Best Army of WWII?

[BeBro]

QUOTE:
*****
I never thought about it that way but I was completely aware of all these weird, half-baked, weapons that the Germans had, like air-defense missiles, dozens of different jet designs, anti-ship missiles, the biggest tanks in the world, the biggest siege artillery ever made etc... I always thought it was spurred by Hitler in his search for "the easy way to win the War: the Wonder Weapon"...
*****


Just an addition: the large number of these so called "wonder weapons" doesn´t mean that Germany was so far ahead in weapons technologies. Despite some really innovations, many of the "weird" designs show only the desperation of the Germans, which layed their hope in such "unfinished" weapons.


------------------
Civ2000
[This message has been edited by BeBro (edited September 08, 2000).]

[Captain Nemo]

Harlan, you make some very good points and I agree with you as to the ideas the Germans came up with. Many of them worked well (V-1, V-2, Me163, Me262, Nebelwerfer etc...) however they weren't worth their cost and were produced in such small numbers that they could not achieve anything... Even such an advanced plane as the Me262 was made ineffective by Hitler's meddling making the Luftwaffe use it as a bomber (Like Germany was likely to go on the offensive in 1944...) then the lack of fuel, pilot & parts.
Something as obscure as the American bomber sight and bomb release timing system probably had a far greater impact on the War as all the German wonder weapons put together...

I am also curious about planes with "forward sweeping wings". I know the German jet with that weird design but I haven't seen any modern planes (Except a few unsuccessful prototypes) with that design.

[Evil Capitalist]

quote: Originally posted by Captain Nemo on 09-09-2000 12:33 AM I am also curious about planes with "forward sweeping wings". I know the German jet with that weird design but I haven't seen any modern planes (Except a few unsuccessful prototypes) with that design.

The 5th generation Russian S37 Berkoot fighter has swept forward wings (sorry, I can't think of a link).

[BeBro]

Harlan, perhaps other countries haven´t builded such things like jets with forward sweeping wings because their more conventional designs were really successful. For instance the Grumman X-29 prototype with such a wing configuration was tested during nearly the same time as the two different prototypes for the new F-22 fighter. Both of these prototypes were more conventional designed (but "stealthy") and highly agile, most important for an air superiority fighter.

Nemo, why do you think the Me 163 worked well? I´ve only read that it had problems because the Me 163 pilots simply hadn´t enough time in the air for succesful attacks on the allied bombers (the rocket engine used to much fuel). Have you some more info about the combat missions of the 163 for me?

------------------
Civ2000

[Captain Nemo]

BeBro:
I did not suggest the Me163 was a great plane, but it was good enough to stay airborne and not kill the pilot as some of the other jet engined prototypes did.
It also was capable of the high altitudes required to intercept the B-29 bombers and was produced in sufficient numbers to actually have an operational record as did the Me262. The Me163s did account for a number of B-17/B-24 shootdowns, I don't know how many total but at least 20 by one Jaegerswarde (Spelling?). All the other German jet/rocket planes ended up being toys/engineering projects that were never used in any scale, even the good ones like the Arado.

[BeBro]

Nemo, thanks for the info.

Jaegerswarde is Jagdgeschwader, which means fighter wing (just an info, not that I will correct you ).

The only fact about the Arado I know is that the Ar 234 (?) was a good jet for reconnaisance missions, but the bomber version wasn´t as good as the recce version (or unfinished)

------------------
Civ2000
[This message has been edited by BeBro (edited September 12, 2000).]

[Case]

I think that the Me163 was considered a failure. The Me163 was basically an aerodynamic tank full of rocket fuel and lacking a proper under carriage, making it very dangerous to land. Also, the Me163s speed was actually a disadvantage as a Me163 would only ever have 3 seconds to shoot at a B-17 due to their high closing speed and short range of the Me163's guns. Whilst Me163's did shoot down a fair few bombers, all the Allies had to do to limit their losses was reroute their bombers to avoid coming within range of Me163 bases (which were easily identifiable due to their long concrete runways).

[Captain Nemo]

I am in general agreement with the fact that the Me163 was a failure as a weapon. But it was nevertheless one of the few jetplanes that flew during WWII, and one of only 2 that actually had significant operational combat experience. It also was an inexpensive plane to produce, contrary to most other German weapons systems, which deserves a mention.

[klesh]

Let's all play WWII Online! and find out for ourselves!

------------------
I am the Ukrainian Anti-Pope!
Grossdeutschland!

[Prometeus]

I know that italian army wasn't the best of WWII ( and please note not for value ), but, of the Axis tanks, after Germans Tiger and Panther, the most feared by Allies was the italian howitzer-tank M41 75/18.

------------------
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ Ave atque vale... ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

E-mail? Click goddi_diego@yahoo.com

[Captain Nemo]

Prometeus:
I hate to burst your bubble but I don't quite agree with your assessment of the "Semovente M.41M da 90/43".

The M41 was not a tank, or even a tank hunter. It was anti-tank gun mounted on a M13 tank chassis. It was so poorly designed that the crew had to stand on the ground behind the vehicle to operate the gun which meant it could not fire while moving and the gun crew had to sit in the open on the front of the hull when the vehicle was being moved, or travel in another vehicle. It carried no ammunition itself, meaning that it had alway to be accompanied by an ammunition carrier vehicle, more like a towed anti-tank gun.

