No arguement with that. Hitler was the main person behind WWII and the holocaust. But many others were also guilty.
Posts made by 221B Baker Street
-
RE: What IF canada stayed out of the war(IF)
-
RE: WW2 Article: Advanced German Technology
KurtGodel7, very good post, thank you.
I’m still not convinced however, I’ll reply to a few of your points below further:
-
Germany desperately needed the Russian oil by 1943 (as well as Russian grain which I will discuss further below). That they failed to take the Caucasus during this time was their last realistic chance at victory, IMO. However, had they taken the oil wells, but with the Russians destroying them in the process as was quite likely, would the Germans be able to restore the flow of oil in sufficient time? It might take months, even years to rebuild the necessary infrastructure in the best of circumstances, let alone during a brutal war. The German industry was already hard pressed to supply the necessary armaments and did not have a great deal of experience with oil industry in the first place. I think they would not have been able to do this.
-
The same idea goes for the chromium, vanadium, etc., though this would be less difficult for the Germans to accomplish (or mitigate as you also suggest) than the oil problem.
-
While Germany might have been able to supply an equivalent amount of money, material and engineers to work on their atomic program, there simply were much fewer top nuclear physicists in all Europe than existed in the US. Consequently, it would have probably cost more and taken longer than the US program for this reason alone. I have no doubt they could have eventually done it, but I don’t see how they develop nuclear weapons before the allies developed a delivery system that could get through their defenses.
The German V-2 was a technological marvel, but other than size, no more advanced than the rockets being built by Dr. Goddard. After the war, when Dr. Goddard was able to examine a captured V-2, he was convinced the Germans had stolen his work. And the Germans might have because most of his designs were on file in the US patent office, available for public viewing (which the Germans did prior to the war). I think had the Americans wanted to (and Dr. Goddard certainly did) they could have built a superior rocket in a couple months and have it mass-produced in six. As the A-bombs designs at that time were quite heavy, it might have taken longer than that to build a nuclear capable rocket…but how much longer?
Alternatively, the Allies could have either copied the German jets to enable a delivery system, or devise other means (boats/submarines? special ops?) to deliver these weapons.
In addition, I consider the German attack on Russia to be about food as well as oil The Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe, and helped the Germans tremendously in 1943. But food was scarce in 1944 and onward. Partly this was due to Russian recovery of territory. But it was also because the Ukraine was normally not sufficient by itself to feed Germany (the year of the capture of Ukraine by the Germans was one of the best years for Ukrainian agriculture as the weather was nearly perfect). Of course, the poor treatment of the Ukrainians by the Germans did not lend itself to helping this problem either. In order to assure itself of adequate food, I think the Caucasus (the next logical food source) was needed.
-
-
RE: What IF canada stayed out of the war(IF)
It was more insidious than you say Pvt. Ryan. It would be difficult for Hitler to be found guilty of ordering the killing of a single Jew in a court of law. There are no direct orders from him to construct the concentration camps, ship people there or even to kill any single Jew.
What Hitler DID do, by hate-filled rhetoric and control over the media (among other things too numerous to list here) was make taking these actions acceptable, even desirable behavior on the part of those underneath him and German society at large. He corrupted the entire German nation.
-
RE: NBA playoffs
No love for Chicago here I see…
Many of the teams still in it are getting quite old…Celtics, Lakers, Dallas, San Antonio for sure.
Miami has considerable talent with LBJ and DWade, but I don’t believe that will be enough.
I would say its going to be either Celtics or Chicago in the east (while the Celtics are old, I agree with ABW and IL that they might have one last shot at it). In the west I think OKC unless the refs give the series to the Lakers (because NBA referees have fixed games before, see look up Tim Donaghy for an example).
Right now I’d have to pick Celtics though I think Chicago will be very difficult for them.
-
RE: The People Behind WWII
What a person would logically do depends greatly on who they are, what time you are discussing, where they are at, what (if any) special talents they have. As the war started, then progressed the possible actions tended to be reduced.
Einstein, for example, being both Jewish and the preeminent physicist in the world chose to leave Germany before the war (as did many others) to a USA more than willing to receive him. Some chose to work with the Nazi party (such as Werner von Braun) because that is a better choice than the eastern front. If you were a Jew in the latter half of the war, perhaps the only “safe” place under German control was on the eastern front (where the SS officers tended to avoid for obvious reasons).
