I just wonder why the Germans had all this awesome stuff yet the standard soldier was still running around with a bolt-action Mauser. As usual, the grunts get screwed while pinheads waste money. "Hey boss can we have some coats, it's like 40 below out here." "Mmm, sorry, we blew your winter clothing budget on making a rocket... or something... didn't work, but have fun fighting General Winter, boys!"

Originally posted by taibunsuu
I just wonder why the Germans had all this awesome stuff yet the standard soldier was still running around with a bolt-action Mauser. As usual, the grunts get screwed while pinheads waste money. "Hey boss can we have some coats, it's like 40 below out here." "Mmm, sorry, we blew your winter clothing budget on making a rocket... or something... didn't work, but have fun fighting General Winter, boys!"

It wasn't just the freezing cold. Tanks get stuck in the snow and the fog makes it incredibly painful to send planes. Simply, Hitler was not prepared for a winter war as was the case with Napoleon. It's like the saying goes: "He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it." Hitler is no exception.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
I just wonder why the Germans had all this awesome stuff yet the standard soldier was still running around with a bolt-action Mauser.

- well there's also the issue about timing. The German arms manufacturers were developing some advanced stuff towards the wars end and missed a stage compared to the allies in some things....maybe as a result of many of the R&D teams being broken up and later reformed.....that's what you get when you're so arrogant and convinced by your own propaganda that you've already won.

After that antiquated Mauser was to come the MP44, which was a very advanced, cheap and easy to produce automatic assault rifle......the similarities between it and the Kalashnikov have been noted (even if Kalashnikov denies cribbing any of the design).....and we all know how successful a design that has been for the last 50yrs!

[edit on 29-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Popeye

The Horton flying prototype that was built was a fighter sized aircraft - the planned bomber was to be used to bomb US - yes it would have had a low radar signature due to the construction material for the same reason as the RAF's Mosquito has a low signature - it was built of wood not metal.

- there were several Horten designs. It is true wood and other 'non-strategic' materials were intended to be used but the stealth characteristics of these aircraft were not down to wooden construction - although this 'benefit' was recognised by the German engineers.

The twin jet fighter-bomber (the Ho1X or Gotha Go229) and the planned later transatlantic HoXV111 bomber all had stealth as an actual design feature and 'stealth materials' were applied to the airframe. It was in it's infancy but the German engineers were aware of radar signatures and the possibilities of actively reducing that signature.

This was something that would be later 'revisited' when the B2 project started and the US engineers went to see the sole surviving Horten Ho1X at the Smithsonian storage facility.

You'll also see the Germans applied an effective stealth matting to the snorkel device they fitted to their U-boats.

Speaking of which the Type 21 U-boat became the inspiration for diesel-electric subs for the next 15yrs post WW2.

But for all their clever and innovative ideas basically the Germans lost - so completely - and, which ever way you cut it, didn't deserve to win either.

Originally posted by Blackout

Originally posted by taibunsuu
I just wonder why the Germans had all this awesome stuff yet the standard soldier was still running around with a bolt-action Mauser. As usual, the grunts get screwed while pinheads waste money. "Hey boss can we have some coats, it's like 40 below out here." "Mmm, sorry, we blew your winter clothing budget on making a rocket... or something... didn't work, but have fun fighting General Winter, boys!"

It wasn't just the freezing cold. Tanks get stuck in the snow and the fog makes it incredibly painful to send planes. Simply, Hitler was not prepared for a winter war as was the case with Napoleon. It's like the saying goes: "He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it." Hitler is no exception.

Yeah I read somewhere that the Russians called the devastating effect of the cold "General Winter." And this captain would wake up in the morning and check the temperature and be happy when it was below -40 because he knew the Germans were really suffering. Sounds like a fun time.

the germans were using tanks they designed for use in warm/ mild climate - hot/humid climate. thats the amin reaosn theyr tanks didn't work well.... the fuel line froze over night so the germans would make fires under their cars to keep the fuel lines from freezing.... if hitler had simple insulated the fuel line they would have had no problem with russia

Originally posted by Hitlers Revenge
the germans were using tanks they designed for use in warm/ mild climate - hot/humid climate. thats the amin reaosn theyr tanks didn't work well.... the fuel line froze over night so the germans would make fires under their cars to keep the fuel lines from freezing.... if hitler had simple insulated the fuel line they would have had no problem with russia

- Look man, free speech and all and respectful of differing opinions as I am but that is simply the funniest, most ignorant, biggest crock I ever read.

