It has been suggested that the German war effort would have been better off using the resources from heavy tanks like...

They lacked fuel in the first place
If they had captured the baku fields and not fucked off in Stalingrad Germany would have won

im not saying the tigers would be a better option, im just saying that it was an equally bad one. you can build gas guzzling super heavies, or tons of efficient stugs, but the main problem still doesnt go away.

I'm not asking if it would cause them to win I'm asking if it would have been more effective.
I've done a lot of research on the subject and this just isn't true. If they had not underestimated both enemies they would have had a great chance at winning, but they believed the English would quit after being driven out of France and they believed the Soviet army to fold quickly.

If they beat the Brits they would have had a solid chance

They had no chance once the British were held up in their isles. Germany just didn't have the navy and the air force just wasn't equipped to handle the task of crushing an air force that could recover faster, while also crippling their industries with aircraft not well suited to the role, and finally, be able to support invasion forces that would have to fight through the Royal Navy, endure the RAF, and reach beaches that they couldn't sweep for mines. Forces that on top of all this would require several trips across the English channel on barges.

Attached: Junkers-Ju-88-3.(F)22-ground-crew-cleaning-windows-01.jpg (1000x657, 368K)

germans were never keen on sealion, they knew it was unlikely to suceed

their plan actually hinged on u-boats strangling UK economically, while bombers broke their industry and morale
which was also ultimately pointless, as the battle of britian failed, and the u-boats never met their target amount of tonnage and were only getting farther

>germans were never keen on sealion, they knew it was unlikely to suceed

I know, but it was the only thing that could've actually taken Britain out of the war after France had fallen.

How about this Whereaboos:
>If Germany didn't waste any airpower on bombing London, battle of britian, etc. and focused that effort elsewhere would anything be different?

Well most of the US effort was tied up in japan, Japan was a heavy hitter and gave the US a real tough fight. Multiple battles where us casualties were greater than Japanese ones. Regardless, the US would always beat japan. And the ussr would always have beaten germany, even on its own. Add in Britain which had some nice code breaking and pesky bombing raids from an uninvadable island, and a complete joke of an ally that is italy (which not only failed in its basic tasks but also required German forces in Africa and Greece cause Italians were just bad at war), and it really just makes the axis winning impossible.

I really do think Italy was a major weakpoint. They failed to accomplish anything effective on its own, were supposed to keep southern Europe safe but crumbled when invaded almost instantly (which sapped even more German troops and equipment), just all around ineffective. If Italy had as good a military as japan or Germany it wouldve been a lot closer.

This would have them sitting on their ass for almost a year leaving the British to either build up their army and air force, ensuring a few things. The British will likely be better equipped in North Africa, they will have more aircraft at their disposal meaning they'll be putting pressure on installations along the German controlled side of the channel, and they'll have more aircraft dedicated for maritime patrol (ASW patrols and attacks on enemy reconnaissance aircraft). However, the British are also much less likely to pursue strategic bombing of German cities themselves, the bombing of British cities was a significant motivator for Bomber Command's adoption of that strategy, but it would absolutely leave the British to recover and look towards attacking Germany wherever they can.

The only way Germany can meaningfully prolong the war is by capturing additional oil reserves to conduct large scale maneuver warfare past 1942. Thus they have a few options;

1. Occupying the Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus region.
2. Invading the Middle East.
3. Inviting the USSR into the Axis.

Assuming #1: If Germany's economy had been fully mobilized in 1940 and 1941, and if the main thrust had been center and south, I do think that they could have captured the oil fields during the first summer offensive. They would have had to bypass the Crimea completely and forgotten about Leningrad/Baltic countries. A siege of Stalingrad would have been sufficient to neutralize it.

Assuming #2: Germany brings Turkey into the Axis and uses the country as a springboard for the conquest of French/British Middle Eastern possessions, centering on attacking Egypt from both sides and denying the use of the Suez to British shipping.

Assuming #3: Germany does the same as #2, but in a coalition with the Soviets and they capture all the European colonies from North Africa to India.

Everything falls apart once you consider Britain and America will still have massive bombing campaigns and any delay in the end of the war will result in Germany being the first country to have a nuclear bomb dropped on it.

no chance of white peace for ignoring the British Isles? Suing for a favorable armistice seems like the only victory scenario for Germany. Especially in the time when the US was not yet in the war.

I think they would have been better off focusing production on something like the Panzer V, and using the resources they spent on the other big kitties on recovery vehicles, haulers, and general-purpose trucks.
Improving logistics doesn't look as sexy on propaganda footage though.