The Russians (and also Ukranians, Belorus, etc.) initially welcomed the Germans, but turned against them once the Germans started oppressing them. If they were going to be suffering under ruthless dictators, they might as well chose the ones speaking Russian.
Most people simply tried to survive as best they could, particularly as the war progressed.
-
RE: The Battle of Greece
Any options to bring Turkey into the war, perhaps via a neutrality violation (a player violates Turkish neutrality for a quick gain, hoping this gain ofsets the Turkish retaliations)?
How about guerrilla activity in the Balkans playing a part?
-
RE: WW2 Article: Advanced German Technology
To help steer this interesting topic in the right direction, let’s assume Germany was able to upgrade its fighter squadrons with Me-262As by as soon as late 1942, early 1943. This was a crucial and extremely bloody period for the Allied Bomber Commands, with losses on some raids reaching ten or more percent. Without fighter escorts (the drop tank-equipped P-51 still many months away) the bombers would have been easy prey to the new German jet. The bomber effort was already on the brink of collapse, so a determined resistance by numerous and skilled Schawlbe squadrons could have cleared the skies over Europe.
But then what? The effect of the Allied bombing campaign during the war is soaked in controversy and many believe it had little effect. Considering Germany production reached its peak during nonstop night and day bombing, the argument carries some weight.
The jet was designed to combat heavy bombers, how would it have fared in an air-superiority role - that is, the ability to suppress enemy fighters and air defenses to a point where your forces dictate the battlefield? The Me-262 would have had to fulfill the fighter-bomber and air-defense-suppression roles unless the Germans continued to field older models since no jet bomber was even close to operational.How do you think the jet would have performed in Russia, where enemy strategic bomber forces were negligible? The Red Air Force was able to quickly outnumber the Luftwaffe in fighters and tactical bombers, including some models that were better than any of the German prop-planes.
How do you think the Me-262s would have been used, en masse, on the Eastern front, and to what effect?I agree that the widespread introduction of the Me 262 in late '42 or early '43 could likely have caused the cancellation of (at very least) the U.S. daytime bombing raids. I also agree that, even if the Me 262 had been able to protect Germany against both day and night raids, that alone would not have materially altered the outcome of the war.
However, the Me 262 was a good enough anti-bomber aircraft that, even when the Americans had developed the ability to send Mustangs deep into Germany, it would still have been almost impossible for the Americans to resume daylight raids. (At least, presuming the Me 262s were fielded in large quantities.)
You are correct to assert that Germany needed to significantly improve its fortunes on its Eastern front for it to alter the course of the war. Possibly a modified version of the Me 262–ideally with the addition of dive brakes–could have had a major influence on the air war over Germany’s eastern front. Possibly, a better option would have been the Horten Ho 229–it was slightly faster than an Me 262, had a much longer range, carried twice the bomb payload, and had dive brakes. As you say, Germany needed a dogfighter and a fighter-bomber on this Eastern front. Regardless of which of the two jet designs was used, the objective should have been to destroy enemy aircraft both in the air and on the ground. During the postwar era, jet aircraft proved far superior to piston aircraft in the dogfighting role. Whether the German jet designs in question were good enough to attain that superiority, or whether further modification would have been necessary, is not something I claim to know.
But for the sake of argument let’s suppose that Germany could have used the Me 262 or some other jet design to attain air superiority or even air supremacy over its Eastern front. Its piston aircraft could then have dive bombed Soviet troops. This, alone, would not have been enough to alter the fate of Germany’s Eastern front. The Soviet advantage in available infantry, and in tanks and artillery, was simply too overwhelming for German air power, alone, to be able to counter it. Other additions to Germany’s arsenal would also have been necessary. As I hinted at in my earlier post, Germany would have needed more production, earlier. If it had achieved its 1944 level of production back in 1942, and if it had had access to weapons like the assault rifle, the longer-ranged versions of the Panzerfaust, and if it had created something like the planned E-series tanks, the combination of these factors, along with the aforementioned air superiority provided by its jets, might have been enough to tip the balance in its favor. Germany didn’t necessarily have to have all its super-weapons–for example the Type XXI U-boats could have waited until later–but it would have needed at least some of them in '42. (Plus that production increase.)