The gun was certainly powerful (Originated as a 90mm Flak gun) and did inspire respect among the very few Allied forces that had to face it (Only 48 were ever built!)(In comparison, the Jagdtiger, which is considered never really to have gone into full scale production, reached 77 units built).

The equivalent German designed "Open" Tank-Hunters, the Marder II and III and the Nashorn were all far superior to M41 being able to fire on the move and providing better protection for their crews. The Nashorn carried the powerful Flak 88 gun, the Marder III a 76mm gun.

The German "Enclosed" Tank-Hunter the JagdPanzer IV, JagdPanther V, Hetzer, Elefant and JagdTiger were all far superior to the M41 (Though the Elefant was a dismal design itself) and 2 of them (The Hetzer and the JagdPanther V) are considered as perhaps the two most advanced tank designs of WWII.

Since the Allies only faced German and Italian tanks in Europe (And the Japanese tanks were dismal) the best that can be said for the M41 is that it was the most feared, non-German, vehicle that the Allies had to face...

Prometeus, I don't want to antagonize you, I just love the subject of WWII armor and decided to research your statement. This is what I found.

[Captain Nemo]

Here is another interesting fact about WWII armor...
It is well known that the American tanks were far inferior to the German Panthers and Tigers, right. Of course the Allies made up for it by killing a lot of the German tanks with air power...

But what happened when German and American tankers met in the field?
The "Barkmann" encounter is a well documented engagement, where a lone German ace in a Panther knocked out a dozen Sherman tanks. The Wittmann battle at Villers-Bocage against British tankers is about the best known such encounter.
But here are a couple that I found where American tankers came out ahead:

* The US 776th Tank Destroyer battalion (M10s) engaged a battalion of Pzkw IVs on March 27 1944 (in Algeria) and knocked out 14 German tanks losing only 2 themselves.

* During the Italian campaign the 894th Tank Destroyer Battalion claimed 46 German tanks and 39 other vehicles with losses of only 14 of their own M10s.

* In France the 704th TD Battalion equipped with M-18 Hellcats engaged armored units of the 11th Panzer division near Arracourt and killed 19 German tanks (including 8 Panthers) losing only 3 M-18s themselves.

* The 702nd TD Battalion equipped with M-36 fought German armor in eastern France in the last week of November 1944. Their scorecard: 8 Pzkw IV, 15 Panthers, 2 Hummels and one King Tiger for losses of only 8 M-36s themselves.

My conclusion: The German armor was better but the American tanks and especially the tank destroyers were not nearly as bad as many would make them. I also believe the Americans used their equipment better than the Germans, in general.

[The ANZAC]

quote: * The US 776th Tank Destroyer battalion (M10s) engaged a battalion of Pzkw IVs on March 27 1944 (in Algeria) and knocked out 14 German tanks losing only 2 themselves.

Don't you mean 1943 and Tunisia?

[CapTVK]

I might have a small snippet of information about the way German field infantry was so well organized...

Most german actual field units came from specific regions in germany. In many cases a unit would consist of a bunch of 'farmboys' from surrounding villages with a known local regular, like say a butcher or teacher as their sergeant. Higher up in the command structure there also could be a local constable, lawyer etc...Anyway, apart from the social bonding that seems to develop in a unit there was also a strong regional bond. This might be the reason that German infantry nearly always stayed their ground when the going became though.


I might have something about Kursk somewhere, I'll have to dig it up.

[Captain Nemo]

Anzac:
Of course it was 1943, my mistake. By 1944 all the fighting in North Africa was over... The exact location was "Maknassy", but no country is mentionned in the article. The 776th TD battalion was moved to "Phillipville, Algeria" and from there moved to Maknassy where the engagement took place...Could have been on either side of the border.

CapTVK:
I think the Wehrmacht organization did create an extremely powerful force, however I think the bonds that build between men in the field after just a few weeks or facing danger together, far surpass the "acquaintance" level relationship that people would have from living in the same town or area. So I don't think that would have played that great a role in the German's ability to fight.
I think the character of the people plays a greater role.

The Germans, disciplined and having extreme respect for authority... hence willingness to obey ANY order and ability to fight to the end without question.

The Japanese, extreme sense of Honor, hence more willing to die than to surrender. Willing to sacrifice their life for the "common good"

The Americans, organized and inventive hence very innovative strategies and a systematic approach to warfare.

And so forth...

The question remains, who was the most effective?

[Case]

I know I'm biased, but in my opinion, pound for pound some of the smaller armies were the best of the war. For example Australia, Canada and New Zealand all maintained supurb armies who won important victories.

For example, Australia played a major role in the war in North Africa, spear heading the attack on Siri Bandi (spelt wrong) where tens of thousands of Italians surrendered to a far inferior Commonwealth force, held Tobruk against a long German seige and played a vital role in the battle of El Alamain. Australians and New Zealanders also made up a very big chunk of the ill fated greek campaign. In addition, Australian troops made up the majority of General Macarthurs forces until 1943, and proved to be more then a match for the Japanese army in the Campaigns in New Guinea and Borneo.