Attached: 1338945196772.jpg (1152x864, 206K)

panzer V wasnt necessarily the answer, since it could only be moved by rail and couldn't move long distances on its tracks

yes, it is commonly accepted among most historians that using materials to make tried-and-true designs like Panzer IVs, STuGs, and PAK anti-tank guns would be more effective than making huge autistic dogshit monstrosities like Tiger IIs and Ferdinands that did little but satisfy Hitler's small dick syndrome.

Really they just needed a German T-34 or Sherman that was good enough for the job that they could produce in significant numbers. Germans went full autistic, they knew they had an economic disadvantage and tried to economize their units by making them more expensive, less reliable and fewer in number. They didn't have enough tanks.

the STuG III and Panzer IV can be considered the German T-34. cheap and easy to make, reliable, fielded a decent gun and armour, and easy to operate for moderately-trained crews. the Germans would be much better off if they focused on producing those instead of Tigers. they still wouldn't have won though

>they needed a t-34
So the up gunned panzer 4

The gun/armor combination of a tank in maneuver warfare, while not irrelevant, was of secondary importance to speed, range, reliability and composition of the forces.

The Battle of France was won with Panzer IIs making up the largest numbers of tanks. Remember that.

For this reason alone they should have relied upon the Panzer III and the Panzer IV. They were the tanks that they could produce en masse in the 1940-1941-1942 years, which are the crucial years in deciding the outcome of the war.

After 1942 what Germany produced didn't matter strategically. They were fucked.

They should never have invaded the Soviet Union before having atomic bombs. Speaking with 20/20 hindsight as we all are, Germany's fate was absolutely sealed when Hitler stopped AG Center's drive to Moscow and diverted forces to AG South. That pause was it.
Ultimately, if Hitler got all the way to the Urals, the Soviet leadership still would have been alive and therefore an endless guerilla war would have been undertaken at least. The Soviet Union was absolutely vast, and when Hitler's objective (at least in June 1941) wasn't to conquer it entirely, there was plenty of space to bleed the Wehrmacht dry. It never would have worked.
Why did I just go on that big tangent? Because the Tiger was irrelevant. The war was already lost.

The battle of Britain should not have even happened, the Germans should have been attacking ships with their aircraft. The real way they could have beaten Britain is to have planned a real invasion of the Soviet union and won the east. At that point they would have at least come to a ceasefire.

>And the ussr would always have beaten Germany
This is not true.

don't forget the great German blunder of Kursk.

They couldn't afford to lose armor at a rate that the allies could. Their best option was to have quality over quantity. However for the late war tanks I agree that the resources would be better used on artillery and antitank pieces

Moscow was never going to be the lynch-pin, thus it should have been ignored in favour of bleeding the Soviet's dry and taking away their resources.

The drive should have always been South to secure Ukraine and the oil fields. Only once those are secure could a drive north be considered.

if the Germans didn't bomb military targets in England (read: launch the BoB,) any attempts to attack shipping by the Luftwaffe would be met by swarms of undisturbed RAF fighters, not to mention the fact that any German bombers attacking ships on England's West Coast would have no fighter escort. Luftwaffe losses would have been absolutely huge and unsustainable. the first step to any prolonged air offensives against Britain was to knock out RAF fighter command.

operation barbarossa was hinged entirely on ridiculously optimistic predictions that required every division meet their theoretical max march distance every day while also failing to consider nearly the entire soviet reserve forces

a combination of huge overestimation of their own capabilities and under estimation of enemy force meant they were fighting a delusional battle
they also had basically zero fuel, they had literally a few months of reserves left, and so were basically on a rush timer

A lot of truth there. The Germans lost as soon as they were pushed back from Moscow.

Attached: 8303059623_e7fde50d4f_o.gif (422x601, 176K)

>no chance of white peace for ignoring the British Isles?
They weren't happy about the whole war thing. The u-boats weren't a big hit with the British public either.

The Luftwaffe was badly equipped for the anti-shipping mission and most of the shipping routes were out of range for all but a handful of aircraft, which would be flying without air cover.

Attached: 1341234213.jpg (736x516, 64K)

OP never asked if the outcome would have been different user. Also there is no way an endless guerrilla war would have happened, it was a war of annihilation and partisan forces were getting cleared out even during the war

I believe, with my war gaming experience, the Germans should've just grounded the stuka fleet.

God damn, those things cost about as much as a panther.

