So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?

[slysniper]

2 hours ago, Khalerick said:

A lot of the German tanks get analyzed in the context of an already lost war where resources/stockpiles are drying up and the German army is operating on the backfoot. In that context, all those heavy tanks and unique designs are clearly not going to work, but neither is anything else. The unsexy answer is that a 1,000 more basic PzIII's in 1941 would have had infinitely more influence than 5,000 more PzIV's in 1944, because in 1941 there was an hint of winnability still left in the war. I think that winnability evaporated the moment they invaded Russia because they did not, in fact, have those additional tanks.

 

A very good point, In the Historical context.  What likely could of helped Germany win the campaign in Russia.

Their only Real chance was the one they tried in 1941, the goal to was to have Russia collapse before the winter of that year.

They really needed to take Moscow, so realistically, it would have nothing to do with better equipment, just enough army and equipment to overcome what the Russians had at that time. 

It really was amazing they did what they did in 41 as it is. But I recall the shear numbers seemed pretty unrealistic when they did get to Moscow, so not sure what it would have taken to keep the offensive moving. But 1000 more PzIII and Iv"s then might have made a difference.

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by slysniper

[Glubokii Boy]

25 minutes ago, slysniper said:

But 1000 more PzIII and Iv"s then might have made a difference.

I belive that more trucks, trains and a functioning railsystem from the get go in Barbarossa would have made far greater difference when it comes to reaching Moscow. It was not the russians that slowed or held up the german advance. It was the lack of logistics and flank security.

If the german armour had not been forced to halt their advance time and time again to wait for supplies and the infantry they would have performed far better then what they did historically even without those 1000 extra tanks. 

 

 

[Probus]

2 hours ago, Glubokii Boy said:

If you can't fuel them what good would they do ?

 

Well, you could capture fuel depots. Like they tried to do in the Battle of the Bulge movie. Was that gasoline or diesel?
 

Talk about fuel depots and fighting to not lose:

 

[Sequoia]

Dwight Eisenhower on the Battle of the Bulge Movie. "It wasn't like that."

[FlemFire]

1 hour ago, Glubokii Boy said:

If you can't fuel them what good would they do ?

 

Germany proved itself capable of fielding larger armies year-over-year, and committing itself to massive offenses year-over-year -- and that is after losing access to the majority of their oil supply. In fact, both Axis powers proved economically flexible in ways that post-war analyses make these comments kinda moot. A greater tooth and tail would - if I may - entail more supply-committed manpower and greater capital investment in the stockpile of oil. That's pretty much the gist of it. If Germany in 1944 could field a much larger and fuel-hungry army, with more airplanes than ever, and more tanks than ever, with the factories for both being pulverized on the daily, and the synthetic factories being demolished on the daily, I do submit with confidence that they could have rubbed a couple nickels together to get the oil for an extra 1,000 tanks in the grace periods of 1940/1941. But they didn't. Not because they couldn't, but for the same reason they didn't even bother bringing proper winter gear into Russia: hubris.

But it is all conjecture. Truly. The real counter-point to 1,000 more tanks isn't "they couldn't fuel them." The real counter-point is that the entire premise of Germany's war machine was to operate quickly and cheaply, so to suggest they have more tanks and more men is already out of sorts. It's like saying Germany should have maybe not been so mean to its conquered peoples. It's like yeah, that would have helped, but their meanness is what brought them there in the first place. It becomes very ahistorical nonsense. Perhaps then the true answer is... to make more Panthers. Not because of combat effectiveness or economic viability, but because the Panther ranks pretty high on the Rule of Cool™ chart. It looks sleek and it has a great nickname, both pretty strong arguments, IMO.

[dan/california]

The Germans real bet on Russia was that Stalin's endless terror campaigns had destroyed their will and ability to fight effectively. They were clearly hoping the Russian army would shoot Stalin themselves, and settle for life east of the Ural Mountains. This was not a completely crazy idea, considering Stalin had had most of General Staff, and God alone knows how many other people shot, or worse. It was however fatally wrong.

