Jump to content


How could Germany have done better?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1955 replies to this topic

DerJager #1 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 02:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,231
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011
NOTICE
Follow the guidlines or you will be harrassed mercilessly.






OK, so it seems like theres often criticism on German strategy, as well as their tanks.


My question to you is, how would you have done any better under the same constraints:

1) Fighting roughly 8:1 numbers at the fighting front

2) had Hitler making overruling decisions, which you can do nothing about

3) you have no hindsight of the war.

I don't care if you have to go dig up an intelegence report from 1942 and translate it from Russian. DON'T STRAY FROM THE GUIDLEINES!


Would you have prodcued more Panzer IV's, even though they couldn't aford the rough 1:1 kill ratio achieved by the Panzer IV, would you have built an improved Tiger II, or gone somewhere in the middle, and built more Panther tanks?


Please be specific, none of that "well Germany shouldn't have invaded russia" crap. Based on the strategic picture untill late 1942, it would have been perfectly possible for them to have been succesfully in the campaign.

Edited by DerJager, Sep 20 2012 - 05:44.


Viper69 #2 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 02:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,602
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
More production of cheaper tanks and other units. History has proven that in an industrial war its whomever can field the most and replenish losses faster. So I would have invested time into the Panzer 4 and Panther tanks. The German 88 was very effective but very overkill. The 75mm of the Panther tank was more than adequate to deal with any allied armor. Also the super high machining tolerances of the production process of the Germans was a major flaw. It took them exponentially more time to create a weapon that was more prone to failure due to its tight tolerances.

GenericSoldier #3 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 02:41

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,058
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011
what viper said plus build secret factories just in case AND develop a tank in between the pz4 and 5... a panzer 4.5 if you will

DarkElf #4 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 02:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,406
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011
The best that they can do is stop while ahead. After defeating French, make a peace with British, don't attack Soviet, consolidate.

There is no way German can win 2vs1 battle, the longer the war dragged the bigger chance US join the war.

TheRonmasteh #5 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 02:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 4,750
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011
Panther were OK I guess.

But how about the VK2801? The project was supposedly to be the perfect replacement for the Panzer IV, but abandoned.

Wouldnt have been better if the VK2801 were produced instead of just producing more Panzer IVs?

Wolfrum #6 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 02:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,074
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View PostViper69, on Nov 20 2011 - 02:34, said:

More production of cheaper tanks and other units. History has proven that in an industrial war its whomever can field the most and replenish losses faster. So I would have invested time into the Panzer 4 and Panther tanks. The German 88 was very effective but very overkill. The 75mm of the Panther tank was more than adequate to deal with any allied armor. Also the super high machining tolerances of the production process of the Germans was a major flaw. It took them exponentially more time to create a weapon that was more prone to failure due to its tight tolerances.

To add onto that thought. Germany was still producing things non-war materials in factories like Fridges etc etc... where as every available factory in other countries was converted to war production.
That has a major effect too.

-Wolf

Dominatus #7 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 02:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 11,761
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
StuGs, Panzer IVs, and Panthers, that would I think should have been built. Panthers were superior to Tigers, except in anti-infantry and such, but that's where StuGs and Panzer IVs come in.

The thing with the VK2801 is that it wasn't designed to fill the same role as the Panzer IV, that of a versatile medium tank. It was a light tank designed to replace the Pz II Luchs and support the bigger guys.

As for the "not invade Russia" stuff, I think that they shouldn't have done it when they did. They should have gone in a few months earlier, and ignored the thought of invading Greece due to Italy's complete military failure.

XSaintJimmyX #8 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 02:52

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 284
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
The only problem with the Panther and Panzer IV tanks, would be that they would be eventually outdated by production of larger, and harder hitting allied tanks.

In my opinion, Germany shouldn't of invaded Poland in the First place. Italy was not that good of an ally in the war, invade them instead. Then take over Libya and Ethiopia. The Probably should have used paratroops a lot more. After the invasion of Crete Hitler made that godawful mistake of doing away with them. Oh and did I mention that the massacre of non "Aryan" people was a huge mistake?

FreeFOXMIKE #9 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 02:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 4,960
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011
German  biggest mistake (and thank god they made it ) was the fighting on two fronts. In his book he stated "never fight a two front war" but the insane lil corporeal did

DerJager #10 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 03:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,231
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011
I'm not sure if production of more medium tanks would have done much to help them, and could have done them some serious harm.

When the IS comes out, they effectivly have no counter to it, where as the Tiger II face-raped the IS in individual and small group encounters.

Their medium tanks were also vulnerable to even poorly armed tanks like the M4 and the T-34, so instead of gaining a measure of invulnerability on the battlefield, they probably would have had a very mild superiority.