Also, they needed to make more stugs. Infinite stugs. Allies had an armor problem, it wasn't severe, but it did exist, stug was able to pen the sherman reliably. The infantry support tank was also an idiot's errand as well.

Germany ironically should've focused on light tanks and armored cavalry

The war was unable to be won militarily by Kursk.

>Their best option was to have quality over quantity.

The German army's best option was to engage in maneuver warfare on a mass scale. That is the only way they could have eliminated enough forces and obtained enough resources from the USSR.

They needed reliable tanks and a logistical system that could support deep thrusts.

The Panther and the Tiger were defensive weapons because of their unreliability. The big tank's inability to cross bridges alone blunts it's offensive capability.

reason is, heavy tanks break down on the eastern front. stalin manufactured them tanks to perfection. they breakdown when they get shot.

>operation barbarossa was hinged entirely on ridiculously optimistic predictions
I agree, however if the Germans had prepared for the Soviet invasion like they did the French invasion they would have made much less mistakes and probably would have been able to break the Soviet Union

>And the ussr would always have beaten germany, even on its own.
kek

Attached: M4A2 (76)W.jpg (2714x1809, 523K)

Panther was a stupid defensive weapon. stug was the highest performing tank of the war.

Oh yeah, stalin was willing to go as far as papa h man was plus

They lost slightly before that to be honest, they didn't fill the units lost on the push inwards and they weren't relieving their elite troops.

when i wargame, I do about as well as hitler did early on. tried pushing south, went well, minsk was a meme though. i grounded the stukas

>tank

>The German army's best option was to engage in maneuver warfare on a mass scale
I agree with this, going into urban areas really kneecapped their abilities. The more I learn about the eastern front the more I realize that the war was winnable for the third Reich

I mean there isn't winning as much as hold out long enough to get nuked.

The Germans tried to make peace multiple times. Britain wouldn’t have it. Hitler saw the Anglos as fellow Germanic brethren but Churchill saw it differently. As for the USSR, there is a large portion of the historian community who think that Stalin was planning to invade only weeks later than Barbarossa. Hitler declared war on the US because they had been defying neutrality through lend lease, forcing Germany to either allow the enemy to be supplied or start a war with the US. America was always going to eventually get dragged into the war so might as well get it started before the US can supply the USSR so well that it becomes even costlier than just getting it over with and declaring war on America.

I know this is bait but Soviet tanks had heat problems

Attached: 1494819114399.png (495x450, 320K)

Good thing war was in the winter.

Moscow was strategically irrelevant unless Stalin decided to stand and die there. Which he wouldn't have.

What the historical Barbarossa campaign shows us is that the German Army was spread too thin to reach their objectives. Thus, by limiting their objectives a more decisive thrust could be delivered in 1941 in the South, capturing the vast resources of the Ukraine and Caucuses.

You go on the defensive during the Winter of 1941 and 1942, build up more oil reserves and consolidate your forces, come back in 1942 to try to crush the Soviets in a series of encirclement campaigns in Stalingrad, then Moscow.

Then you set up defensive positions.

>youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA

Attached: 1549426638696.jpg (960x952, 37K)

>Moscow was strategically irrelevant unless Stalin decided to stand and die there.

It was the central rail head of the Soviet union and could've broken their back logistically had they lost it.

Maybe but a victory in the east would make the war in the west a different situation

>had they lost it.
moscow probably couldnt be won at all

germans only got as far as the suburbs before they got stalled by a stubborn soviet defence
and even then, they couldnt really invest more troops due to how stretched their supply lines were just reaching moscow

T-34 production shifted to a simplified design that was faster to manufacture. It was enough that the tank managed to be a tank long enough to enter combat. Because a shit tank is better than no tank, especially when you're losing ground and relocating factories eastward.

Can't relieve and replace if they are over-extended and lack the logistical power. You could argue they lost as soon as they invaded Poland. If they didn't invade Poland the Polish would have been the buffer between USSR and Germany. And if the Russians invaded Poland on their own then they probably would have had war declared on them by the allies.

Attached: 1377223443199.jpg (1400x1014, 194K)

The aviation industry was fucked in this regard before the war really started, sure it doesn't help that the industry was under such extreme strain, but they just weren't prepared to face something like the B-29, nukes or no.

True.

Though you have to wonder instead of the resources that were funneled into V-1, V-2, Me-262, Panzer IV/V/VI that Germany couldn't have also produced a nuclear bomb if they tried.