The Free Polish and French armies also fought very well, and thier contribution to the war effort was far greater then their numbers would suggest.

------------------
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error
-John Kenneth Galbraith

[BeBro]

Very interesting hint, Case. For the Polish, I remember their fighter pilots which fought very successful in the RAF during the Battle of Britain and later.

BTW, I know, Nemo is speaking of regular armies, but after all I´ve read I think that also the partisans were very effective, especially in the Soviet Union, but also in Western Europe.

------------------
Civ2000

[Harlan]

Nemo,
Your accounts of Allied vs. Axis tank battles is interesting. But to truly judge the situation, one would have to look at the situation in its entirety. Odds are that by late in the war, the Germans were outnumbered and outsupplied much of the time. Especially with oil. Their tanks were often little more than artillery pieces, because they couldn't afford to use oil on manouvering.

Which brings me to the larger question of which army was best. Again, you have to take supply into consideration. Is the question, if you had the same number of men with the same supply situation, which one would win, or do you include the incredibly lopsided supply differences? Measured as pounds of supply per day per soldier, the Americans beat all other armies (including other Allied) so badly it isn't funny. So how much of their success is due to that? The American goal (as always, including recently in Kosovo) was to keep casulties low by relying on high technology and plentiful supply, which is a big reason why the bombing campaign was emphasised so much.

[Captain Nemo]

Harlan:

I think the engagements I posted are not close enough to the end to warrant the Germans being completely outnumbered and supply-less. One is in North Africa, one in Italy and the two last in France in 1944.
These were pure tank-on-tank scores not planes, tanks and artillery against tanks so I thought they were worth noting. I do not think they represent the norm for American tanks engaging German tanks one-on-one, but they dispell the notion that the American tanks were totally helpless when facing the Germans. Actually both the M-18 and the M-36 were quite capable tanks-hunters/tanks.

It is true that the Americans called on superior means to overcome the enemy but superior numbers and unlimited supplies cannot alone explain why the American and Soviet casualties in 1944-45 are so different. Both were on the offensive and both faced the best Germany had to offer (Actually German generals complained that Hitler was shifting too much of the effort to the West to stop the Allies rather than to the East to stop the Soviets, which they thought was against Germany's best interest). Both had almost unlimited resources and great numerical superiority, but the Americans got out with a fraction of the losses the Soviets took...

CapTVK:
Your summary of Kursk matches pretty close to one of the articles I referred to. I will address it in further detail in a few days when I can gather all my material.
The Panthers and Ferdinand tank hunters, which you omitted from your report because they were not directly involved in the Prokhorovka engagement accounted for a large number of the German tank casualties in operation Citadel, close to 150 according to my sources. Both were due to design problems making them very vulnerable.
One of my books says the "GrossDeutschland" Panzerdivision's Panthers wandered directly into a Soviet minefield and left 39 destroyed tanks behind...
Does that match up with your data?

[Captain Nemo]

The question almost has to be divided into sub-categories. My original discussion with Mikael Andersson focused a lot on the respective "quality" of the Armies.

His viewpoint was that the best army was the most fanatical, most willing to fight to the end, in which category the Japanese were probably number 1, followed by the Germans and Soviets... In this category the Italians (Sorry Prometeus), then the French of 1940, then the Soviets of 1941 probably rate the lowest.

The effectiveness is a very different. Though the Soviets were very well equipped, very organized and fanatical in 1944-45 their effectiveness was not very good: They continued to lose more troops than the Germans all the way to the end. Even the final battle for Berlin cost the Soviets almost 600,000 killed far exceeding the German military losses defending the city.

My contention has always been that the Americans, as they fought in 1943-1945, were the most effective, based on casualties versus impact. I would call the Americans the "smartest" fighters of WWII, not the bravest nor the best soldiers...

As far as the Free French they were very effective but were mostly integral units of American armies, equipped and commanded by the US. Accordingly, they were very effective.

The Polish had a similar role within the British Army. So did the Canadians. The Australian and New Zealand troops were more independent and fought both with the British and Americans. I am not sure they should be considered as independent fighting forces or a part of the US and British Armies? The bravery of those troops is unquestionnable but considering them as an "Army" would imply that they had their own strategy for winning the War and their own tactics which I do not think they had...

[CapTVK]

Found it, this document was deeply hidden on the Eastern front II CD. The real battle at Kursk was rather different from what we've been told to believe.


"This is supposed to be one of the biggest tank battles in history. The Germans had 400 to 600 tanks at the battle. Where are they all?"
At this stage of the battle the II SS-Panzer Korps had 319 tanks, assault guns, and SP panzerjägers (Marders) available to them. According to the strength returns filed by the II SS-Panzer Korps at 1800 on the 11th, the three SS divisions had the following tanks "ready for action" (from north to south):

SS-Totenkopf:
54 x Pz III
24 x Pz IV
6 x Pz VI (Tiger I)
20 x StuG III
7 x Marder II/III
TOTAL: 111

LSSAH:
2 x Pz I (that's right, Pz I)
4 x Pz II
20 x Pz III
31 x Pz IV
3 x Pz VI (Tiger I)
20 x StuG III
20 x Marder II/III
TOTAL: 100

SS-Das Reich:
43 x Pz III
18 x Pz IV
27 x StuG III
12 x Marder II/III
8 x captured T-34
TOTAL: 108

Das Reich has no panzers in the scenario because they were all actually off the south edge of the game map that day. (They also suffered only two tanks lost all day). That means the Germans really only had 211 tanks present on the board.