German didn't lose WW2 because of an insulation problem, wake up.

Winter 1941 was indeed bad. But Germany is a continental country, they have cold winters there and what about 1942, 43, 44 or 45 then, problem still not sorted?

Germany lost WW2 because they were so deluded and arrogant as to think they could go to war with most of the rest of the world, complete their quick smash and grab and get up from the table - having won everytime - and with everyone else just accepting the 'new situation'. As if.

Most people who have examined the situation agree, whatever the initial set-backs the USSR suffered, Germany was never actually likely to defeat the USSR militarily. Ever.

Had the USSR leadership lost their nerve then maybe thing might have been different but they didn't. After the initial wobble (from the invasion start 22/06 until Stalin speaks to the nation 03/07) the result was only ever in doubt to the blind nazi zealot and the gambling fool - which Hitler most certainly was.

Franz Halder (German general, chief of the Army General Staff 1938 - 1942) noted that rather than the OKW's original calculated 175 divisions (with reserves rising to maybe 250 divisions) they had (in July 1941) already identified 348 divisions.

Between 22nd June and 31st December 1941 one million German sooldiers fell. Germany could never sustain such losses.

In 1942 there was a superficially impressive campaign.....but as was proved by 1942 there were no circumstances in which the German army could defeat Russian arms.

1943 finally exploded the myth that Russia could win battles assisted by the most bitter winters and the German offensive capability in the east was finally, for the most part and by any measure of significance, destroyed.

As for 1944 and 1945, well, is it not obvious?

The only lasting truth of this terrible sorry episode was the tragedy for the Russians - and all the peoples - who suffered having to defend themselves and destroy the threat and tragic for the Germans who suffered in their attempts and the revenge that followed.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


German didn't lose WW2 because of an insulation problem, wake up.

It's not so funny as it sounds, the Russian winter stopped Hitler from winning that country, which was an important reason why he lost the war. The German winters can hardly be compared to what Russian winters can be.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


German didn't lose WW2 because of an insulation problem, wake up.

It's not so funny as it sounds,

- I'm sorry it is. It is an utterly absurd notion. Russians have always understood the principle of giving up ground to buy time.

They were already well advanced with moving their productive base well beyond Moscow.

the Russian winter stopped Hitler from winning that country, which was an important reason why he lost the war.

- no, the Russian winter only stopped Hitler taking Moscow.

Which is nothing like the same thing at all.

Ask Napoleon all about that one.

The German winters can hardly be compared to what Russian winters can be.

- I disagree.

I think what was then east Prussia and Silesia has winters that could be described as approximate to a normal Russian winter.

OK 1941 was a particularly bad one but the Germans were not completely unaware of how it could get. They, in their arrogance, didn't plan, they hadn't the spare resources anyway and were never going defeat the USSR by taking Moscow.

The outcome would have been the same.....just with the defeat starting with the German forces a little further east.

Bad insulation in the tanks or bad footwear may have been factors although it's difficult of course to recognize exact causes. I just wanted to say that one shouldn't underestimate these "small" factors. I agree that arrogance and bad planning must have played a part in this. Probably they were unaware of how cold it could actually get, even though I suppose winters in eastern Germany are pretty cold.

Originally posted by Niclas
Bad insulation in the tanks or bad footwear may have been factors although it's difficult of course to recognize exact causes.

- I'm happy to agree that small seemingly insignificant factors can be overlooked yet have a significant and grossly disproportionate effect.

I just wanted to say that one shouldn't underestimate these "small" factors.

- Yeah, OK, I'll agree there. No problem.

I agree that arrogance and bad planning must have played a part in this. Probably they were unaware of how cold it could actually get, even though I suppose winters in eastern Germany are pretty cold.

- Of course they did and of course what was then east Prussia had what we would call severe winters from time to time.

But the biggest arrogance of all was that Russia would collapse ( typified by that idiotic cretinous remark by Hitler that...."one only need kick in the door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down"). She didn't. She never even came close.

30 000 T 34's (that's one single type alone outnumbering every type of German AFV the Germans produced) and a reserve of men at least two or three times what was available to Germany is why Germany lost WW2 - and lost it utterly in Russia.

The USSR out produced the Germans in every significant sphere from late 1942 on.

The result was never in doubt......except for the fantacists.