[Glubokii Boy]

31 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 I do submit with confidence that they could have rubbed a couple nickels together to get the oil for an extra 1,000 tanks in the grace periods of 1940/1941.

As far as i understand it the problem in 41, 42 was not that the fuel and other supplies did not exist...The problem was that they could not get it to where it was needed...the front. The railsystem was not capable of handeling this. The number of trucks were far to few.  Fuel, ammo and spare parts did not arrive in sufficient numbers...Neither did reinforcements i belive. If we say that the germans fielded to many different tanks and fighting vehicles ...thats NOTHING ! compared to the ridicolous amount of different trucks that were used supplying the forward units. Keeping these truck running was a nightmare !

 

 

[Warts 'n' all]

2 hours ago, Khalerick said:

 but because the Panther ranks pretty high on the Rule of Cool™ chart. 

It doesn't rank anywhere. 

No.1 is Lester Young

And the rest are his followers.

[Redwolf]

26 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

It doesn't rank anywhere. 

No.1 is Lester Young

And the rest are his followers.

Say, have you ever posted anything useful? Or comprehensible for that matter? Why are you even here?

[danfrodo]

I believe he's the official English representative, Blogger Emeritus.  And so is OK.  He says things only folks from his neighborhood understand and that's fine and harmless and sometimes kinda funny.  At least that's my take.  I am sure there's something clever in that post, I just don't get it.  That's doesn't mean it's not clever.  It just means I'm not.

[chuckdyke]

4 hours ago, Probus said:

Well, you could capture fuel depots. Like they tried to do in the Battle of the Bulge movie. Was that gasoline or diesel?
 

Talk about fuel depots and fighting to not lose:

 

We done it with M47's because we couldn't find real Tigers. 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

I believe he's the official English representative, Blogger Emeritus.  And so is OK.  He says things only folks from his neighborhood understand and that's fine and harmless and sometimes kinda funny.

TBH, I haven't got a clue what he's on about half the time. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead

[danfrodo]

11 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

TBH, I haven't got a clue what he's on about half the time. 

But that doesn't diminish his charm & charisma in the least, nor his devilish good looks.  That is his photo, correct?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

He does look a lot better since he stopped dieting.....Looked positively gaunt back then! 

PS - @Warts 'n' all tease each other a bit, his avatar is Cromwell and I'm from Worcester.....Back in the English Civil War, Worcester was a Royalist redoubt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Worcester 

When Cromwell's goons finally got into Worcester they properly vandalised the place.  Some of the vandalism has been left 'as was' and is now a prominent feature in the dining hall of a rather posh local school:

Edited January 28, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead

[danfrodo]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

We done it with M47's because we couldn't find real Tigers. 

 

Loved that movie back in the day.  A few years ago I heard that Eisenhower came out of retired seclusion to excoriate it as utterly ridiculous and an insult to those that fought in the campaign.  I especially liked the ending scene, shot in some Belgian desert that surprisingly looked a lot like SW USA.

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

shot in some Belgian desert that surprisingly looked a lot like SW USA.

Spain I can tell you there are no deserts in Belgium. The closest things are sandboxes for kids to play in. There are barren environments in Spain.

 

[Warts 'n' all]

6 hours ago, Redwolf said:

Say, have you ever posted anything useful? Or comprehensible for that matter?

I've no idea, me old china. That's for other people to answer. And remember, you can always put me on your Ignore List.

[Probus]

I think ole' Wartsy uses something my mum called Cockney rhyming slang.  I was Cockney until I was 4 1/2, then we moved to Texas. So the extent of my Cockney now-a-days is I sometimes say "free" when I mean to say "three".

If I remember correctly it goes something like this. "I'm going to go puddles and pears" would translate to "I'm going to go up the stairs".  Or maybe he just has a brain tumor , or maybe I have the brain tumor .

 

Are you guys telling me that The Battle of the Bulge is not completely historically accurate? Lol. I did look up what a fuel depot might look like that the Germans were going after.  Since some variants of the Sherman used diesel and some gasoline, I think a fuel depot would have contained both.  Why that's important, I think I've forgotten now.  Oh yeah, T-34s use diesel so one way to get diesel would be to raid enemy supply depots.