There was a whopping total of nine Tiger I's (PzKpfw VIE) involved in this battle. Sorry to disappoint you Tiger fans, but that's the way it was. Likewise you will see no Mk V Panthers. That's because all the Panthers that were in this area (25 of them on this day) were in the 39th Pz Regt, which was attached to the Großdeutschland Panzergrenadier Division further to the west (off the left edge of the map).

Against this force the Russians threw some 842 tanks, predominantly T-34s and T-70s but with a few Mk IV Churchills, SU-122s, and SU-76s. These were broken out as follows:

2nd Tank Corps: 59
2nd Guards Tank Corps: 140
5th Guards Tank Army (18th Tank Corps, 29th Tank Corps, and 5th Mech Corps): 643.

Not all of these, particularly those of the 5th Mech Corps, come into play in this scenario given the time and space constraints; but there are enough that the German player should certainly have his hands full.

The final tank loss figures for 12 July were 313 for the Soviets and about 49 for the Germans. Seem more one sided than you have always been led to believe? Yeah, that's what I thought too. But that's what happened. In fact, if you read the German after-action reports, it took them a couple of days before they even realized that they'd been in a major tank battle. To them, Prokhorovka was one more day of sharp fighting that followed over a week's worth of similar days.

So in short, the massive losses (at least on teh German side) never happened. For the Germans it was just another day at the office

"So how did the story of the gigantic tank clash at Prokhorovka get started?"
By Russian generals who were terrified of telling Stalin how roughly they'd been handled. To save their own hides they inflated German strengths and losses. By the time Stalin died in 1953 and the truth could be told, the story was too entrenched and too many decorations had been handed out. Plus, it makes a better story to say that there were hundreds of burning tanks on each side. This problem of playing down Red losses and inflating German losses is common to all Soviet sources.

"But if the battle was such a lopsided German victory, why didn't they push on to Kursk, or at least to Oboyan?"
Because by this time the German attack had run out of steam anyway. The Germans had been having, and continued to have, logistical problems that hampered the advance. There are a number of field reports from the panzer unit commanders stating that their tanks were advancing with less than ten, and sometimes less than five, rounds of ammunition in their turrets. The Germans never did establish air superiority over the battlefield, and Il-10 attacks on their supply lines and combat units hampered them as well. Much more importantly, the German advance slowed because of continued intense Soviet resistance, of which Prokhorovka was just one (albeit rather exceptional) example. Actually, in the face of the heavy resistance directly in front of Prokhorovka, SS-Totenkopf (aided somewhat by LSSAH) continued its push on the 13th to try to get around the Soviet flank. This is probably when it suffered the majority of its tank losses for the 12th and 13th.

One final note to anyone interested in the "real" battle of Kursk: Christopher A. Lawrence of the Dupuy Institute is hard at work on a book about Kursk, including special attention to Prokhorovka. This will be the first work, in any language, that will have as its basis the official records and strength returns from both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. It will be published in 2000 by Westview Press (a division of Harper Collins). I will be providing the maps.

—Jay Karamales
Chief Cartographer, Olórin Press
3 March 1999

[CapTVK]

Nemo,

The article discusses Kursk in the context of the scenario so it isn't 'complete'. But it does provide some data on number of forces present (tanks mostly). I've also seen some articles concerning Kursk which support the conclusion that tank losses were fairly low for the Germans at historic warfare sites. For full numbers we'll have to read Christopher A. Lawrence's book I guess.

Note: the author also warns to be careful with historical data and definitions because they don't always add up (see the article I posted). More recent books might be more accurate in that respect. For example: your sources state that the Großdeutschland had 39 panthers in action while my article states they had 25 in commission at that day.

I've been studying a lot about the potential of each the WW2 armies lately. I think you guys are right on many of the facts, but at the same time, I think you MAY be underestimating the amount of damage the Axis armies could have done. True, an Axis victory in the war would have been impossible, but things could VERY CERTAINLY have gone in the Germans' favor in 1940...

Here's a little example of what I mean. Winston Churchill was one of the greatest leaders of WW2, but in fact he almost never lived to see it when a taxi cab hit him in NY in '31. Without him to have forced the Germans into bombing cities, the Germans may have continued bombing RAF air fields and radar stations. Then the German Navy would have had the air cover needed to make Sealion work...

Result, a VERY swift defeat of the British by Sept?, Oct.? 1940. Then Canada, India, Australia, the Middle East, all of Africa, and other little areas of the world all would have fallen under some Axis control. Probably, India would have suffered the same fate as French Indochina essentially being handed to the Japanese. Canada, bordering the US, probably would have ignored Nazi control.