Large numbers of German jets would have had another advantage: they would have made it difficult or impossible for the Allies to conduct D-Day style invasions. In places where the Allies had already gained a foothold–such as Italy in 1943–German jets could have made it difficult or impossible to effectively supply said troops. Jets could provide significant protection to Germany’s southern and western flank against the Western democracies, even while its army pushed eastward into the Soviet Union. Germany’s long-term strategy for victory would have involved conquering everything in the Soviet Union west of the Urals; then making peace with the rest of the Soviet Union. At that point its army would have faced only one threat: the threat of the Western democracies.
The next step in this process might have involved a decision to adequately fund the German nuclear program. A successful nuclear program requires a significant investment of industrial capacity to enrich uranium or plutonium. I have read that during WWII, the U.S. used more industrial capacity on uranium and plutonium enrichment than it did on making tanks. The massive amount of industrial capacity needed, in combination with the long-term nature of the program, was why Germany’s nuclear program was not adequately funded. (Germany’s plan involved conquering the Soviet Union in '41 and '42, not '45.) But a victory over the Soviet Union would afford German leaders the luxury of being able to adopt longer-term, large-scale projects. It would have taken several years between the adequate funding of a nuclear program and the first German nuclear bomb. But once they had that bomb, they could have used their Aggregate Series rockets to deliver the nuclear payload anywhere in the world. (Assuming, of course, that von Braun continued to make steady progress during the late '40s.) The existence of German nuclear bombs + German ICBMs could have forced the Western democracies to the negotiating table, perhaps in 1950. Presumably, the two sides would agree to stop fighting, and to retain the borders as they were. Germany would be in control over most of Europe, while Britain would retain its colonies in Africa, India, and the Middle East.
I would like to consider the question, “then what” a bit further. Supposing Germany miraculously can produce the large numbers of ME262 (or better the Horton HO-229) necessary to regain control of the skies, there are still serious questions regarding the Axis war capabilities.
-
Could Germany supply necessary fuel for the planes to resume flights of this magnitude? I doubt it, their airforce was grounded as much by lack of fuel as by lack of planes; in the early part of the war they were fueled from the Soviet supplies and the oil stockpiles in the conquered territories. Germany produced very little oil (from Romania primarily) and was able to make an inferior fuel from the coal that was available. I doubt Germany could have done much more than it did from the fuel standpoint.
-
Could Germany have supplied necessary parts for repair and maintenance of these planes? One often overlooked fact is that while German production increased until nearly the end of the war, this was in part accomplished by a severe lack of spare parts. Usually, repairs in the latter part of the war were made by cannibalizing otherwise perfectly usable units.
Additionally, it should not be forgotten that the engines for the ME262 needed a complete rebuild after only 10 hours of flight time. This was because Germany lacked access to metals such as chromium and vanadium which would have allowed more durable parts and was forced to use ordinary steel rather than a superior alloy. A large fleet of ME262s would have required a supply of engine parts for rebuild perhaps even an order of magnitude larger than than production of the planes themselves due to this limitation.
-
Could Germany have produced sufficient trained pilots that could take full advantage of the superior aspects of their jets? Certainly, the state-promoted interest in gliders during the 1930’s provided a large base upon which to build. However, adequate training of the pilots would still have required a significant amount of flight time; further exasperating points 1 and 2 above.
-
How long before the UK/US caught up with the German jets? This would inevitably happen, if for no other reason than the ability to reverse-engineer planes in their possession (whether by crashes, defections, special operations, espionage, etc.). It is always much easier to catch up than to lead; and especially so for the allies who had vastly superior resources at their disposal. Even without this, there remained possible countermeasures available to them. For example, night bombing raids were still quite feasible. Proper use of radar would guide the bombers to wherever the ME-262 had landed and allow clear views of the airfield and buildings even in poor weather, probably destroying at least their airfields (if not the planes, pilots, and support equipment themselves) during the darkness.
-
Would the German air superiority really translate into meaningful support on the Eastern front in 1942/43? There was little industrial production worthwhile to bomb within range of even the best German bombers (unless of course the Amerika bomber were built). The soviet tanks would have been readily defeated, but by then the German army was already shattered and forced into a long retreat west well before the majority of the Russian tanks arrived anyway…instead of tanks mowing down the Germans, perhaps it would have been waves of bazooka wielding infantry which would not be as cost effective to bomb?
