View Single Post
Old 11-23-2013, 12:14 AM
Dissonance is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Running Back & Forth
Posts: 3,677
Originally Posted by Rocket 100 View Post
"There is no realistic change in strategy that would have resulted in German victory"

That's pretty interesting argument if you look country which have the best tanks, jet fighters, modern guns like StG 44, missiles, own nuclear program etc. etc.
There's nothing interesting about that argument; Germany had bitten off far, far more than it could chew in going to war with the Commonwealth, the USSR, and the USA. It was doomed to be buried by its adversaries in industrial production. Regarding best tanks, the Soviet T-34 and KV series were by far better than what Germany could field from 1941-43, and by 1943 they had irrecoverably lost the strategic initiative to the USSR on the Eastern Front. Presumably by "best tanks" you mean the Panther and the Tiger. Neither was ever available in very large numbers, and they were mechanical nightmares, requiring enormous maintenance and breaking down frequently. The Panther was worse than a nightmare when first introduced; it would break down constantly and one of its teething problems was the engine had the habit of spontaneously setting itself on fire. The Panther was only ever supposed to comprise half of the tanks of a panzer division on paper, but in practice there were never enough of them for even that. The Tiger was used exclusively in independent heavy panzer battalions and companies. The real workhorses for Germany up until the end of the war were the Pz-IV and the StuG-III, both of which were no more than roughly the equals to the Sherman and the T-34. Something else to bear in mind is that supply in the Commonwealth and US was entirely motorised. Germany used 2.75 million horses for supplies and as the prime mover for artillery during the war.

Regarding jets, by the time the Me-262 became available Germany was facing severe shortages of fuel and of trained pilots. Regarding "modern guns" like the StG-44, only limited numbers were ever available and it didn't come remotely close to becoming the standard infantry rifle in the German army. The standard German infantry rifle for the entire duration of the war was the "modern" Kar98k bolt-action rifle which was itself no more than the evolution of the Gewehr 98 bolt-action rifle used by Germany in WW1. The 98 refers to the year it was developed, 1898. Regarding Germany’s nuclear program, it was years behind the Manhattan project.

Just for example: do you think that even allies could've handle unlimited loss in Germany bombing campaign?
I'm unsure if you mean losses in the Allied strategic bombing campaign against Germany or losses to a German strategic bombing campaign here. If you mean the former, losses were already high; at times Bomber Command was losing more bomber crews than the number of German civilians it was killing. While it was certainly useful in ways, it was by no means vital in defeating Germany. Despite the strategic bombing campaign against Germany, German production of war materials continued to increase right up until the final months of the war when Germany was losing access to raw materials left and right entirely independent of the effects of strategic bombing. If you mean a strategic bombing campaign by Germany, the ill-fated He-177 was the closest thing Germany ever came to a strategic bomber. It too had serious mechanical problems, it was nicknamed by German aircrews the Luftwaffenfeuerzeug (Luftwaffe's lighter) or the "Flaming Coffin".