Now one of two things could have happened each more frightening than the next... Either the successful elimination of the British Empire would have convinced Stalin to join in the pact, or the Germans would have taken Russia. Let's examine the second possibility.

With the battle of North Africa having never occured. Rommel would almost certainly have been involved in the invasion of Russia. With the Middle East in Axis hands, the Germans could have invaded northward under Rommel while the rest of the invasion trudged eastward from Europe. Rommel would have run circles around the Russians and Stalingrad would have been in his hands in months.

The Japanese no longer needing to fight the British in Asia, decided to take what they could of Siberia, and moved out from Manchuria cutting reinforcements to Moscow in half. By maybe late 1941, Moscow would have been taken. WW2's over... sort of.

So where do we stand? All of that oil that the Germans did not have, they now have in abundance. They also control the incredible British and Soviet industrial complexes which are just churning out Axis weaponry. All of the good the English and Russians could do is essentially gone.

Now, an Axis victory in the war is STILL impossible in this time line for several reasons. When the USA gets into it (as they almost certainly would) any sort of invasion of the US mainland would be a virtual impossibility. It could never be done given the vast expanses of water to be covered. Any coastal city that could be taken would be liberated again in days... The second reason for victory being impossible, is the will of the conquered regions... the Maquis, the Soviet Partisans, the English Resistance, the German Resistance, the Chinese, and African Arab and Indian nationalists would have brought down the Axis from the inside. The third reason, is that it would have been just a matter of time before the Japanese and Germans attacked each other...

But what would come out of this a much prolonged and bloody war. Using British aircraft carriers, the Germans would have heavily bombed US coastal cities destroying shipyards and factories. The Japanese would have taken Hawaii and done the same thing on the American west coast. The Japanese Unit 731 in Manchuria would have perfected their biological weapons that could have killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans over the course of the war. Without liberation in 1945, millions more would have died in the death camps. Millions more would die as American bombers began dropping atomic bombs on Germany in 1946 or 47.

Still, even if the US had been able to match all of the Allied armies in the actual WWII, they could not have invaded Europe without that English foothold. It would have depended on the eventual collapse of the German Empire from the interior after Hitler's death. Although some countries like England, France, and Russia might have regained their independence after a few years, Germany would have remained under a Nazi regime. And hopefully, it would regimes under the freedom movements that would have been established rather than pro-German governments. And the militaristic Japanese government would also have been impossible to weed out.

Well, the point of this long speech is that A) we should count our blessings, but more importantly B) that the Russian and British industry, inflexible German generals, lack of German oil supplies, the American air cover for the troops after Normandy, and the production gap of weapons would not have been issues if Sealion had happened and been successful. The Germans had the potential in 1940 to bring the world teetering on the edge of doom. The fact that they didn't is more a matter of fate than anything else. But in the real time line, after the Battle of Britain, there was only one way it could end.



------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

[Case]

Be very careful when praising Winston Churchill. Whilst Churchill was an inspiring wartime leader, there can be little doubt that the man was incompetent in handling militay operations.
Here are just a few examples of his 'genius':

-Churchill was the mastermind of the failed Galipoli campaign in WW1 - this failure forced him to resign as First Sea Lord (AKA minister for the Navy).
-In 1941 Chuchill threw away almost certain victory in North Africa by commiting a major chunk of the 8th Army to support Greece (which had showed no intention of helping the British until the Italian invasion), giving the Germans the time needed to send Rommel to Africa.
-In 1941 Churchill also sent the Prince Of Wales and Repulse to Singapore to fight the Japanese without air cover, and generally failed to reinforce the Far East.
-In 1942 Churchill tried to send the Australian 6th and 7th Divisions, which were returning home to form the force necessary to deter a Japanese invasion, to Rangoon just days before it was due to fall to the Japanese. Had the Australian government not flatly refused it is almost certain that the best units in the Australian army would have been captured.
-Churchill had to be dragged into the invasion of France by the Americans. Instead of invading France Churchill favoured invading Yougoslavia and advancing thorught the Balkans(!)

------------------
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error
-John Kenneth Galbraith

[Harlan]

Some interesting discussions going on simultaneously.

Re Kursk, when evaluating that battle, you shouldn't be asking questions like which side lost more tanks. The Russians had way more stuff to lose. Anything short of a complete victory with an encirclement and massive amount of troops and weapons seized would have been a loss for the Germans at that point.

The what-if speculation is interesting. An even more interesting what-if regarding Churchill is what if he was killed in August '40? He almost did die. He was flying back from meeting with Roosevelt, and his plane was misindentified as it was coming towards England. Six fighters tried to shoot his plane down, but amazingly the pilot was able to avoid them all and land the plane! His death in such an idiotic manner might have given the upper hand to those advocating a peace deal with Germany.

Both Roosevelt and Churchill were absolutely instrumental. For instance, John F. Kennedy's father, Joe Kennedy seriously considered running for US President in 1940, and polls showed he had a good shot of winning. He was US ambassador to England at the time, and so pro-German that he was kept out of the loop on most things. He actually would toast to the German victories at cocktail parties. He sent messages back to Roosevelt urging him to not support England, as they were a lost cause.