Now a what if? What if someone had talked Hitler out of attacking Russia and had put all the manpower involved there on securing France and invading England? What if someone had managed to assasinate Hitler and become the new leader of Germany?

Is there any circumstance where Germany might have won against American manufacturing?

- Was

Originally posted by Wassabi
Now a what if? What if someone had talked Hitler out of attacking Russia and had put all the manpower involved there on securing France and invading England?

- Well France was pretty secure for them but invading Britain was always going to be incredibly difficult thanks to the Royal Navy.

I can think of five possible realistic conditions with which this might work.

1) The tanks do not stop allowing the BEF - relatively - unmollested escape to Dunkirk and then Britiain. The UK may have sued for peace in the eventuality of the BEF being captured or annihilated, who knows? Maybe with the resources of her vast empire behind her she might not.

2) The battle of Britain does not happen. The UK is left alone and the Luftwaffe does not squander the resources. Additional air resources are then allocated to the German Navy.

3) The Germans develop the type 21 U-boat 5yrs early.

It is mainly 1930's technology (basically a bigger hull holding around double the batteries of the type 7 and allowing additional torpedo carriage) so not beyond the bounds of possibility.....and properly designed in sections for true mass production.

That could have been a huge problem.

4) The Germans manage to secretly develop and effectively use their anti-shipping guided missiles 3 - 4yrs early to significantly damage the Royal Navy - before effective countermeasures are developed and deployed - to effect the successful invasion of the UK. This is asking a lot as the control system was hardly 'advanced' when it did appear in late '43.

5) Germany does not attack the USSR until the UK is defeated. (but this inevitable attack IMO guarantees Germany eventually loses the war and ensures a Soviet dominated if not actually occupied Europe)

What if someone had managed to assasinate Hitler and become the new leader of Germany?

Is there any circumstance where Germany might have won against American manufacturing?

- I don't see it myself. Certainly not a defeat, maybe a cold war of sorts. IMO any new German leader would probably be aghast at the idea of a probably perminent state of war with the USA.

The possibility might have existed - if Japan had been able to wait and not attack the US fleet in 1941 (which for resource reasons she couldn't) - of some sort of joint attack on the USSR. This might have led to the USSR breaking up. But the most likely outcome of this would be a permanently dangerous - murderously dangerous - eastern territory and the anti-German forces such as they were in the undefeated 'bad-lands' being supported by the US.

Nevertheless the kind of distinct consolidatable victory that the nazi and expansionist Germans dreamed of with a pacified east and the resources of the defeated British empire at their command was never going to happen IMO. Ever.

Originally posted by Wassabi
Now a what if? What if someone had talked Hitler out of attacking Russia and had put all the manpower involved there on securing France and invading England? What if someone had managed to assasinate Hitler and become the new leader of Germany?

Is there any circumstance where Germany might have won against American manufacturing?

- Was

had hitler sped up production on his intercontinential bomber and had sent a fleet to america (1 way trip but lets say he sends 300-400 bombers not good for america if he bombs major cities) he could have put a huge dent in americas weapon manfacturing, and since america was a huge supplier of the allied forces weapons and ammo had we of lost 50% manfaturing capability it would have given hitler alot easier path into france and england.

everyone thinks hitler was ruthless but look at d-day america sent 73,000 troops and lost 10,000 on d-day british/canadians sent 83,115

the americans lost 6603 men almost 1/7 sent
the british/ canadians lost 3676 men
germans lost 4000 men on d-day

Originally posted by Hitlers Revenge
had hitler sped up production on his intercontinential bomber and had sent a fleet to america (1 way trip but lets say he sends 300-400 bombers not good for america if he bombs major cities) he could have put a huge dent in americas weapon manfacturing, and since america was a huge supplier of the allied forces weapons and ammo had we of lost 50% manfaturing capability it would have given hitler alot easier path into france and england.

- Well hold up, France was defeated in may 1940. France was hardly the problem.

I don't see how you can get around the fact that Germany had limited resources.

You're suggesting Germany devote massive resources - on a total loss basis - to attempt a 50% reduction in US war material output using several hundred bombers in a one off set of raids.

It couldn't be done.

Even with thousands of experienced night and day bombers battering Germany for years 'we' couldn't destroy their industrial capacity sufficiently until nearly the very end of the war. German output peaked in 1944!

