what if Hitler started the war in 1941 instead of 1939?

Sloniksp, you have stepped on no toes. You simply have to be prepared for rebuttals from other posters.

Yes, Germany had 3000 tanks (give or take a few) in 1939 but, over half were Pz I's armed with nothing but machineguns and nearly half the rest were Pz IIs with the 20mm. Even in the scenario given a Pz III might be expected to have 40 or 50mm of armor and a 50/42 gun in 1941 at most without war experiance.
I say this on the following grounds:

1. WaPruf 6 of the Waffenamt had serious objections to overhanging guns (ie., a gun that hung over the chassis dimensions by any significant amount). Without the impetus of war experiance they no doubt could have managed to keep this the case on new developments.

2. The up armoring of the Pz III and IV came about as a result of war experiance in France and Russia. Note how the Germans chose 80mm for the frontal armor. This is about 5mm thicker than the point blank penetration of the Soviet 76mm gun. The Tiger I's armor was likewise chosen on the basis of immunity from expected enemy weapons.

3. The continued use of non-sloped armor similar to the Pz III and IV could be expected without war experiance.

 

Yes T.A. I agree,

I guess all I was trying to point out that is that Poland never really had a chance. Their geographical location at that time was unfortunate and the fact that their allies ( France and England ) really not being able to help didnt help either. Also combined with their fragile economy makes it hard in my mind to establish that giving the Poles and additional 2 years would of made much difference.

But all put aside the Poles did cause more devistation to the Germans till 1940 more then the French and English put together.

 

Sloniksp

The main problem of the Poles was that they had arranged their defence in a picketline (hey they were surrounded by possible enemies right?) And when trying to cut of the spearheads of the German army they were cut down by the luftwaffe.

I did not get the last sentence from your post. Did you mean the the Poles gave the Germans a harder fight than the French and the BEF?

 

Jaeger,

I agree

What I meant by the In my last sentence is that the Poles caused more damage to Germans upto 1940. 50k men lost over 900 planes and a boat load of tanks. This is more then the French and English till 1940. This ofcourse all changed in 1941.

 

I remember from a documentary a German solider on the western front in 1940 said the British put up a better fight than the French.

 

That Richard I agree with!!

 

Sloniksp

Up to 1940 no 'active' combat between France/UK and Nazi Germany existed. (the time of the phoney war)

In Fall Weiss the Germans lost 16343 dead, 27280 Wounded and 320 missing.

In Fall Gelb Germany had 45000 dead, 110000 wounded.

I'll see if I find the old thread on this subject. Here it is

www.ww2forums.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001600;p=2

 

Thanks for the thread Jaeger I enjoyed reading especially Millers points brilliant points of the cowardness of the French! ( sarcasm ).


Jaeger im not sure that I would agree with you on the major battles between France/England and Germany in 1940. Keep in mind that thats the year that France surrendered and Dunkirk took place. A complete surrender of France would consitute as a major victory for Germany thanks to a majore battle. But I think I do understand what you mean when you say major military incounter. Those didnt really happen till 1944 in Normandy and so on. ( with the exception of Italy ) The real major battle occured on the Eastern Front.

 

major battles that is.

 

Sloniksp

No by 'active combat', I meant the period from the declaration of war in 1939 to the battle of France in 1940. Known as the 'Phoney war' or 'Sitzkrieg' because the BEF and the French were in France, and the Germans were behind the Siegfried line. Patroling activity along the German/French border plus RAF dropping propaganda over Germay constituted the 'warfare' of that period.

Hope that clarify my intention.

 

As we all know, all these Germans casualties in the Campaign of France died of sheer boredom Yeah, right!

 

It must be noted also that Germany´s economy was not meant to last long with the military spending. The solution would be war and paying the bills with goods robbed from neigbouring countries. I don´t think other countries in Europe could/would base their politics on this phenomenon.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERschacht.htm

"Schacht also had doubts about the large amounts of money being spent on armaments. He warned Hitler that he was building armed forces far beyond the country's economic capacity."

 

I now understand, thanks!