-
As already noted, the Allied bombing raids were of questionable value anyway. What if their suspension led to these resources being devoted instead to a more effective military tool? Suppose instead of building multiple large bombers during 1942-43, the Americans upgrade the P-80 with copied German jets instead? Do the bombing raids begin again in 1944-45 with bombers now protected by Allied copies of the HO-229?
-
Nuclear capability potential. With the US having at least a five year head start in the area, I think it more likely the US/UK would have developed a deployment method for their bombs well before the Germans would have developed atomic weapons. It is, IMO, much easier to recreate the Amerika bomber or V-2 (or other suitable delivery method) on the technological base the US had than to build the manhattan project on the base Germany had. It is debatable if vonBraun matched Dr. Goddards work regarding stabalization and control despite having the resources of the German nation at his disposal, the Americans only needed to scale up Dr. Goddards rockets. Especially as the German nuclear technological base was considerably less qualified than the US and flawed to begin with…for example the Germans were only considering the use of heavy water (of which there was simply not enough in all Europe anyway) for the neutron modulators, not the better graphite.
As such, it is my opinion that earlier development of the ME-262 and/or HO-229 would have helped the German cause, but introduction of such in large numbers, even at a date of late 1942 wouldn’t have changed the overall outcome.
-
-
RE: What IF canada stayed out of the war(IF)
I would guess the war would have ended pretty much the same way. As 7/8 of the entire German war effort was for the Eastern front against Russia, clearly the East was the decisive battlefront anyway.
It would have made the Western contributions smaller as there is no disputing the value of the Canadian contribution. And the convoys would have been smaller and forced to travel farther distances to Europe. Still, the US industrial capacity (as well as the UK) would still have enabled the convoys, the D-day invasion, and the other events that occurred in the Western front.
What I think might have happened is that the D-day invasion would not have been ready as soon so that either it would have been delayed a couple months (perhaps ready in Aug or Sept.) or there would not have been an invasion of Italy. These would have enabled Russia to control more of Europe during the cold war; Austria, more of Germany proper, and perhaps even Italy.
-
RE: WW2 Article: Advanced German Technology
If I had to rank the nations of WWII in order of their technological prowess, I would place them in the following order: the US, Germany, UK, USSR, Japan.
However, I wish to thank Lazarus for for pointing out the obvious discrepancy of the Germans utilizing both the most advanced form of transportation (V-2 and ME262) and the least advanced form (horses and feet) of all participants. Whereas the Allies, particularly the US, had a great deal of transporation, even to basic infantry, provided by gasoline powered vehicles such as the Jeep which gave the US and UK a very clear advantage of mobility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep
Jeeps were used by every division of the U.S. military and an average of 145 were supplied to every infantry regiment. Jeeps were used for many other purposes including cable laying, saw milling, as firefighting pumpers, field ambulances, tractors and, with suitable wheels, would even run on railway tracks.
This show the level of technology for the participating countries in WWII varied considerably both between nations and within individual nations.
One perfect example was the Jerrycan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JerrycanA simple, but effective technology that was eventually reverse engineered by the Allies. This alone might have enabled Rommel to do as well as he did in N. Africa as one of his big problems was a severe shortage of fuel. With the massive industrial production capabilities of the US and the clear need for this by the British colonies prior to the war, why didn’t either side develop an equivalent prior to the war as had the Germans? Its not as if this were a difficult thing to do.
I can point to dozens of similar accounts on both sides illustrating the spotty development of technology during the war. Why was the concept of drop tanks (greatly extending flight distance of fighters) developed so late in the war? Why did the Japanese, despite having perhaps the best submarines of the war, neglect to develop anti-submarine technology? Why were the Russian tanks, despite the low technology of the soviets (such as the poor quality of steel and poor erognomics and lack of radios) in many ways superior to the German tanks, such that the Germans copied the best features (such as sloped armor)? Why were the British, after having cracked the German enigma code, so lax in their own communications (they could have simply developed a similar code)?
Technological development for all sides was uneven and always in development such that the best technology was often obsolete before it could be mass produced . Not that mass production was always possible or even desirable. As an example of undesirable production, the German shortage of fuel precluded the use of “Jeeps” for infantry even had they decided to build these.