Needless to say, all of America's might would have been for nothing if an idiot like Kennedy was in power at the time. And the majority of people supported a Kennedy like position in 1940 and even 1941. Even after Pearl Harbor there was considerable doubt that the US Congress could get enough votes to declare war on Germany (before this question could be answered, Germany delcared war on the US). Without Roosevelt, the US military would have been in a very sad state in 1941.

Most of Hannibal's post paints a very bleak picture of a much more brutal and costly war. That was the point I was making in an earlier post, when I brought up the 1984 reference. But there's one thing Hannibal you neglect: nuclear weapons. No other country but the US was likely to get them (Germans abhorring reseach leads considered "too Jewish", even if they had the resources to launch a Manhattan project). In such an incredibly brutal war as you postulate, it probably would have ended with nuclear bombs dropped all over Europe and Asia. US democracy would have fallen by the wayside in such a brutal future, and the world we live in today would be not far off from Orwell's 1984 (in that book, the world is seriously damaged from a nuclear end to WW2, amongst other things).

And about Churchill, he was an "ideas man". As he himself admitted, 9 out of 10 of his ideas were stupid, but most of the time people around him could sort out the good from the bad ones. Some bad ones did slip through, but some of the ones you point out were actually good ideas, just badly executed. For instance, Galliopli should have worked, and only complete idiocy on the part of some British commanders at the scene prevented a victory there. Balkans also wasn't a bad idea. The idea being to prevent the Russians from conquering Eastern Europe. It wouldn't have been instead of the Normandy invasion, but instead of the invasion of Southern France, which was a minor operation that didn't seriously affect the war.

[Captain Nemo]

CapTVK:
My article, by George Nipe Jr., is very close to your numbers regarding the Prochorovka fighting:
Total 211 tanks engaged from the II SS-Panzer Corp, including 15 Tigers. Their net loss on the 12th of July was 48 tanks from the operational tank list before and after the fight, however the number is closer to 70 (Because the differential did not account for a number of tanks returning from repair in the period). Soviet losses in the same period were listed as 600-650!
I read the report on the Panther and Ferdinand (PzJg IV "Elefant") losses in the Time Life WWII book series that includes 3 volumes on the War in Russia... But I am less sure of that info because it also has the more "traditional" account of the Prochorovka battle.

I also read elsewhere a caption next to a rare picture of a PzJg VI that it was one of the few that escaped the wholesale destruction during Citadel (Only about 80 PzJg VI were produced from Porsche's prototype Tiger I).

My report regarding the Panthers is that 211 of 430 produced by July 1943 were deployed for Citadel at Hitler's urging (They were supposed to be the main offensive weapon in the operation).
Though there were no SS-Panthers present during Citadel there were a significant number deployed among the regular Panzer divisions and casualties were high because of a deficient fuel supply system causing the tanks to catch on fire.
My article actually stated 39 Panthers lost out of approx. 120 in service for Großdeutschland >>in a single attack<< that rolled right into a Soviet minefield... That is very specific so there must be some record of it? Maybe Soviet propaganda?

Hannibal3:
You have some very good points, but I doubt the Germans/Axis could have been near as successful as your scenario depicts.

The Battle of Britain, though an important factor, was not what prevented the Germans from invading Britain. The Germans did not have the control of the seas needed to succeed in crossing the Channel and waging a sustained war on the other side. Even with better command of the air the Germans would have suffered a massive defeat had they launched Sea Lion. If by some miracle the Germans had succeeded invading England, the British colonies would not have fallen and the British government would have continued to function from Canada.

The massive ressources that the Germans "would have gained" had they conquered Russia, never materialized. They held the most productive areas of the country for near 2 years and squeezed less out of this entire area in 2 years than they produced in Occupied France in 2 months, while the Soviets shifted their entire industry and population Eastward. Even the Grossny oil fields, which they held for most of 1942, produces less than 1% of what they did before the Germans captured them, a mere 70 barrels a day! The Germans were unable to set up effective administrations in the conquered countries and treated the population such that adding countries to their territory actually DIMINISHED their ressources because it took men and equipment away from the front to control those areas while production from them was dismal.

After November 1941, the Soviet Union was never in real danger again and besides the Germans never really had a serious shot at capturing the whole country though they could probably have taken Leningrad in 1941.
Rommel, a good General, would not have changed much in Russia. Von Manstein and Guderian were just as good, if not as popular, and they weren't able to turn the tide. Stalingrad was a turning point and a symbol for the Soviets but hardly a key that would unlock a magical victory for the Germans... It was a small town without any ressources after the battle that totally levelled it... Capture it and you still have an army low on men, low on supplies, in the middle of nowhere facing a deadly winter and a Soviet industry that was already producing 1,000 airplanes and 1,000 tanks a month in the Urals alone to Germany's 150 and 125...

I don't want to downplay the tremendous effort that it took the British, Soviets and Americans to crush the Axis, but looking at it with all the factors known today, the end was already cast in stone by the end of 1941. The Axis was doomed because it was an alliance of 3 relatively small countries with limited ressources against the 3 most powerful countries on Earth allied with the rest of the World.

