WW2 From the German Perspective (New Documentary)

[Kerensky]

Sit back and enjoy, because it is indeed quite long!

[Retributarr]

Conclusions:

Clearly!... the greatest detriment that Germany had to deal with was the "Lack-Of-Petroleum-Supplies". This single deficiency alone!, by itself!... undermined almost every other effort that the German Military attempted to accomplish!. So!... instead of a senseless 3-pronged assault on Russia based on a crippling-deficient lack of supplies for a continuous sustained assault... if instead... the "Crux" of German efforts were forcefully redirected initially towards the most-pressing priority of occupying the Caucasus Oilfields... the WW2-Finale' may just have had a dramatic turn-around from where... and what instead had eventually transpired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campa ... rld_War_II
The Allied oil campaign of World War II[5]: 11  pitted the RAF and the USAAF against facilities supplying Nazi Germany with petroleum, oil, and lubrication (POL) products. It formed part of the immense Allied strategic bombing effort during the war. The targets in Germany and in Axis-controlled Europe[6] included refineries, synthetic-fuel factories, storage depots and other POL-infrastructure.

Before the war, Britain had identified Germany's reliance on oil and oil products for its war machine, and the strategic bombing started with RAF attacks on Germany in 1940. After the US entered the war (December 1941), it carried out daytime "precision bombing" attacks – such as Operation Tidal Wave against refineries in Romania in 1943.[7] The last major strategic raid of the European theater of the war targeted a refinery in Norway in April 1945. During the war the effort expended against POL targets varied, with relative priority sometimes given to other objectives (such as to defeating the German V-weapon attacks or to preparations for the invasion of western Europe in 1944).

A B-24 Liberator, emerges from smoke over the Astra Română refinery, Ploiești,[2] during Operation "Tidal Wave" (1 August 1943)

Not only that!... but the absolute failure to occupy "Malta" and "Gibraltar" put "the Dagger"... "the Stake" into the heart of any real chances of success for WW2's German War Effort!.

[koopanique]

Interesting!

So!... instead of a senseless 3-pronged assault on Russia based on a crippling-deficient lack of supplies for a continuous sustained assault... if instead... the "Crux" of German efforts were forcefully redirected initially towards the most-pressing priority of occupying the Caucasus Oilfields... the WW2-Finale' may just have had a dramatic turn-around from where... and what instead had eventually transpired.

I'm sure it would have helped Germany, but even then, wouldn't the WW2 Finale, as you call it, still be Berlin falling into the hands of the Allies? Even without oil problems, Germany was outnumbered, and outgunned industrially. I can imagine a lot of scenarios where the war drags on longer than it had in real life, but I can't imagine Germany actually "winning" WW2.

And even if they hadn't attacked Russia and instead went for the oil fields in the Caucasus, Russia would have attacked eventually, so a war on both fronts seemed inevitable anyway.

[Retributarr]

Interesting!

So!... instead of a senseless 3-pronged assault on Russia based on a crippling-deficient lack of supplies for a continuous sustained assault... if instead... the "Crux" of German efforts were forcefully redirected initially towards the most-pressing priority of occupying the Caucasus Oilfields... the WW2-Finale' may just have had a dramatic turn-around from where... and what instead had eventually transpired.

I'm sure it would have helped Germany, but even then, wouldn't the WW2 Finale, as you call it, still be Berlin falling into the hands of the Allies? Even without oil problems, Germany was outnumbered, and outgunned industrially. I can imagine a lot of scenarios where the war drags on longer than it had in real life, but I can't imagine Germany actually "winning" WW2.

And even if they hadn't attacked Russia and instead went for the oil fields in the Caucasus, Russia would have attacked eventually, so a war on both fronts seemed inevitable anyway.

-----------------------------------Retributarr----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Well Taken!!!:
Very-Likely you could be correct!... However!!!...:
However!!!... and you may very-well most likely disagree... but i have come across enough evidences or instances of "Hitler's Boastings"... as not necessarily being so "Non-Sensical" as many- and most others are led to believe.

Now from my flawed memories of past coverages of coming across various information dealing with this "Subject-Matter".

#SILVER-BIRD: ... You can see somewhat correct depictions of this effort on "YouTube"...which for the most-part is depicted correctly... but is not entirely correct in the depiction of this effort!.
I will site just a couple of my research findings to illustrate that not all necessarily was lost!.

In-Short!... what this is... is that... a multi-engined (Using V-2 Rocket Engines_"approx 5-6 Engines") ... were to be used to propel this SILVER-BIRD "Space-Plane" off of an upward inclined ramp to assist it into earth-orbit.. where then... this "Space-Plane"... would then skip on the Earths-Atmosphere as a rock would skip on a water surface if one threw a rock at a shallow angle.