Note to Zukov; While I can appreciate wanting to use the best sources, I prefer to use wikipedia links (and other well known media sources) because these are fairly accurate and usually virus and spyware free. Some of the other links, while potentially better sources of information, are also not as secure and often of a more questionable quality than Wikipedia. If the link address looks odd, I generally won’t click on it…
-
RE: Dreadful Axis Mistakes
Well actually a main reason they didn’t finsh their project was because the lost Einstein. Also it was considered “Jewish Science” and hitler wasn’t very happy with that.
Curiously though, Einstein never worked on the Manhattan project. His only contribution was co-signing the letter (drafted by Szilard) sent to President Roosevelt.
I guess Einstein was too busy on the Philadelphia Experiment :lol:
-
RE: How do you go about keeping the German Med Fleet alive?
Against a persistent attack by the allies, IMHO you can’t keep the Med Fleet intact. At least not without spending so much that the Russians become a really big problem.
What I try to do in non-bid games is take as much in Africa as I can; the N-S Egypt to S. Africa corridor is the primary IPC’s in Africa. Its a good thing if you win in Egypt and are able to take this part of Africa, particularly as it takes the allies a few turns (usually including poorly placed transports) to get Africa back. Then I try to hold as much of it as I can for as long as I can, which might not be that long. If I am lucky, I might be able to retreat a tank into Asia and join up with Japan.
I don’t often play bid games, but if bids are used, some people will go heavy in Africa, intending to hold it by the extra units placed at the start of the game. But here too, the German Med Fleet is usually quickly sunk.
Not that the sinking of the Med Fleet is all that great of a loss. Unless the Axis have a high bid Germany cannot afford to send much to Africa anyway because Germany must defend itself from the allies on many fronts particularly in E. Europe which means most of the purchases should be defensive inf placed in Germany, W. Europe, E. Europe and perhaps even S. Europe. And aside from placing a few troops in Africa, there isn’t all the much that can be done with the Med Fleet that couldn’t be done by Japan (which starts out with a much better Navy).
-
What if Italy had stayed neutral during WWII?
Suppose Italy remained neutral during WWII. What do you think would have happened. I think the early war would have played out pretty much the same. However, without forces in the Mediterranean (and possibly the Balkans) I think it is possible the Germans might have had sufficient resources to win in Russia. Especially if they opted to start the war a few weeks earlier (I have heard it stated that the Balkan campaign delayed the start of Barbarossa, but I doubt this was really the case).
What do you think?
-
RE: New to forum, with question…
Doesn’t the instructions say how many chips?
Also, since the chips are simply placeholders, I’m curious as to why the exact number of chips is important? Their same function could be accomplished with a jar of changes (use pennies for red chips, nickels for white chips). Did you buy the second set used and want to consolidate to a complete set?
-
RE: Dreadful Axis Mistakes
…however I’m inclined to think the Africa campaign would have had a good chance of succeeding if a large part of the air and armor slotted for Barbarossa had been sent to Africa instead. If Axis succeeded in shutting down the Suez Canal then perhaps amphib operations against Malta, Gibraltar, and Cyprus could have been considered. Every little colonial defeat was a further blow to British morale and prestige. Hitler didn’t necessarily need to Sea Lion–just keep conquering one colonial possession after another, and keep offering peace to UK at terms the common people of UK could accept (eg the autonomy of UK and its colonies).
Hitler himself had decried 2-front wars. I see Barbarossa as the Nazi party falling victim to his own hubris. It wasn’t even clearly winning the war with UK, and somehow the solution is start another war with an even more powerful state. They should have at least obtained the cooperation and assistance of Japan before embarking on such an absurd all-in bet.
I agree with you that Africa could have been made a decisive front…Not sure if the closer proximity to Axis would have compensated enough for the much smaller merchant marine available, but it was certainly a good possibility. In hindsight, it is perhaps a better option than Barbarossa (though at the time the Germans believed the weakened British to still be much superior to the Russians in terms of military capacity).
It would have had the bonus of perhaps bringing the French fleet completely over to the axis side. From Egypt, further forays into Iraq, and (perhaps via the French fleet) to the colonies on the East coast of Africa, perhaps even to India (though I think the sheer manpower available to the British in India would be an impediment to any action there).
I will think about the relative sizes of the Axis (Italian) and British shipping capacity and in the distances the men, equipment, and supplies would need to traverse to engage in this front some more. Perhaps I’ll post more later…
-
RE: Dreadful Axis Mistakes
While it would make sense (as others have stated here) for Germany to win against the UK prior to any military action against the USSR, I would like to point out that a German victory against the UK at the time of Barbarossa had become most unlikely.
