posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:51 AM
Sminkey, as far as industrial capacity is concerned, the tiny country of Germany had the largest mechanized force and most powerful airforce in 1939.
It doesn't matter how many thousands of T34's were/could have been produced because the simple fact was that they were no match at all for the small
number of Panthers and Tigers that you've listed. The Panther and Tigers I/II had such thick armor (and sloping armor too, might I add) that, while
the T34 was better than their Sherman counterpart, was still no match for the German heavy tanks which German factories began favoring during the
latter half of the war.
And forget the 10-1 kill ratio. Konigstiger alone was capable of a 40-0 kill ratio on average (refer to the quote that I've posted twice now if you
can't believe this). There was never any documented evidence of Konigstiger being destroyed on the battlefield by enemy fire. Not even the Red
Army's most dependable heavy tank, the IS-2, could have matched King Tiger. 10 IS-2's could have smashed King Tiger with tank shells simultaneously
only to annoy the driver from the resulting dust and smoke - not the damage.
The greatest advantage Germany had - which I've been stressing for quite a while now - is the tactical/strategical advantages. No Allied commander is
noted in the military hall of fame for their tactical genius - especially as opposed to the Nazi commanders. One must realize that it was due to
strategy alone that Germany conquered nearly all of Europe. France, in many respects, had superior technology to Germany. And let's not forget the
Maginot Line. With such bristling and powerful defenses, how do you suppose France fell - and rapidly?
Furthermore, it should be noted that Germany advanced much faster than they retreated even in the face of being outnumbered 20-1. So whoever stated
that the Reich had their forces spread thin (especially on the Eastern Front), I challenge you to think again. For if such were the case, the war
would have ended much sooner. Someone also mentioned that the Wermacht was starving and freezing to death in Russia due to inadequate supplies. Keep
in mind that the bulk of the supplies were being shipped to the Eastern Front.
Rommel, in the brutal deserts of Africa, suffered from even less attention as far as supplies were concerned but still punished the Brits there
thorougly. Not only did Rommel lack supplies, he lacked just about everything. He had an insufficient amount of troops. When Hitler promoted him to
Field Marshal, he stated that he would have much rather preferred another division. The Desert Fox didn't get his nickname from nowhere. The Brits
were fighting in the deserts for what seemed and endless time against Rommel's fake tanks. The majority of Rommel's tanks were literally cars with a
tank chassis stacked on top to create the illusion that Rommel had under his disposal many powerful and flexible Panzer divisions. The fake tanks
merely acted as bait that British tanks chased until they were blown apart by flak cannons hidden in the desert sand.
With such tactical genius and technological superiority, I find it difficult to not win a war. Therefore, I'm convinced that my position still holds
true: Hitler was the paramount reason for Wermacht failure and the dissolving of the Third Reich. Germany had everything it needed to conquer Europe,
Russia, and perhaps even the world save favorable leadership at the very top of their heirarchy. I won't deny that Hitler was a political genius, but
for politicians to meddle in military affairs is a formula for disaster - tantamount to George W. Bush managing the strategical to divisional aspects
of the wars we die in.