The time for the usage of this "Novel-Weapon" would only be done so when "Atomic or Nuclear Weaponry" was at last made available. The "Objective" of this effort was to drop an "Atomic or Nuclear Bomb" on Manhattan island_New-York as well as... another on Washington-DC... to bring the Americans to their knees to force them to sue for peace!. Then!... presumably shortly after... "Russia" would face the same fate!.

#V-3 ROCKET BATTERIES: Was another ambitious project being constructed in Norhern-France which was to be used to "Flatten London". 30,000 Rocket-Missiles were to decend on London every hour until the City was Pulverized.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As well other machinations were also in the works... such as new very "long range Bombers an Rockets"... which i will not go into detail at this time.

This goes on and on which would include vastly improved Heavy-Tanks ... etc!...etc!.
On top of all of that... the taking of "Malta and Gibraltar" could also have made a Major-Turning-Around of failing fortunes.

Need i say more???.

[Retributarr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apo6ClcSmBk
Germany’s Space Shuttle – ‘Silverbird’ (1935-1941)
VIDEO: https://youtu.be/apo6ClcSmBk

Germany’s Space Shuttle – ‘Silverbird’ (1935-1941)
2,761 views Aug 26, 2020 #SpaceShuttle #Sänger #Silverbird
Silbervogel ("silver bird") was a design for a rocket powered sub-orbital bomber produced in the late 1930s for Nazi Germany. It was one of a number of designs considered for the Amerika Bomber mission, which started in the spring of 1942. The design was a significant one, as it incorporated new rocket technology and the principle of the lifting body, foreshadowing future development of winged spacecraft such as the X-20 Dyna-Soar of the 1960s and the Space Shuttle of the 1970s. In the end, it was considered too complex and expensive to produce. The design never went beyond mock-up test.

[Retributarr]

CLARIFICATION-Corrections for a "Previous Posting":

Re: Ideas for Panzer Corps 2
PREVIOUS... Post by Retributarr » Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:02 am

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon
V-3 cannon

The V-3 (German: Vergeltungswaffe 3), ("Vengeance Weapon 3") was a German World War II large-caliber gun working on the multi-charge principle whereby secondary propellant charges are fired to add velocity to a projectile.

The Germans planned to use the weapon to bombard London from two large bunkers in the Pas-de-Calais region of northern France, but they were rendered unusable by Allied bombing raids before completion.

***British Reconnaissance managed to accidentally find a previously unknown spurious "Rail-Road" line that was not known to exist. They then theorized that this had something to do with Hitlers effort to attack England. Thereafter they sent huge bomber fleets to bombard that specific region... but were unable to initially completely destroy it. Later On!... However!... The site was finally put out of commission on 6 July 1944, when bombers of RAF Bomber Command's 617 Squadron (the famous "Dambusters") attacked using 5,400-kilogram (11,900 lb) "Tallboy" deep-penetration bombs.

The German's used a multi-charge concept to further sustain and amplify the acceleration of the V-3 Cannon Rocket by the continues adding of more sustaining-amplifiying charges as the shell moves upward along the barrel, resulting in a much more constant and accelerated pressure as the shell moves along in the angled Gun-Barrel to its exit point... which is pointed and directed at the city of LONDON. Each Rocket-Gun-Battery could fire 300 Rockets per hour or the firing of V-3's at a rate of one every 6 seconds... to a distance of over 160km or over 100 miles. The Germans planned on installing 5 such Batteries. If this had worked out according to Hitler's plan... then LONDON would have been pounded into DUST!.

The eastern complex consisted of five drifts angled at 50 degrees reaching 105 metres (344 ft) below the hilltop. The five drifts exited the hilltop through a concrete slab 30 metres (98 ft) wide and 5.5 metres (18 ft) thick. Large steel plates protected the five openings and each drift had a special armoured door. Extensive tunnels and elevator shafts supported the guns and, if the site had become operational, about 1,000 troops from Artillerie Abteilung 705 and supporting units would have been deployed at Mimoyecques. Artillerie Abteilung 705 had been organised in January 1944 under Oberstleutnant Georg Borttscheller to operate the Wiese gun complex. ***