Operation Sealion was unlikely to succeed even had it been undertaken in ideal conditions in July 1940. The longer time went on, the better prepared the UK was against a German invasion.
Likewise the U-boat campaign never destroyed sufficient shipping to really force England to negotiate a peace; and the British (and Americans) were continuously improving their defenses against the U-boats.
The African campaign faltered; but even had it succeeded, might not have been sufficient to bring the UK to the negotiating table.
Even with the Soviets providing the Germans pretty much everything they wanted, Germany would be hard pressed to keep up with the UK with virtually unlimited manpower from her colonies and immense industrial support from the US. And how for long would Stalin be so accommodating? Doing nothing seems like simply waiting for defeat as Germany is still in a strategically weaker position over the long term.
What other options (besides a successful invasion of the UK) did Hitler have to either negotiate a peace, or ensure at a minimum a stalemate? Invade Gibraltar via Spain? Pour resources into the African campaign? Go to the middle east via Turkey? Technological advances (jet planes, V-1, V-2, etc. - this was attempted later in the war without success)? or grab the rich resources of the USSR to ensure sufficient resources to compete?
Of these choices, the attack of the Soviets seemed the most likely to succeed, with most Germans believing their war would be over in a matter of weeks (just like the rest of Europe). No one, believed they would hold out for long at all, let alone turn the Germans back. Russia was easily accessible to Germany (sharing a border across what used to be Poland), unlike most of the other strategic options. And of these choices, the Soviet territory was by far the richest in potential return, with large surpluses of Ukrainian wheat, Caucasus oil, and other resources the Germans needed.
But I think more importantly, the attack on the Soviets was something the Nazi party had advocated all along. Ideologically, it was the perfect next move.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibensraum
(German for “habitat” or literally “living space”) was one of the major political ideas of Adolf Hitler, and an important component of Nazi ideology. It served as the motivation for the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, aiming to provide extra space for the growth of the German population, for a Greater Germany. In Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, he detailed his belief that the German people needed Lebensraum (“living space”, i.e. land and raw materials), and that it should be found in the East. It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Polish, Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic peoples.
-
RE: Dreadful Axis Mistakes
@CWO:
@221B:
Winter arrives in Moscow a full month before either Leningrad or Stalingrad.
Moscow is about 500 miles north of Stalingrad, so I can understand winter arriving there a month earlier, but it’s about 200 miles south of Leningrad, so I’m puzzled at the notion that winter would arrive in Leningrad a month later.
Leningrad is by the sea which delays, and moderates, winter.
-
RE: Dreadful Axis Mistakes
What you say makes sense, but its also possible to look at alternative mistakes as being the decisive decisions.
In the case of Japan, they started a war they knew they could not win over the long term (as it turned out to be a longer war than they hoped - the US had no desire to negotiate a peace). However, I think their mistake was their invasion of China. This was the reason for the US oil embargo, and all negotiations prior to Pearl Harbor regarding the oil embargo was dependent on Japan leaving China (which they obviously could not do for political reasons). China was also too large of a country for them to take and hold it all, so the Chinese kept up the fight from Chongqing as well as by guerrilla warfare. A war they could not win, could not leave and cost them their badly needed oil imports.
One must ask why Germany attacked the Russians, when the Russians were giving them everything they wanted before the attack? (Though some theorize Stalin was preparing to attack Germany by surprise, but was attacked first by the Nazis) So it is indeed easy to say this was Germany’s main mistake. But I think instead the mistake was not attacking Russia, but not taking Moscow before winter.
In the case of Germany, they came very, very close to defeating the Russians. Had they done so, it is unclear if they would have been in a similar situation as the Japanese. Bogged down with both a strong guerrilla force to contend with and a large never-ending front to defend and fighting (and losing) a naval and aerial battle against superior forces.
Alternatively, perhaps a defeat of the Russians would have instead provided the resources Germany needed for at least a stalemate. Certainly, the Germans could have maintained sufficient manpower and technological advantage to hold off the US/UK forces had they won in Russia early. As this is quite possible, the mistake probably wasn’t the invasion of Russia so much as some decision made which prevented victory against the Russians. IMHO, the failure to take Moscow before winter was the key mistake.