He isn't wrong though, Britain and the USA believed the germans were a threat to the world order and would never allow peace. They also never accepted any terms the Germans sent their way. For the declaration of war on the United States there was no reason to believe that the USA would not enter the war, they in the name of neutrality were supplying, protecting and equipping the allies. Had Hitler not declared war the United States would still enter the war but at a time more advantageous to them, the declaration allowed Germany to attack US assets.

>The Luftwaffe was badly equipped for the anti-shipping mission
i wouldn't say so. remember that several Luftwaffe light level bombers, dive bombers and torpedo bombers literally specialized in attacking shipping. the JU87 and FW200 were very effective anti-shipping aircraft when they had fighter cover, and they demonstrated it many times

And a shit tank is not perfection... especially when you have the Sherman that is easy to manufacture and performs better than the t-34

The bomb required high quality uranium, which was about as available as unicorn horns in terms of resources for them. Though there were quite a few other issues.

Convoys used a northern approach, all but the Fw-200 would have to fly over England to reach them.

thread music

youtube.com/watch?v=WwnrDuKyT9E

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-07-21 01-08-32.jpg (499x496, 56K)

Yeah, but what do you gain out of capturing Moscow in 1941? You don't gain any resources to continue the campaign. It'll be like Napoleon's campaign where even if you do win, you're stuck in the burnt out shell of a city for a Winter.

I'm not saying that Moscow wasn't important, but taking Moscow wasn't going to win the war outright in 1941.

You invade in 1941, consolidate your gains in the winter and THEN you go all out in 1942 to finish the job in Western Russia by taking Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad.

After that you can consider moving into the more Eastern cities where Stalin would likely make a last stand.

Doesnt matter, they still run out of fuel and 90% of their armored and mechanized force has fallen apart and needs heavy maintenance and outright rebuilds by the time they see Stalingrad

And then the initial Soviet pushbacks occur right on schedule, and because of geopolitics, they last long enough and put enough of a fight up that Lend Lease materials, everything from tanks, trucks, to Rolled Steel, and food to eat and seed corn to regrow crops with gets dumped into the Soviet economy

The Germans lost that war the moment they marched East, against their most fiathful and useful allies up to that point. You want to fantasize about a German Nazi victorious Europe survivng?

They don't march East, remain allied, up to and including Soviet-Nazi joint invasion of the Middle East and North Africa and Iberia to lock the British out of the Mediterranean and deny them resources from the Middle East.

And they both condemn the Japanese for being retarded and doing Pearl Harbor, which was NOT the best of bad options, but was suicidal stupidity that never had any hope of gaining them anything at all.

Attacking Poland and letting the allies declare is the obvious fault. Especially if they could have let Russia invade Poland first in which case Germany enters Poland to protect the Polish from Russian aggression.

>You invade in 1941, consolidate your gains in the winter and THEN you go all out in 1942 to finish the job in Western Russia by taking Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad.
I mean, that's exactly what they tried doing. Hard to consolidate in the winter when your you're freezing to death and getting attacked and pushed back.

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-B20535,_Russland,_Soldaten_im_Schnee.jpg (800x562, 50K)

>Britain and the USA believed the germans were a threat to the world order and would never allow peace. They also never accepted any terms the Germans sent their way.
>What was the willful failure of collective security?
>What was the policy of appeasement carried out by MacDonald, Bladwin, and Chamberlain?
>there was no reason to believe that the USA would not enter the war
Except, you know, the US doing pretty much everything in its power to help its allies without actually going to war? I mean, it really is entirely possible to arm your allies in a conflict without declaring war on anyone, and we were really pretty content to lose a few merchant mariners to stick with that.
>Had Hitler not declared war the United States would still enter the war but at a time more advantageous to them, the declaration allowed Germany to attack US assets.
Hitler didn't declare war on the US until after Japan and Italy; his hand was forced by his cancerous allies, not some brilliant strategy to somehow undermine American war efforts well after the US had already gotten its war industry into action to assist their allies.

And this is where the Italians come in, had Germany shared powerplants with Italy the Italian air industry could have produced a decent amount of aircraft to fight.

>If Hitler had any sense and all the people around him that shooed away the logisticians
He would have stayed allied with Stalin, invaded Iberia and occupied Gibraltar and Morroco, performed some of the invasions in North Africa, all while Stalin invades from the north, conquers Turkery and Iran and then they jointly invade, after shipping units down the Danube and across the Black Sea, the Middle East, and by the time that they would OTL be fighting in Stalingrad, be at Suez preparing for a massive invasion.