Reconstructed plan of the site

***IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:***
Each of the 5-Individual-Gun-Battery Platforms had a tier of 5-Missile Guns mounted in each separate Battery. With each of the 5-Guns in an individua Battery firing off a V-3 Rocket-Missile every 6-seconds. Therefore!... each separate Battery could launch or fire-off 300 Rocket-Missiles every MINUTE!. Now!... each-Battery firing off 300-Rocket Missiles every Minute X 5 Missile Battery-Installations equals... 1500 launched Missile-Rockets...from the launching platforms per Minute!. 1500 V-3 launched Missiles per each Battery.. per minute X 60 Minutes/Hour = 30,000 Rocket-Missiles per Hour!.... This is an "INCORRECT-CALCULATION".
Now!... for the... CORRECTION!!!:
1500 V-3 launched Missiles of the "inclusive-group" of the 5 Batteries per each minute... at X 60 Minutes/Hour = 90,000 Rocket-Missiles per Hour!.
1500 X 60 = 90,000
This would be a "Devastating Horrendous-Barrage" of incoming Missiles launched at "Central-London"... that just could not be countered in any possible way... it would mean "Total-Destruction".

Two similar gun-emplacements were used to bombard Luxembourg from December 1944 to February 1945.

Development
In 1918, the French Army made plans for a very long range multi-chamber gun in response to the German Paris Gun. The Paris Gun was built by Friedrich Krupp AG and could bombard Paris from German lines over a distance of no less than 125 kilometres (78 mi). The French initiative did not reach the prototype stage, as it was discontinued when the retreat of the German armies and the armistice put an end to the bombardment. The plans for the multi-chamber gun were archived, as they had been envisioned to counter the German fire.

France collapsed in June 1940 at the beginning of World War II, and German troops acquired the plans of this long-range gun. In 1942, this patent attracted the attention of August Cönders,[notes 1] developer of the Röchling shell and chief engineer of the plants "Röchling Stahlwerk AG" in Wetzlar, Germany. Cönders thought that the gradual acceleration of the shell by a series of small charges spread over the length of the barrel might be the solution to the problem of designing very long range guns. The very strong explosive charge needed to project shells at a high speed was causing very rapid degradation of the gun tubes of conventional guns.

[koopanique]

However!!!... and you may very-well most likely disagree... but i have come across enough evidences or instances of "Hitler's Boastings"... as not necessarily being so "Non-Sensical" as many- and most others are led to believe.

#SILVER-BIRD: ... You can see somewhat correct depictions of this effort on "YouTube"...which for the most-part is depicted correctly... but is not entirely correct in the depiction of this effort!.
I will site just a couple of my research findings to illustrate that not all necessarily was lost!.

In-Short!... what this is... is that... a multi-engined (Using V-2 Rocket Engines_"approx 5-6 Engines") ... were to be used to propel this SILVER-BIRD "Space-Plane" off of an upward inclined ramp to assist it into earth-orbit.. where then... this "Space-Plane"... would then skip on the Earths-Atmosphere as a rock would skip on a water surface if one threw a rock at a shallow angle.

The time for the usage of this "Novel-Weapon" would only be done so when "Atomic or Nuclear Weaponry" was at last made available. The "Objective" of this effort was to drop an "Atomic or Nuclear Bomb" on Manhattan island_New-York as well as... another on Washington-DC... to bring the Americans to their knees to force them to sue for peace!. Then!... presumably shortly after... "Russia" would face the same fate!.

#V-3 ROCKET BATTERIES: Was another ambitious project being constructed in Norhern-France which was to be used to "Flatten London". 30,000 Rocket-Missiles were to decend on London every hour until the City was Pulverized.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As well other machinations were also in the works... such as new very "long range Bombers an Rockets"... which i will not go into detail at this time.

This goes on and on which would include vastly improved Heavy-Tanks ... etc!...etc!.
On top of all of that... the taking of "Malta and Gibraltar" could also have made a Major-Turning-Around of failing fortunes.

Need i say more???.

Again, interesting! The only issue I see is that for these technologies to actually change the course of the war, they would have to be implemented a lot sooner. The Silverbird would have been devastating if loaded with atomic weaponry... but the Germans were behind the US in that department.

All other "improved" versions of already existing technologies (such as V3s and super-heavy tanks) wouldn't have changed the fact that the Allies had infinitely more industrial power. What good would be 300 state-of-the-art very expensive heavy tanks deployed across a vast front, if the US alone can counter with 3000 cheap but remarkably competent Sherman tanks?
Hitler could boast all he wanted, the only faction in World War Two who had the means of deploying these superweapons was the Allies, and even then, the Allies, who were wiser, had soon realized that it was actually better to have large quantities of regular equipment than small quantities of expensive equipment limited in numbers.

No matter what course of action Germany would have taken, it's hard to imagine them coming out on top. No amount of brilliant military strategy could win against such odds, and only near-magical technology could have confounded the Allies.

Not to mention that because of the very nature of Nazi Germany, a sizeable portion of Germany's resources had to be diverted from the military to the extermination of all the people the Nazis didn't like.

