What would have happened if.....

[xane]

Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel
Lucky for us it was inefectual because they sqanderd their industrial resources developing many varients of machine instead of concentrating on a proven design. Surprising, because by using better tactics they beat the hell out of the french in '39 with inferior tanks.

I beg to differ, the German armour was way more sophisticated than anything the French or British could muster during the Battle of France. The French tanks were based on "infantry support vehicles" from WW1, and the British BEF were simply paper armoured replacements for cavalry like the "Cruiser" tanks, the Germans designed their tanks to match the style of warfare they used.

You may have been thinking of the Panzer IIc, but in France they also had the Panzer III and StuG III, and even Panzer IV towards the final stages. These were supported by the 88mm gun, a weapon not surpassed until the very end of the war.

Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel
As for the air battle, their aircraft were more than a match all though the war

My point was that the allies had caught up with German technology, not that German was inferior, far from it. BY 1943 most of the German designs whilst excellent on the theoretical battlefield suffered from crippling shortages of spares and fuel.

 

[bids]

Originally posted by xane
I beg to differ, the German armour was way more sophisticated than anything the French or British could muster during the Battle of France. The French tanks were based on "infantry support vehicles" from WW1, and the British BEF were simply paper armoured replacements for cavalry like the "Cruiser" tanks, the Germans designed their tanks to match the style of warfare they used.

You may have been thinking of the Panzer IIc, but in France they also had the Panzer III and StuG III, and even Panzer IV towards the final stages. These were supported by the 88mm gun, a weapon not surpassed until the very end of the war.

I have just finished reading 'German Tanks at War' by Bob Curruthers, and his view of the tanks of 1940 is different:

'On balance, the allied machines, and in particular the French tanks, outclassed the Germans in armour protection and main armament........ The downfall of the allied tanks was the way in which they were employed tactically'. He also makes the point later in the book that the German obsession with new technologies (Panther, Tiger, King Tiger, Maus, etc) meant for unreliability, slow production times and a major lack of spares. If they had concentrated on their 'workhorse' kit like the Panzer IV, FW190, etc, things may have been different. All of these could still have taken on the main allied tanks on an equal footing - except perhaps the T34.

 

[bigfoot]

I'd recommend Freedom Fighters if you want to see one spin on what would happen if the Russian's had won the war (WWII / Cold War), I quite enjoyed it :>.

 

[DaGaffer]

Originally posted by xane
I beg to differ, the German armour was way more sophisticated than anything the French or British could muster during the Battle of France. The French tanks were based on "infantry support vehicles" from WW1, and the British BEF were simply paper armoured replacements for cavalry like the "Cruiser" tanks, the Germans designed their tanks to match the style of warfare they used.

You may have been thinking of the Panzer IIc, but in France they also had the Panzer III and StuG III, and even Panzer IV towards the final stages. These were supported by the 88mm gun, a weapon not surpassed until the very end of the war.



My point was that the allies had caught up with German technology, not that German was inferior, far from it. BY 1943 most of the German designs whilst excellent on the theoretical battlefield suffered from crippling shortages of spares and fuel.

French tanks were, tank for tank, better than their German equivalents in 1940; in fact, the Germans nicked loads of them for the Wermacht. The Char.bis outgunned and outarmored any tank in the world at the time, although it was slow.

It was tactics wot won it, not the quality of their kit (although their aircraft were generally marginally superior to the French Dewotines & Morane-Saulniers and the BEF's planes) because the Germans actually understood combined arms and the allies, including the British but especially the French, didn't.

 

[~Mobius~]

Thanks, I will keep an eye out for the books you all mentioned.

Where was countries like Somalia, Ethiopia and the South American countries in the war? Were they just left out, since I guess the war affected them too.

(This isnt A-level or anything I'm just curious.)

 

[xane]

You keep saying the "tactics won it" but that's the whole point, the German's designed their tanks to fit in with the tactics, they favoured faster lighter armoured tanks, with more crewmen, to fit in a blitzkreig style of warfare.

Yes, the French tanks had bloody big 75mm guns up front (but not in a turret), but they could only go as fast as an infantryman and had no radio or no dedicated radio operator. They suffered the same fate as the Maginot Line, the German army simply went around them.

You can put any massive gun on a tank but it does not make it "superior", especially when it only points forward.