Another way to get diesel would be just to not refine oil into gasoline.  Refine it into diesel instead.  That would be easier and safer anyways.

[Warts 'n' all]

Distinct lack of barrels, distinct lack of sun baked slope to roll 'em down as well.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd actually forgotten about that particular travesty (there are just so many to choose from in that film). 

5 hours ago, Probus said:

"I'm going to go puddles and pears"

Apples & Pears. 

I don't think I've ever heard a genuine cockney use rhyming slang (other than phrases so commonly used that they've become part of the general lexicon).

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Andrew H.]

While I don't think that changing one weapon system would have changed the war, Germany had the technology in 1937 to manufacture the Pz IV F/2, the Pz III 50 L/60, and the StuG III ... with the long 75; I've forgotten the model.

I think if they had started the war with the Pz IV as a main battle tank...or maybe with a combination of Pz III L/60's and long barrelled StuGs, they may have achieved just a bit more earlier that could have made *some* difference. At least in production...maybe they would be more efficient at producing the IV if they started with the base model they ended with and didn't need to keep reengineering it during the war. 

 

There's no panic over the T-34s and the KV's, so there's no need to develop the TIger I at all.

 

Of course they would have been a lot better off if they had focused on making the manufacturing easier and the tanks more reliable. There were 5 different sherman tank engines, but each one was based on an existing and already proven engine. Two engines were based on aircraft engines or aircraft engine prototypes. The diesel was based on two bus engines joined to a common crankcase (the tank could still move if one of the engines was knocked out). And the sherman used mostly in British service consisted of *5* V6 automobile engines all mounted around a common crankcase. (There was a toothed gear attached to where the driveshaft on each of these engines would have been, and these five gears all interlocked with the toothed gear connected to the tank's driveshaft. 

 

 

[Warts 'n' all]

It's impossible to take anyone who uses the non-phrase "more earlier" seriously.

[Probus]

3 hours ago, Andrew H. said:

While I don't think that changing one weapon system would have changed the war, Germany had the technology in 1937 to manufacture the Pz IV F/2, the Pz III 50 L/60, and the StuG III ... with the long 75; I've forgotten the model.

I think if they had started the war with the Pz IV as a main battle tank...or maybe with a combination of Pz III L/60's and long barrelled StuGs, they may have achieved just a bit more earlier that could have made *some* difference. At least in production...maybe they would be more efficient at producing the IV if they started with the base model they ended with and didn't need to keep reengineering it during the war. 

 

There's no panic over the T-34s and the KV's, so there's no need to develop the TIger I at all.

 

Of course they would have been a lot better off if they had focused on making the manufacturing easier and the tanks more reliable. There were 5 different sherman tank engines, but each one was based on an existing and already proven engine. Two engines were based on aircraft engines or aircraft engine prototypes. The diesel was based on two bus engines joined to a common crankcase (the tank could still move if one of the engines was knocked out). And the sherman used mostly in British service consisted of *5* V6 automobile engines all mounted around a common crankcase. (There was a toothed gear attached to where the driveshaft on each of these engines would have been, and these five gears all interlocked with the toothed gear connected to the tank's driveshaft. 

 

 

Wow. If you hadn't posted the pic I wouldn't have believed it. Those Brits...

[chuckdyke]

No one can tell what is happening in five years' time. If you could travel back to 1939 to GB with a detailed plan of a twenty pounder Centurion, they would have locked you up in a Lunatic Asylum.

 

[Probus]

I was watching YouTube looking for Sherman engines and ran across this cool channel. The video above has a nice tank progression from the tiny early tanks to the mammoth King Tiger. I realized I've never heard these tanks before. 

The video below is a size comparison based on weight. It includes theoretical tanks. Maybe a few of these might have bailed out Germany a little bit.

Maybe we should think in terms of what tanks may have allowed the Nazis to have called a truce at some point. Maybe bluff their way into it.