Of course, it wasn't apparent at the time, and the different players didn't have the information we have today. But I really can't see what moves Germany could have made to actually "win" WW2 (by "win", I mean consolidate its position in Europe so that it couldn't be removed militarily). It's like playing a game of Go but your opponent can place 3 stones each turn.

[Retributarr]

However!!!... and you may very-well most likely disagree... but i have come across enough evidences or instances of "Hitler's Boastings"... as not necessarily being so "Non-Sensical" as many- and most others are led to believe.
Need i say more???.

Again, interesting! The only issue I see is that for these technologies to actually change the course of the war, they would have to be implemented a lot sooner. The Silverbird would have been devastating if loaded with atomic weaponry... but the Germans were behind the US in that department.

Well!!!... Yes!!!... "Very-Interesting"... But!... Not Very Funny!!!.
So many topics to cover in your post... so i will just deal with one of them. Its worth mentioning that much information on this subject-matter has been censored or removed... so it is very difficult to expose the truth here.
Hitler 'tested small atom bomb'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4348497.stm
A German historian has claimed in a new book presented on Monday that Nazi scientists successfully tested a tactical nuclear weapon in the last months of World War II.

"The second important finding was the atomic tests carried out in Thuringia and on the Baltic Sea."
Mr Karlsch describes what the Germans had as a "hybrid tactical nuclear weapon" much smaller than those dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
'Bright light'
He said the last test, carried out in Thuringia on 3 March 1945, destroyed an area of about 500 sq m, killing several hundred prisoners of war and concentration camp inmates.
The weapons were never used because they were not yet ready for mass production. There were also problems with delivery and detonation systems.
"We haven't heard about this before because only small groups of scientists were involved, and a lot of the documents were classified after they were captured by the Allies," said Karlsch.
"I found documents in Russian and Western archives, as well as in private German ones."
One of these is a memo from a Russian spy, brought to the attention of Stalin just days after the last test. It cites "reliable sources" as reporting "two huge explosions" on the night of 3 March.
Karlsch also cites German eyewitnesses as reporting light so bright that for a second it was possible to read a newspaper, accompanied by a sudden blast of wind.
The eyewitnesses, who were interviewed on the subject by the East German authorities in the early 1960s, also said they suffered nose-bleeds, headaches, and nausea for days afterwards.
Karlsch also pointed to measurements carried out recently at the test site that found radioactive isotopes.

Nuclear island: The secret post-WWII mega lab investigated


https://www.wired.co.uk/article/nuclear-island
Huemul Island... just offshore from Bariloche... Argentina.
Argentinian leader Juan Perón hired a number of German émigré scientists to jump-start Argentina's push into industrialization.
Perón was particularly excited by a nuclear-research project the aim of which was to generate cheap electricity for the factories and steel mills created by his five-year plan. El Alemán ("the German") running the project was the physicist Ronald Richter, who was actually born in Austria-controlled Czechoslovakia.
First!... some "Pictures" to Orientate the Audience: ... Of Huemul Island... and its locale-location.
https://ca.images.search.yahoo.com/imag ... &fr=mcafee
---------------------------------------***

---------------------------------------***
Just to the left of Bariloche... in the Inlet... are depictions of islands... that is where Huemul Island is... just a 10-minute boat ride off-shore.







My Additional Notes:~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1331117/plotsummary/
Yes!!!... "Perón" wanted Atomic-Energy, but much more than that was going on here!. The NAZIS at this time yet... during the ending phases of WWII... had not yet give up on "World Domination"... by 1st eliminating the United States out of the Equation.

Was it possible that the "Third Position", as proclaimed by General Peron, equidistant from capitalism and communism, covered up a "Fourth Reich" in South America?. In-Fact 300,000 or even many more passports were made up and issued by the "Red-Cross" for these would be Migrants in a Monastery in Mussolini's Italy in Rome... so that these Nazis could emigrate to South America.

As i mentioned before... New-Developments in Missile Technology for longer range missiles to be used to deliver Atomic Warheads and Sarin-Gas into the United States was in full-swing. Using Perón's money to refurbish this Atomic-Research Complex on "Huemul Island" is just what the "4th-Reich Programme" so desperately needed!. Not just Argentina... but throughout South-America... NAZI INFRASTRUCTURE was constructed for Weapons production... such as Sarin Gas, Artillery Shells, Various other ammunitions... etc.

Just because WWII was ending badly for Germany.., doesn't mean that they had given up on a future strike date to further their ambitions.
See for yourself!... check out the "Hunting Hitler T.V. Series" Online... its Free!.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5248878/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Retributarr]

However!!!... and you may very-well most likely disagree... but i have come across enough evidences or instances of "Hitler's Boastings"... as not necessarily being so "Non-Sensical" as many- and most others are led to believe.