Winter arrives in Moscow a full month before either Leningrad or Stalingrad. Moscow was the last Railway which permitted the Soviets to transport North-South, taking of Moscow would have effectively fractured the nation into separate units…making simple a divide and conquer strategy. Taking the capital would have been an immense political statement. As such, I think the Nazi failure was devoting insufficient resources to Moscow. As their plan was three massive invasion forces (north, center, and south); they could have sent far less towards the North and the South so that victory in the Center (Moscow) was absolutely assured. The rest of Russia could have been taken the following spring, if necessary, under this scenario.
-
RE: Tested successfully on military aircraft in World War II.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing it!
-
RE: Best NFL Team not to get to a Championship game
The regular season record speaks for itself. Yeah, I know the strength of schedule arguments that are sometimes made, but they have to play the teams in their division, one of which won at least 11 games also.
Only two teams have won 11 games but missed the playoffs, hence the best teams not to play in a championship game which I consider to be any post-season game that could lead to the superbowl.
2008 Patriots, with a record of 11-5.
1985 Denver, also with 11 wins.
-
RE: WW2 Article: Advanced German Technology
CWO Marc,
Actually, guidance systems were in existence during WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams
Guidance beams were used for the V-2 though the system was not foolproof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2
Accuracy increased over the course of the war, particularly on batteries where Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus was installed.
British intelligence leaked falsified information implying that the rockets were over-shooting their London target by 10 to 20 miles. This tactic worked and for the remainder of the war most landed in Kent due to erroneous recalibration.
Had the war extended to 1947, I think it is possible that the guidance systems would have improved to a significant accuracy (unless of course the counter-measures also improved). A moving ship, I doubt could have been hit unless it (or a very near submarine) were transmitting a signal, but certainly a city and probably even a city block could have been targeted. And, of course, chemical, biological, and especially atomic weapons would not have needed great accuracy as KurtGodel7 stated.
I think the reason that today the US Navy isn’t overly worried about Chinese missiles sinking one of its carriers is that they have some very potent countermeasures…
KurtGodel7;
While reading the article on the V-2, I came across this interesting bit of information:
The V-2 program was the single most expensive development project of the Third Reich:[citation needed] 6,048 were built, at a cost of approximately 100,000 Reichsmarks each; 3,225 were launched. SS General Hans Kammler, who as an engineer had constructed several concentration camps including Auschwitz, had a reputation for brutality and had originated the idea of using concentration camp prisoners as slave laborers in the rocket program. The V-2 is perhaps the only weapon system to have caused more deaths by its production than its deployment.[39]
The V-2 consumed a third of Germany’s fuel alcohol production and major portions of other critical technologies:[41] to distil the fuel alcohol for one V-2 launch required 30 tons of potatoes at a time when food was becoming scarce.[42] Due to a lack of explosives, concrete was used and sometimes the warhead contained photographic propaganda of German citizens who had died in allied bombing.[18]
I find the embedded quote particularly an interesting point of view:
“… those of us who were seriously engaged in the war were very grateful to Wernher von Braun. We knew that each V-2 cost as much to produce as a high-performance fighter airplane. We knew that German forces on the fighting fronts were in desperate need of airplanes, and that the V-2 rockets were doing us no military damage. From our point of view, the V-2 program was almost as good as if Hitler had adopted a policy of unilateral disarmament.” (Freeman Dyson)[40]
Perhaps this (and the lack of support given to Goddard by the Americans who certainly could have afforded it) is an indication of better operational research on the part of the allies. Why spend the money on a rocket inflicting minimal damage to the enemy when the same development money could help fund the manhattan project and the construction money buy a useful fighter instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_research#Second_World_War
which might be one of the advantages the allies had during the war, though I am not certain it should be called a technological advantage.
I have heard it stated that the V-2 program cost the same as the manhattan project, which relates directly to the question of operational research. But I can’t find a good source for this, the best approximation I have is the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsmark
The Reichsmark was put on the gold standard at the rate previously used by the Goldmark, with the U.S. dollar worth 4.2 ℛℳ.
; therefore 100,000RM * 6000 /4.2 = $142M in 1938 dollars…probably not a great method to compare the costs…maybe someone knows (or can find) a better comparison?
I am really enjoying this discussion, thanks to everyone who is participating!