The German tactics, and tank design, closely matched the British, in fact a lot of Guderian's ideas came from British generals who were modernising their army, replacing cavalry with their tank equivilents. The German tanks were much better designs than the British ones by the time of the Battle of France.

 

[DaGaffer]

Originally posted by ~Mobius~
Thanks, I will keep an eye out for the books you all mentioned.

Where was countries like Somalia, Ethiopia and the South American countries in the war? Were they just left out, since I guess the war affected them too.

(This isnt A-level or anything I'm just curious.)

Ethiopia had been occupied by the Italians in 1936. The British kicked them out in '41 (I think). Most South American countries were neutral but Brazil was with the allies and there were Brazilian troops in North Africa (after Torch) and Italy. WWII books and movies rarely emphasise the fact that many, many nations fought for the allies; as well as all the Commonwealth troops (ANZACS and Canadians often get mentioned, but there were millions of Indian troops), the 'free' troops (French, Poles, Dutch etc), Persians, Africans, Palestinian Jews, you name it.

 

[bids]

I was watching one of the Discovery WWII programmes about the Brits who were in the Waffen-SS - the British Free Corps (or Legion of St. George as sometimes called). Although hardly a committed combat unit it was interesting to see the reaction of relatives when told their fathers/grandfathers were in a Nazi military unit. It was even suggested that they saw combat on the Eastern Front. Deffo worth a watch if it's repeated.

 

[Furr]

I recall watching a program interviewing tank commanders who were in shermans after D-day , they explained how their shells would just bounce off the tigers armour and that they thought they were pretty much outclassed in every way. Something to do with how the americans decided not to incoporate an english tank cannon which was superior to the ones that were eventually used by the americans.
or something.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by DaGaffer
WWII books and movies rarely emphasise the fact that many, many nations fought for the allies;

Similarly there were many foreign troops outside of Europe fighting for Germany too, and some rather bizarre considering the facist German politics at the time. Not only were many troops fighting because of their German national roots, but some were recruited because they were anti-British, anti-French or anti-Amercian too.

Consider the "Freies Indien" division, mainly made up of Indian nationalists who wanted to chuck out the British rulers. I've seen a strange picture of a Sikh with turban in a German Army uniform !

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by Furr
I recall watching a program interviewing tank commanders who were in shermans after D-day , they explained how their shells would just bounce off the tigers armour and that they thought they were pretty much outclassed in every way. Something to do with how the americans decided not to incoporate an english tank cannon which was superior to the ones that were eventually used by the americans.
or something.

I saw that too. Not bad for Channel 5

Shermans were much faster and cheaper to build and were great for everything except tank v tank...

 

[DaGaffer]

Originally posted by xane
Similarly there were many foreign troops outside of Europe fighting for Germany too, and some rather bizarre considering the facist German politics at the time. Not only were many troops fighting because of their German national roots, but some were recruited because they were anti-British, anti-French or anti-Amercian too.

Consider the "Freies Indien" division, mainly made up of Indian nationalists who wanted to chuck out the British rulers. I've seen a strange picture of a Sikh with turban in a German Army uniform !

Mmm, lots of Arabs were pro-German, they even supplied planes and weapons to Iraqi nationalists (The British got a bit of shock when BF110s turned up in the Gulf with Iraqi markings). Goes to prove the old maxim; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

 

[old.Gombur Glodson]

I believe there is about Germany and the US allying against the sovietunion and communism and thus making a new europe after that.
Sadly I've forgotten the title.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by Wij
Shermans were much faster and cheaper to build and were great for everything except tank v tank...

Yes caus allied tactics never wanted tanks to fight other tanks, it was believed that slower and stronger anti tank vehicles would take out the German tanks. Shermans were designed to take out the lighter units (infantry, troopcarriers and suply trucks) off course the germans had other plans.

 

[urz]

I have just read a book called 'The Forgotten Soldier' by a chap called Guy Sajer. He had German mother and French father and lived in Alsace before the war. He fought with the 'Gross Deutschland' regiment on the Russian Front. Tells the story from a foot soldiers point of view, and is a very gritty, sobering reflection of what what was one of the most bitter, hate-fuelled areas of conflict in the second world war.

Available from Amazon - would recommend.