This goes on and on which would include vastly improved Heavy-Tanks ... etc!...etc!.
On top of all of that... the taking of "Malta and Gibraltar" could also have made a Major-Turning-Around of failing fortunes.
Need i say more???.

What good would be 300 state-of-the-art very expensive heavy tanks deployed across a vast front, if the US alone can counter with 3000 cheap but remarkably competent Sherman tanks?
Hitler could boast all he wanted, the only faction in World War Two who had the means of deploying these superweapons was the Allies, and even then, the Allies, who were wiser, had soon realized that it was actually better to have large quantities of regular equipment than small quantities of expensive equipment limited in numbers.

-----------------Retributarr Reply:-------------------------------
I could go into all of this in "Great-Detail"... but!... not right now!.

First-Off!... remember the "Gulf-War"... Saddam Hussein's armored forces vastly outnumbered the American tank Forces with their own "Russian-Tanks" that were deployed in the Gulf!. The American-Tanks were of vastly superior quality and therefore suffered extremely low losses while Saddam's armored units were nearly annihilated!. True... the Americans had very-good air-support and that did make a difference... non-the-less the Iraqi-Tanks were still at a major disadvantage.

In WWII the Americans with their tremendous air-support still would usually lose at least a minimum of 3-Sherman-Tanks in the process to try to kill just one German Heavy Tank... if they were exceptionally lucky to get behind one... to be able to blast it in the rear Weak-Armored backside of the Tank. American losses in Sherman Tanks was quite high. The Sherman Tank was easy to maintain and fix quickly and easily and was not prone to "Mechanical Failure" or breaking down easily as were the German Tanks. This is where the Sherman-Tank was "Superior!".

I myself would prefer the "Superior-Model". The Americans had endless fuel supplies and thus could send in huge numbers of their Tanks to swarm and infest any area... so that now some of those Tanks here and there would eventually get past the German Tanks and win the day. The Germans did not have "Quantity" in either Tanks or Fuel-Supplies... which was their downfall.

[Grondel]

First-Off!... remember the "Gulf-War"... Saddam Hussein's armored forces vastly outnumbered the American tank Forces with their own "Russian-Tanks" that were deployed in the Gulf!. The American-Tanks were of vastly superior quality and therefore suffered extremely low losses while Saddam's armored units were nearly annihilated!. True... the Americans had very-good air-support and that did make a difference... non-the-less the Iraqi-Tanks were still at a major disadvantage.

If u have a tank "Akiller" that can kill other tanks at 2-3km fighting against a number of tanks "Bvictim" that need to get as close to 1km to kill an "Akiller", its a simpel equation.
"How many "Bvictims" can "Akiller" take out while "Bvictim" rushes towards him in the time it takes them to go 2 km."
In the above mentioned scenario "Gulf-War" the answer was-> nearly all of them. Reason for this was mainly that the attacking tanks were the once with longer range. When u are on the defense and u have shorter range u are doomed. period.

This is an example for such a situation. Otto Carius and Albert Kerscher taking out 17 IS2 und 5 T-34 with 2 tigers in July´44. If u pair good tech with good training and some wit, numbers do no longer make the difference.

Sadly it´s in german so might be tough to understand for some.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4FtWdN_Jt4

When u lack the fuel and/or ammunition though,...

sers,
Thomas

[Retributarr]

First-Off!... remember the "Gulf-War"... Saddam Hussein's armored forces vastly outnumbered the American tank Forces with their own "Russian-Tanks" that were deployed in the Gulf!. The American-Tanks were of vastly superior quality and therefore suffered extremely low losses while Saddam's armored units were nearly annihilated!. True... the Americans had very-good air-support and that did make a difference... non-the-less the Iraqi-Tanks were still at a major disadvantage.

If u have a tank "Akiller" that can kill other tanks at 2-3km fighting against a number of tanks "Bvictim" that need to get as close to 1km to kill an "Akiller", its a simpel equation.
"How many "Bvictims" can "Akiller" take out while "Bvictim" rushes towards him in the time it takes them to go 2 km."
In the above mentioned scenario "Gulf-War" the answer was-> nearly all of them. Reason for this was mainly that the attacking tanks were the once with longer range. When u are on the defense and u have shorter range u are doomed. period.

This is an example for such a situation. Otto Carius and Albert Kerscher taking out 17 IS2 und 5 T-34 with 2 tigers in July´44. If u pair good tech with good training and some wit, numbers do no longer make the difference.

