers continued to develop private projects as well as military sanctioned ones. Manufacturers also were reluctant to subcontract production outside of their own plants for their designs. Henkel for example scrapped plans to build 300 He 280 in early 1943 on the basis of no production space. But, the RLM never entertained the idea of having another manufacturer do the work.
In civil engineering I've already suggested mechanization on a far greater degree. If each panzer battalion had just three or four tanks equipped with a bulldozer blade think of the advantages. Or, having one or two vehicles with a crane with a bucket option for digging. Having mechanized engineer battalions equipped with dump trucks versus regular ones. That sort of thing.
Such equipment made a huge difference for the US Army in the field. In Russia it would have been the difference between being unable to move because of poor or non-existant roads and having mobility. Just the reduced wear on supply trucks through better roads would have paid rich dividends.

Optimizing railroad operations would have helped immensely.

The Germans did try and expand oil production. They might have also tried to optimize much of their motor vehicle production towards more economic / better gas milage vehicles. Just upping the milage of a truck by 2 miles a gallon makes a big difference when you have several thousand trucks running a supply line 50 miles long (in this case let's say from 8 miles a gallon to 10.... or about 2 gallons per vehicle per round trip for say 2000 gallons a day savings). This could have easily been achieved by things like slightly improved engine performance, reducing vehicle weight, and small tire and suspension improvements.

Giving the infantry assault rifles? No significant impact. A better fighter design? Short term help at best.

 

:lol:
if u want to understand the nazi u got to switch yr brain off. thinking in terms of rationality will bring u nowhere.

 

. . .That is an all encompassing question! Here are my thoughts:

1. Hitler never needed to declare war on the U.S. right after Pearl!
He should have just let things lie. It is possible that the U.S. would
have turned all their attention to Japan. . .even for a month or two!

2. In preparing for war in 1936 to mid 1939, realize the need for a heavy
bomber, and that although not required for knocking out Poland,
would be absolutely necessary in handling Britain and especially the
Soviet Union. Those Heinkel 111's, Do 17 & 217's and Junkers did not
do the trick in efficient bombing.

3. Bad decision to "hold up" at Dunquerke.

4. Battle of Britain - Goering made multiple blunders here:

a. Had to stay on task of taking out radar stations and airfields
b. Fighters should have been permitted to freijagd (free fighter
sweeps) to crush RAF resistance.
c. Actual total air superiority did not have to be obtained in order to
commence Operation Sea Lion. Casualties would have been absorbed,
but I think most of us agree that Hitler would have been successful.

5. Attacking the Soviet Union at this point to open a two front war
was probably his most costly military mistake.

6. Hitler's inability to look at the "big picture" in realizing the importance
of his wonder weapons. He could have had the Me-262 a full year
earlier had he not mandated that it only be used as a Blitz Bomber.
They needed fighters at that time, not bombers.

7. Germany had many very capable Generals who very well could have
made many "correct necessary decisions". However, Hitler intimidated
all of them and totally suppressed all ability for his Generals to act on
the site of the battle to make these necessary evaluations. (Could
you imagine if Rommel could have had his tank reserves rumble into
Normandy about 8:00 am on the morning of June 6th. . .???!!!)

Love this thread. . .

Mike

 

I am currently reading Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, it is an in depth study on Hitler and the Nazi Regime from a journalist who was in Berlin while all this was going on, until America entered the war that is. Shirer makes it clear that Hitler never intended on invading Britain, and only started considered seriously doing it in November 1940, but both the Army and the Navy were not enthusiastic about it, and both said complete air superiority must be maintained. Could it have been done? I think early on if Hitler had destroyed the forces at Dunkirk with his Panzer divisions and done an immediate invasion while the world was still stunned he might have gotten away with it, but he waited and waited and even when Air superiority was almost there, he switched targets to a stationary target, so the RAF knew exactly where the bombers were going, hoping to get the public to rise up against Churchhill and demand peace. This was of course foolish and even if Hitler had took the Isles, how could Hitler have maintained supply to them and stop constant invasion attempts without some defense against the British Navy.

 

There are volumes written about the German war economy and I was stating that there was more to it than simply "make more". There are many aspects to numerous to mention and on many different levels. Once on a wartime production economy, one "level" is the fact that their models tended to be complicated to produce and once in the field - maintain. They also tended to have many variants which again makes it difficult on production.

 

Reading through all this suggests that what was needed for Germany to win was more weak enemy leaders. France and Belgium asked for armistice terms after a few weeks in the misguided hope of saving their population from increased hardship. Other governments like Poland, Holland, Britian, & the USSR choose to continue fighting. Had a less aggresive British Leader like Halifax been the PM in July 1940 its is likely Britian would have asked for a armistice, and later negotiated a peace. Similarly had Stalin & company, or weaker leaders, fled to Siberia in December 1941 abandoning their armys Soviet resistance would have disintigrated. Both a British peace and a Soviet abandonment would have made things much easier for the nazis. Even a isolationist US government that would fail to support Britian would been helpfull.

Of course the worst case situation would have been French and British leaders so frightned they would not even support Poland. Allowing the Germans to conquor all of the Slavic peoples and extend a empire to the Urals.

Stronger enemy leaders make things impossible for the Germans.

 

interesting point. but after all, things could have NOT gone differently.

in '38 france and britain conceded everything to hitler. so why in '39 their approch to nazi was different? maybe they had new strong leaders? not at all!! simply they realized (at last) that hitler was unsatiable and the war with the nazi was inevitable.

 

If only they had not only declared war on Germany during the invasion of Poland, but actualy attacked Germany during the invasion of Poland

 

Some here, would strongly disagree and claim that such a thing was possible.