[edit on 11-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Hitlers Revenge

Originally posted by Wassabi
had hitler sped up production on his intercontinential bomber and had sent a fleet to america (1 way trip but lets say he sends 300-400 bombers not good for america if he bombs major cities)

Assuming he won the Russian front and had access to oil he needed and raw material, then maybe just maybe he could have built a jet fleet to hit the US in a 1 way strike. How ever, while he could have done some city busting, given the emense size of the CONUS, and the disbursed nature of our factories, He would he hard pressed to put a serious dent in US production. The US would have in all likelyhood made a ABomb well before Germany would have. The Brits took out the main source of heavy water and evidence supports two conclutions on the German Bomb project, 1) Heisenburg stalled production, or 2) they simply could not under the constant bombardment.

Either way Hitler was a crazy ass and he failed to grasp the implications of all the technology his scientist were working on.

Originally posted by Hitlers Revenge

Originally posted by Wassabi
Now a what if? What if someone had talked Hitler out of attacking Russia and had put all the manpower involved there on securing France and invading England? What if someone had managed to assasinate Hitler and become the new leader of Germany?

Is there any circumstance where Germany might have won against American manufacturing?

- Was

had hitler sped up production on his intercontinential bomber and had sent a fleet to america (1 way trip but lets say he sends 300-400 bombers not good for america if he bombs major cities) he could have put a huge dent in americas weapon manfacturing, and since america was a huge supplier of the allied forces weapons and ammo had we of lost 50% manfaturing capability it would have given hitler alot easier path into france and england.

everyone thinks hitler was ruthless but look at d-day america sent 73,000 troops and lost 10,000 on d-day british/canadians sent 83,115

the americans lost 6603 men almost 1/7 sent
the british/ canadians lost 3676 men
germans lost 4000 men on d-day

No. A 300 - 400 one-time bomber strike on an East Coast US city would have done nothing to hinder US war production.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Hitlers Revenge

Originally posted by Wassabi
had hitler sped up production on his intercontinential bomber and had sent a fleet to america (1 way trip but lets say he sends 300-400 bombers not good for america if he bombs major cities)

Assuming he won the Russian front and had access to oil he needed and raw material, then maybe just maybe he could have built a jet fleet to hit the US in a 1 way strike. How ever, while he could have done some city busting, given the emense size of the CONUS, and the disbursed nature of our factories, He would he hard pressed to put a serious dent in US production. The US would have in all likelyhood made a ABomb well before Germany would have. The Brits took out the main source of heavy water and evidence supports two conclutions on the German Bomb project, 1) Heisenburg stalled production, or 2) they simply could not under the constant bombardment.

Either way Hitler was a crazy ass and he failed to grasp the implications of all the technology his scientist were working on.

we might have gotten the a-bomb first but he would have had jet engines/ICBM's (primitive ones)

his bombers would have put a dent in the us production, I believe someone said

if hitler could have launched his bombers from germany and could hit america that also means he could hit just about every other country tehre is too, in all likely hood he could have targeted key areas such as training facilities, factories, airports, naval docks, major cities, and possibly resource locations.... now i don't think he would have sent 4000 pilots to their death for this but i think he might have come up with the idea of sending a few in building a refueling airport in some countries so they wouldn't have to make a 1 way trip
this wouldn't work in america because we are the most heavily armed country in the world..... now atleast but back then he would have never built anything over here just because he could give it any militray support

but lets say he did this in england and took this over he now controlls a very good stragetic point for launching these planes.... 1) because its on an island and and easily be reinforced and 2) once england had fallen thats one of the more powerful nations against him out of the war

Originally posted by Carvador

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Nazi Germany proved one thing:

Technology is OVERRATED. Technology does not always win wars.

If the above were reversed and true, then Nazi Germany would've won World War II.

I disagree. Look at Russia during World War I. They flooded the battlefield and outnumbered their opponents by whole multiples. However, they were very poorly equipped, and suffered many, many casualties.

It is due to poor management under Stalin's rule that the war was fought, at times, by the force of multiples and with huge casualties.

However, it is plain wrong to state that Russia had inferior tech in the second half of the war. The opposite is true.

1) T-34 battle tank. According to the History Channel, "arguably best tank of WW2". Not perfect, but a great tank according to many.

2) Il-2 assault plane. Heavy armour, antitank rockets etc. A classic.

3) Dive bomber of "Pe" series

4) Katyusha rockets. Need I say more here They are still in use.

5) A bit too late for war, but almost in time: AK-47. Was actually ready in 1945. Again, need I say more.




[edit on 13-8-2004 by Aelita]