Sadly it´s in german so might be tough to understand for some.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4FtWdN_Jt4

When u lack the fuel and/or ammunition though,...

sers,
Thomas

When u lack the fuel and/or ammunition though,...
Quotes of Napoleon Bonaparte:

https://www.azquotes.com/author/1621-Napoleon_Bonaparte
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/31306

***If you build an army of 100 lions and their leader is a dog, in any fight, the lions will die like a dog. But if you build an army of 100 dogs and their leader is a lion, all dogs will fight as a lion. IE: Something like what is currently happening in Ukraine.

***God is on the side with the best artillery

***Impossible is the word found only in a fool's dictionary. Wise people create opportunities for themselves and make everything possible.

***Friends must always be treated as if one day they might be enemies.

***You become strong by defying defeat and by turning loss into gain and failure to success.

& one other Napoleon Bonaparte Quote that i remember!.

***Morale' is as to Numbers... as Three is to One!.*** Something like what is currently happening in Ukraine.

[Retributarr]

What good would be 300 state-of-the-art very expensive heavy tanks deployed across a vast front, if the US alone can counter with 3000 cheap but remarkably competent Sherman tanks?
Hitler could boast all he wanted, the only faction in World War Two who had the means of deploying these superweapons was the Allies, and even then, the Allies, who were wiser, had soon realized that it was actually better to have large quantities of regular equipment than small quantities of expensive equipment limited in numbers.

-----------------Retributarr Reply:-------------------------------
I could go into all of this in "Great-Detail"... but!... not right now!.

First-Off!... remember the "Gulf-War"... Saddam Hussein's armored forces vastly outnumbered the American tank Forces with their own "Russian-Tanks" that were deployed in the Gulf!. The American-Tanks were of vastly superior quality and therefore suffered extremely low losses while Saddam's armored units were nearly annihilated!. True... the Americans had very-good air-support and that did make a difference... non-the-less the Iraqi-Tanks were still at a major disadvantage.

In WWII the Americans with their tremendous air-support still would usually lose at least a minimum of 3-Sherman-Tanks in the process to try to kill just one German Heavy Tank... if they were exceptionally lucky to get behind one... to be able to blast it in the rear Weak-Armored backside of the Tank. American losses in Sherman Tanks was quite high. The Sherman Tank was easy to maintain and fix quickly and easily and was not prone to "Mechanical Failure" or breaking down easily as were the German Tanks. This is where the Sherman-Tank was "Superior!".

Do-An-Experiment!:
"koopanique"~~~ ... Try out "Your-Assessment" of... that "the Allies, who were wiser, had soon realized that it was actually better to have large quantities of regular equipment than small quantities of expensive equipment limited in numbers"... to see if it actually works out during "Game-Play". If your "Theory" has any validity... you would now be able to say... Amass i would think at least 50%-60% more Tanks than your Opponent [Fewer Slots Used Per Tank]... and now should be able to gain the advantage on the Battlefield!. Try this out... if you dare!... see if this works!. Then let us know how your effort turned out.

[koopanique]

The Sherman Tank was easy to maintain and fix quickly and easily and was not prone to "Mechanical Failure" or breaking down easily as were the German Tanks. This is where the Sherman-Tank was "Superior!".

Exactly my point! The Germans did deploy tanks that were technically superior (bigger canons, better armored). But the Allies still won.

Do-An-Experiment!:
"koopanique"~~~ ... Try out "Your-Assessment" of... that "the Allies, who were wiser, had soon realized that it was actually better to have large quantities of regular equipment than small quantities of expensive equipment limited in numbers"... to see if it actually works out during "Game-Play". If your "Theory" has any validity... you would now be able to say... Amass i would think at least 50%-60% more Tanks than your Opponent [Fewer Slots Used Per Tank]... and now should be able to gain the advantage on the Battlefield!. Try this out... if you dare!... see if this works!. Then let us know how your effort turned out.

That would be an interesting scenario, however to be fair, isn't this experiment what happened in real life? The Allies built easy-to-build tanks in large numbers. The German built more expensive tanks, in lower numbers. And the Allies won.

Even if the Germans had even more expensive tanks that were even more limited in numbers, would it have changed the outcome?

[Retributarr]

The Sherman Tank was easy to maintain and fix quickly and easily and was not prone to "Mechanical Failure" or breaking down easily as were the German Tanks. This is where the Sherman-Tank was "Superior!".

Exactly my point! The Germans did deploy tanks that were technically superior (bigger canons, better armored). But the Allies still won.

That would be an interesting scenario, however to be fair, isn't this experiment what happened in real life? The Allies built easy-to-build tanks in large numbers. The German built more expensive tanks, in lower numbers. And the Allies won.