Locking the Brits out, refusing to declare war on America, and laughing as the Americans can not justify a war declaration

The issue was that they lacked good high altitude engines, they basically gave up and decided to go with a work around in the Ta-152, installing boost systems for high and low altitude. It didn't even fix the problem, it just brought their head back above the water a brief moment, technically speaking, though they were still fighting something like 10:1 at best around late '44.

Attached: 1516758836946.png (688x445, 107K)

I fucked up and posted the wrong table.

Attached: This one has the plane production numbers.png (773x355, 43K)

Ironically, the Nazis would have had better luck combing their V2s to their latent radar guided shit rather than attempting USA style Radar guided flak, because the Germans didnt have the high shock surviving tech

Of course then, the issue would have been production

>Doesnt matter
Yes it does, the point of this thread is to figure out if the resources would be used more effectively making something else. The point is not presuming that it would win the war. Its kind of ridiculous that we can't have a thread about WWII strategy without regards screaming about the outcome

>The Germans lost that war the moment they marched East
When will this meme die?

Their guidance system was horrible and easy to jam, their SAM program was just a desperate hope. That tech wouldn't be ready for years after the war.

>an endless guerilla war
Eastern Front was brutal, once enough casualties mounted from ambushes, mines, snipers etc. German forces would start liquidating whole cities.

No they didn't try that, Hitler and the other brass couldn't agree with the invasion planning so they split their objectives. What that user is saying would have been much more effective than barbarossa

>It has been suggested that the German war effort would have been better off using the resources from heavy tanks like the tiger and just making artillery pieces. Would that have been more effective or did they need the tiger?

1. Tanks are a worthless meme that's only effective when facing less capable opponents without effective anti-armor, artillery, or air support. Tanks are pointless in a peer to peer conflict and do nothing but waste resources that could be better spend on artillery and troop transports, aka what actually wins battles and wars. For the cost of one Tiger 3 Germany could have fielded 10 mobile pillbox APCs and outfitted every rifle man in a company with their own panzerfaust.

2.Nazi Germany lost because they got greedy, they should have stopped at a pan Germanic superstate instead of trying to control all of europe.

Attached: 1489856364125.jpg (1000x584, 52K)

>not some brilliant strategy to somehow undermine American war efforts
I never said it was brilliant, it just made sense at a political level

the panzer 4 was way past due for retirement

they needed not to fuck up the vk 30 by slapping extra 15 ton on the design. kwk40 with ~100 mm effective slop armor would have been an excellent tank.

It made sense to join your two most powerful, although entirely incompetent allies. Hitler was obligated to help Italy and Japan; this was essentially the only thing that forced their declaration of war on the United States. He knew the US didn't want another war in Europe, that a portion of the American public was borderline sympathetic to their cause, and that he would have a lot of trouble dealing with the world's two largest industrial powers at once (although I doubt he thought he couldn't do it.) There was no inevitability to it beyond Japan going full retard and sinking the boat for the Axis powers.

the panther was still a lemon. its power train was designed for a 30 ton tank and wasn't up to the task of handling a 45 ton tank.

a tank that can't be transported by truck or drive across engineering bridge is not practical.

>Soviets invade
Then what?

>Stalin was planning to invade only weeks later than Barbarossa
Germans had just scooped up Yugoslavia, Greece, and Crete. If the Soviets invaded in a timeline where Barbarossa was cancelled, they would be facing a rested, well-equipped force that would push them out of Germany without much incident. Hitler may have even taken that opportunity to seize their oil fields, if the defensive war sapped their reserves enough for him to give a shit.

Attached: keks-in-Aryan.gif (500x400, 996K)

You morons clearly don't understand how shit German logistics were. They were moving shit on horseback. Their fuel supplies were dwindling. The soviets had way too much raw resources, oil, and men for Germany to ever win. This is just a fact. It was as hopeless as the Japanese effort against the US.

Yes however he was not obligated to declare war to help japan. With how aggressive the US was in their support, it would have been hard for German high command to believe the US would not enter the war. Also it is a wonder to me how a nation with an overwhelming majority of German immigrants would be so against German expansionism.

I might have been to passionate in my statements but the point stands, what the fuck can tanks even do besides fight less developed forces? Tanks aren't even good at fighting other tanks.

You are the only moron here. There were so many variables that caused the outcome and a different invasion plan would have fixed those logistical issues.

who designed this abortion? The driver doesn't even have a viewport

Are you fucking retarded?

Tiny periscope slit next to the front intake.