Anecdotes like the Japanese biological weapons etc... are nothing more. British aircraft carriers in German hands... The British would simply sail in and deliver them to the Germans? Reality is that wars don't suddently tilt over the edge because of a few events. The Japanese could not deliver biological weapons because by the time they had them ready there would be no planes left to deliver them. The Germans could not focus on attacking the US because winning a War in Russia would have required everything they had for another 5-6 years and probably every German soldier would have been dead by then because a nation of 60 million can't field enough soldiers to defeat one of 300... By the end of 1941 the German losses were already near irreplaceable despite their Summer/Fall of "Victories". Just a few more "Victories" in 1942 and now the barrel is empty and the Soviets are unstoppable.

Cane, I wasn't trying to make Winston Churchill out to be the single most important factor in the war. Actually, I was referring to one particular event in 1940 in which the Germans accidently bombed London. Churchill ordered a retaliatory attack on Berlin. The attack caused little damage, but Hitler became so infuriated he ordered that the Luftwaffe bomb the British cities. Once he ordered this, Sealion was lost. Had they continued to take out airfields and radar stations, the invasion would have been quite possible.

Captain Nemo,

I realize that this scenario may sound far fetch. And my prediction gets fuzzier the farther into time we go with it since there is no way to know exactly what would happen, but what I do know is that I am taking the possibilities from fact.

FACT: The German generals planned to destroy the RAF in order to secure the Channel against the Royal Navy. They would provide air cover for the invasion fleet.

Would this have worked? Maybe. Maybe not.

FACT: After the invasion of France, the Vichy France government was set up to negotiate a peace with the Nazis, and later became a total puppet government of the Germans. The French Navy and all of their colonial possessions were now under Vichy control, and French Indochina was "given" to the Japanese in a Franco-Japanese pact.

Would Britain have done the same thing? Would they have set up another government in the same way? Maybe, or maybe not. Would the Royal Navy have stayed loyal to the new government? Maybe or maybe not. Troops frequently surrender when their country is taken. The fact is that there are too many variables to ever really know.

Now, I assumed (although quite possibly incorrectly) that if Moscow was captured by the Germans, that the government of Russia would be under their control. Only partisan groups and other rebels would remain to fight the Nazis. All of the industry would be under Nazi control no matter how deep they went into the interior. (Again, I have no idea of what the Soviets would do. I'm only basing it on what I know to be true of conquered countries during the war)

And about the oil... wouldn't the Middle Eastern oil fields have produced something as well?

And about the Japanese biological weapons, the Manchurian bio-weapons lab was a reality. There is no question of that. As for employing them, I think that had Britain surrendered, it would have set off a chain reaction that would definitely have reached the Pacific, and might have thrown the war there in favor of the Japanese so that all of their planes would not have been destroyed, or maybe it would have altered US entry, and Pearl Harbor never would have happened, and the US beat the Japanese early. But I really doubt that the war would have carried on exactly as it did in reality.

I hope you can illuminate on these points. You may be entirely right because it seems that you already know far more than I on the subject.
[This message has been edited by Hannibal3 (edited September 25, 2000).]

[Cal]

Hannibal3:

Nice alternative timeline... but consider this plan for the invasion of the America continents.

Once Britain could no longer be used as a roadblock to prevent further Nazi expansion, German troops would be sent to occupy Iceland, then Greenland, where they could gain access to Canada. Simultaneously, Germany would send an invasion force to South America. Meanwhile, the Japanese would invade Alaska and the other half of Canada, meet up with the Germans, and invade the United States from both sides. Winston Churchill once told President Roosevelt (and I'm paraphrasing) that if Britain was conquered, the Nazis had a good chance of conquering the entire world.
Has anyone ever seen Frank Capra's documentary "Why we fight"? The first film talked about how the world could be conquered by the Axis, even America.

Hey... that gives me a scenario idea,

"The Axis forces have proved undefeatable on all fronts, and the final battle for the last unoccupied land on the face of the Earth comes in the form of a land war in the Americas. Has isolationism handicapped the Americans into a state of retardation, or can President Roosevelt manage to fend off the combined strength of the Axis juggernauts?"

I would like to add something else. I realize that to turn around immediately after taking Russia and attack the United States would have been ludicrous, but hey... they did it even without taking Russia. So when I said the Germans would begin bombing the U.S., I never said it would work. And I doubt an invasion through Canada would have been very possible for two reasons. First, the Canadians probably wouldn't have just succummed to Nazi rule. Second, the Germans would undoubtedly have been bogged down coming down through upstate New York or New England and if they went West, they never would have crossed the Mississippi.

A final note (because I felt that I did not explain it well). Sealion would have been launched had the RAF been destroyed. The Germans would have at least tried it... The Royal Navy was the best, but without air support, it would have been vulnerable. Sealion might have failed, but I believe the Luftwaffe would have provided sufficient air cover to allow some if not all of the troops to get on shore, and had they, there would have been almost nothing to stop them.

And with London under Nazi control, I think some Nazi sympathizers or pacifists would have mustered together a new government and signed a treaty. Now, about the territories...