Even if the Germans had even more expensive tanks that were even more limited in numbers, would it have changed the outcome?

The Americans-Allies... had very-significant "Artillery" & "Airpower"... the "Airpower
included "Typhoon-Fighter-Bombers" which fired Rocket-Missiles at the German-Tanks and destroyed them with relative ease. The other Allied aircraft as well contributed to this effort making being in the open-areas for any German-Tanks a near "Suicide-Option".

The Germans had very-little to no-air-support at all to protect their Tanks or Ground-Units... nor did they have the generous abundance of "Artillery" that the Allies had... which killed their Tanks as well. The Germans were at an extreme disadvantage in all of these ways... so it is actually this composite mixture of detrimental-disadvantages that determined what really killed the German-Tanks... It certainly wasn't the pathetic "Sherman-Tanks".

If the Germans had... had any meaningful "Air-Cover" as well as adequate "Fuel-Reserves" and more "Artillery"... the Allies would have been smashed!.

[Retributarr]

The Sherman Tank was easy to maintain and fix quickly and easily and was not prone to "Mechanical Failure" or breaking down easily as were the German Tanks. This is where the Sherman-Tank was "Superior!".

Exactly my point! The Germans did deploy tanks that were technically superior (bigger canons, better armored). But the Allies still won.

That would be an interesting scenario, however to be fair, isn't this experiment what happened in real life? The Allies built easy-to-build tanks in large numbers. The German built more expensive tanks, in lower numbers. And the Allies won.[Retributarr Addittion... from previous Post!: First-Off!... remember the "Gulf-War"... Saddam Hussein's armored forces vastly outnumbered the American tank Forces with their own... Less-Advanced "Russian-Tanks" that were deployed in the Gulf!. The American-Tanks were of vastly superior quality and therefore suffered extremely low losses while Saddam's armored units were nearly annihilated!.]

Even if the Germans had even more expensive tanks that were even more limited in numbers, would it have changed the outcome?

The Americans-Allies... had very-significant "Artillery" & "Airpower"... the "Airpower
included "Typhoon-Fighter-Bombers" which fired Rocket-Missiles at the German-Tanks and destroyed them with relative ease. The other Allied aircraft as well contributed to this effort making being in the open-areas for any German-Tanks a near "Suicide-Option".

The Germans had very-little to no-air-support at all to protect their Tanks or Ground-Units... nor did they have the generous abundance of "Artillery" that the Allies had... which killed their Tanks as well. The Germans were at an extreme disadvantage in all of these ways... so it is actually this composite mixture of detrimental-disadvantages that determined what really killed the German-Tanks... It certainly wasn't the pathetic "Sherman-Tanks".

If the Germans had... had any meaningful "Air-Cover" as well as adequate "Fuel-Reserves" and more "Artillery"... the Allies would have been smashed!.

[koopanique]

The Americans-Allies... had very-significant "Artillery" & "Airpower"... the "Airpower
included "Typhoon-Fighter-Bombers" which fired Rocket-Missiles at the German-Tanks and destroyed them with relative ease. The other Allied aircraft as well contributed to this effort making being in the open-areas for any German-Tanks a near "Suicide-Option".

The Germans had very-little to no-air-support at all to protect their Tanks or Ground-Units... nor did they have the generous abundance of "Artillery" that the Allies had... which killed their Tanks as well. The Germans were at an extreme disadvantage in all of these ways... so it is actually this composite mixture of detrimental-disadvantages that determined what really killed the German-Tanks... It certainly wasn't the pathetic "Sherman-Tanks".

If the Germans had... had any meaningful "Air-Cover" as well as adequate "Fuel-Reserves" and more "Artillery"... the Allies would have been smashed!.

With more air support, artillery and fuel, Germany may have won (not sure considering the Allies had a lot of those things, too). But this proves the point that the Allies won precisely because they had a lot more industrial power. Whatever the Germans had done, this is something they couldn't have reversed.

Although neither Germany nor the Allies could have known it at the time, Germany was in a war that was simply impossible to win. The scenario in which the Germans have completed both the Silverbird and the atomic bomb is basically the scenario where Germany had invented Atomic Ballistic Missiles before April 1945. This is simply not possible. Same for any other hypothetical weaponry that could have reversed the course of the war.
You yourself said: "The Germans were at an extreme disadvantage in all of these ways..." And this is because of the harsh reality of the state of the world at that time. Germany didn't have the industry nor the fuel nor the numbers to take on all the great powers at once.

The true feat of the Allies is not that they won the war, it is that they won it so quickly (relative to the scale and scope of the conflict). I can imagine a lot of strategic or technological moves that Germany could have made to make the war drag on longer. But one where they simply come out in a position of total dominance over the USA, the USSR, Britain and the rest... I can't imagine it. It was materially impossible.