First, Roosevelt and his advisors were very concerned that if Britain lost their territories would have come under some Nazi control. If they feared it, it must have had some truth to it.

I think that Canada would have rebeled against the new government since they had the U.S. there.

I think Australia would have taken a virtually non-existant Nazi presence over a Japanese occupation and stuck with the new government. (Sorry, to all the Australians out there.)

India would have been given to the Japanese, but by that time the nationalist movement was so strong that they (like the British) would have had a hell of a time holding it down. The Japanese would probably occupy it, but it would be a very violent time especially since they would probably have imprisoned Gandhi.

The British troops would have surrendered in Africa and the Middle East allowing those countries to simply be taken without much force (although southern Africa probably would have been ignored for the most part).

British Guiana probably would have been invaded by Brazil before the Nazis could get to it. The other territories (Br. Honduras, Jamaica, Bermuda, etc.) probably would have either enjoyed some autonomy or remained with Canada.

I still think that at least SOME of the Royal Navy would have remained loyal to Britain just as the French navy did to Vichy France. Many probably would have scuttled their ships or fled to the U.S. I still don't think captured British carriers being used to send bombers to the U.S. would have been that ridiculous.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

[Captain Nemo]

Hannibal3:
I don't believe the Axis victory scenario is likely to have gotten that far because it presumes upon a series of very low odds events.

Both the British and the Soviets had plans to evacuate their governments to continue the fight... The British would certainly have withdrawn to Scotland and then to Canada and the Soviets would have withdrawn to the Urals. Soviet surrender is unthinkable considering that the Germans had no mercy towards them.

Basically none of the countries that Germany conquered really joined them or added to their resources, the French kept all their fleet and military except for what was directly seized in the June campaign. The French fleet would have been scuttled or have fled had the Germans laid claims to it. The US and British actually gained control of a far greater portion of the French fleet than the Germans gained after June 1940.

Poland, France, Belgium and Norway formed significant governments in exile and continued to fight for the Allies after their countries were seized.

A Sealion success was incredibly unlikely because:

The Germans had no Navy, no significant transport fleet and no amphibious warfare equipment.

The Royal Navy was massive enough to sustain great losses and still twart a German invasion fleet.

Contrary to popular belief the Germans did not have great ressources at their disposal in late 1940-early 1941 when Sealion even could be considered. Losing 200-300 tanks at sea would have been a very serious blow to the German Panzerdivisions...

The effort needed to sustain and supply an Army over the Channel was incredible, as Overlord proved: The Allies employed 2,500 transport ships and 700 warships to land and sustain an Army of 920,000 with 600,000 tons of equipment over the first month of the invasion. This with total air dominance, total Naval dominance and incredible economic resources. The Germans could not have mustered 1/10th of that fleet and accordingly 90,000 troops with their equipment could have been landed? Against a British Army of about 1 million in England? With Britain dominating the seas? With only partial control of the air? With supply lines stretched all the way back to Germany?

Destroying the RAF with an airwar was a Goering pipedream... At best the Germans could cripple the RAF airfields in Southern England for a time and buy partial control of the skies, but the facts show that the cost, even of the attacks against the RAF fields in Southern England, exceeded what the Germans could afford, approx. 2.5-to-1 losses in favor of RAF and were surely tilting in favor of the British.

I am also 100% convinced that the Germans would not have been handed any of the British colonies even if they had conquered Britain. Just as they did not get any of the Dutch colonies, the Congo, Iceland or Greenland when they conquered Holland, Belgium and Denmark. The French were different as they were not occupied but a "semi-ally" to the Germans because of Petain's distorted view of the conflict (He saw it strictly as a third Franco-German war, 1870, 1914, 1939 and negotiated peace as in was done in 1870 expecting to some day reclaim the losses) But Britain was much much more Nationalistic and committed than the French.

A good indicator of the Axis chances for success was "El Caudillo". Franco, who was pressured by Hitler to jump into the war on Germany's side, tap-danced around, delaying, promising... but by early 1941 he had made up his mind that it would not be good for him to join the Axis "suicide pact".

As far as Japan's chances for success I really see none. They positionned themselves and struck quickly against unprepared enemies but as soon as their enemies started to fight they lost EVERY engagement. Their economy and their industry was totally incapable of sustaining a modern war. They were Samurais with a great courage and will to fight, but ultimately were not good tacticians, not good resource managers and not good war economists. Their "high water mark" occurred before the German's in the Fall 1942 only 9 months after Pearl Harbor... Everything after that was just a slow slide towards the end. They had no edge in any area of warfare against the Allies. Their good planes of 1941 were mediocre in 1942 and obsolete in 1943... Nothing new replaced them and most of their brilliant pilots were never replaced. Likewise, their fleet was good in 1941, outclassed in 1942 and doomed to extinction by 1943. Their land warfare was always obsolete but managed to earn victories against the even more obsolete Chinese Army. They should have learned their lesson when a young Zhukov clobbered them in Manchuria before the German-Soviet non-aggression pact was signed.

"What if" scenarios are great... and nobody really knows what could have happened but I am personally convinced that the outcome of WWII was predetermined almost from the start.