Digression:
The only thing I can imagine that could have drastically change not the result of the war, but the aftermath, is Sealion. If the Germans had conquered England, by some tragic miracle, they still would have been outnumbered and beaten by the Russians, and the Allies would still be in control of North-Africa and probably Italy, but Western Europe may have been part of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War.

Also you say:

it is actually this composite mixture of detrimental-disadvantages that determined what really killed the German-Tanks... It certainly wasn't the pathetic "Sherman-Tanks".

You'll have to pardon my enthusiasm, but in my book the Sherman tanks were all but pathetic. They were extremely adapted to the war they were asked to fight. Easy to build, easy to maintain on the field, deployable in large numbers, not too large nor too small, very nimble.

Please compare with the Tiger or Panther or other heavy German tanks: expensive to build by a country with no money left, breaks all the time, consumes large amount of fuel (while Germany had important fuel shortages), these tanks were simply not adapted for WW2. They were well designed, with big guns and well armored, sure, but they were the right machines for the wrong war. Just like Battleship Yamato for the Japanese.

All in all, my point is that there were no winning move for Germany. Germany couldn't have made "the right strategic decisions". The technological projects such as better tanks or V3 or the A-bomb were simply out of reach. And even if Germany had atomized New York, the US probably wouldn't have surrendered. The Russians would still outnumber the Germans by a huge ratio. It wouldn't have given Germany the necessary fuel or resources to field the necessary units to become fully immovable in Europe.
Germany, Japan and Italy were doomed from the start.

[Grondel]

You'll have to pardon my enthusiasm, but in my book the Sherman tanks were all but pathetic. They were extremely adapted to the war they were asked to fight. Easy to build, easy to maintain on the field, deployable in large numbers, not too large nor too small, very nimble.

Here´s the comparison u asked for, found u an english one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSYDqqdDf5Y

sers,
Thomas

[koopanique]

You'll have to pardon my enthusiasm, but in my book the Sherman tanks were all but pathetic. They were extremely adapted to the war they were asked to fight. Easy to build, easy to maintain on the field, deployable in large numbers, not too large nor too small, very nimble.

Here´s the comparison u asked for, found u an english one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSYDqqdDf5Y

sers,
Thomas

This single event, although spectacular and worth of note, does not disprove that Sherman tanks were more adapted to the war they were fighting than the German heavy tanks. The Sherman won the war, not the Tiger tank. The Allied air power was just bonus in addition to the sheer numbers of medium tanks. The Allies were just that stronger.

[Retributarr]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... -ii-185625


May 21, 2021 Topic: History Region: Europe
How Did America's Sherman Tank Win against Superior German Tanks in World War II?
by Kyle Mizokami

Here's What You Need To Remember: The Sherman wasn’t the best tank, but thanks to efficient American production methods it would be the most prolific.

The M-4 Sherman, in particular, helped the U.S. Army win the war—even though, in battle, "German tanks destroyed them en masse".

The Sherman’s 75-millimeter gun was also nothing special. It was powerless against the latest German tanks—particularly the Tiger and Panther. The gun was more suitable for taking out less well-armed targets—half-tracks, artillery, infantry.

The U.S. military believed that although the Sherman was inferior to those tanks, the new German models would rarely appear on the battlefield.

That proved wrong.

Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

The Sherman wasn’t the best tank, but thanks to efficient American production methods it would be the most prolific. The United States built a staggering 49,234 Sherman tanks between 1942 and 1945.
Washington provided 21,959 tanks to Allied forces (Retr: 43%). The United Kingdom, Free French Forces, Poland, Brazil, New Zealand, China and the Soviet Union all deployed M-4s.

Making matters worse for American tankers, the Army’s inability to properly forecast German tank production—which was much higher than anyone predicted—meant there were a lot more of these tanks on the battlefield than the Army had originally counted on.

For its part, the M-4 was good in 1942, adequate in 1943, and totally outclassed by 1944. Unfortunately for American tankers, the war lasted until 1945.

[koopanique]

It's all true. The Sherman wasn't the best tank, but it was the one that could be made in large numbers. And in WW2 that was the winning move.

Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

Everything is summarized in these three words. The point I was trying to make was that I couldn't imagine Germany winning against the immense industrial power of the Allies, no matter what early strategic decisions Germany had made. No amount of heavy tanks would have reversed this. If Germany had had more artillery, if they had had more fuel, if they had had more air cover, if they had invented atomic intercontinental ballistic missiles before April 1945, etc, who knows what would have happened, but that's a lot of requirements that simply couldn't be met.