Dominatus #11 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 03:15

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 11,761
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostDerJager, on Nov 20 2011 - 03:04, said:

I'm not sure if production of more medium tanks would have done much to help them, and could have done them some serious harm.

When the IS comes out, they effectivly have no counter to it, where as the Tiger II face-raped the IS in individual and small group encounters.

Their medium tanks were also vulnerable to even poorly armed tanks like the M4 and the T-34, so instead of gaining a measure of invulnerability on the battlefield, they probably would have had a very mild superiority.

The Panther had better armour than the Tiger, in additition to having a gun with better armour penetration.

The King Tiger had its uses, that is true, but had so many issues as well. What we can probably all agree though are a few points.

1. Maus project should never have been started.
2. GW-Tiger project should never have been started.
3. E-100 project should never have been started.
4. Jagdtigers should not have been built.
5. Porshe should not have started building Tiger (P) before they got the contract.

Sealteam6 #12 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 03:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,235
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011

View PostDominatus, on Nov 20 2011 - 02:51, said:


As for the "not invade Russia" stuff, I think that they shouldn't have done it when they did. They should have gone in a few months earlier, and ignored the thought of invading Greece due to Italy's complete military failure.

Italy was tasked with protecting Germany's Southern Flank & failed, Barbarossa had to be postponed to allow Germany to do it instead, (a major allied landing in Greece would of been a knife in Germanys belly) Germany couldn't wait until the next Summer to launch Barbarossa because Stalin was about to launch into Poland & Germany himself (Hence the destruction of Stalins Air-force & Army's in the first few days, they were all Forward in launch off positions & were encircled & then destroyed piecemeal, Stalin helped with some Blundering mistakes)

Barbarossa was timed to last 12 weeks, 3 months & the entire Soviet Union was to be under Axis control, Army Group North got bogged down at Leningrad, AG Centre got hit with the Early Autumn rains just outside of Moscow & the Blitzkrieg got stuck in the mud, The only major successes were AG South where the weather was fine for much longer.............When Barbarossa was called off after no more Major offensives could be launched in that first Summer, Germany had already lost the war, it had one chance to win & lost WW2 in the Summer of 1941, all of Germany's resources had been used up, no more offensives for AG North or Centre, everything was stacked on one final push to take the Caucus mountains & Stalingrad & to link up with Rommel in a huge Pincer movement to capture most of the Worlds oil in the Summer of 1942, one claw of the pincer was snapped off at El Alamaine.

Had the Italians been successful in Greece & the Germans launched Barbarossa on time I have no doubt 12 weeks was plenty for the AG's to meet their requirements & the Soviet Union now would be part of Germania.

The Panther was in Blue print in the Mid to late 30's & the Devs wanted full scale production but powers to be said it was to heavy & continued on with the Lights, had the Panther of been in production pre-WW2 I dont think it would of made too much difference to the outcome depending on the Launch Date of Barbarossa remembering they would of done it easy with what they had if they went on time instead of going to Greece.

PSYCO_GANG #13 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 03:30

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 123
  • Member since:
    06-30-2011
They should have made tons of Panthers (with durability upgrades). As the war went on they should have started producing an uparmored and upgunned Panther II to deal with IS and Pershing tanks.

LtTearGrant #14 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 03:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

View PostPSYCO_GANG, on Nov 20 2011 - 03:30, said:

They should have made tons of Panthers (with durability upgrades). As the war went on they should have started producing an uparmored and upgunned Panther II to deal with IS and Pershing tanks.
Though technically I'd agree with you remember by that point Germany had very little in the way of money to make said tanks. At that point the German Engine was collapsing as far as resources and production. Panthers weren't cheap.

PSYCO_GANG #15 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 03:38

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 123
  • Member since:
    06-30-2011

View PostLtTearGrant, on Nov 20 2011 - 03:35, said:

Though technically I'd agree with you remember by that point Germany had very little in the way of money to make said tanks. At that point the German Engine was collapsing as far as resources and production. Panthers weren't cheap.

IIRC the Panther was only about 10% more expensive to produce than the PZIV. The problem would probably have been making them more durable while keeping the cost down.

Viper69 #16 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 05:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,602
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
The biggest durability flaw with the panther if I remember correctly was the final drive gear. it was a spur gear instead of a herringbone gear. Had they made that change the panther would have been even more capable. As it was they could not drive it to its specified limits without tearing up the front end. Of course I could be thinking of the Tiger.

TheRonmasteh #17 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 05:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 4,750
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011

View PostDominatus, on Nov 20 2011 - 02:51, said:

The thing with the VK2801 is that it wasn't designed to fill the same role as the Panzer IV, that of a versatile medium tank. It was a light tank designed to replace the Pz II Luchs and support the bigger guys.

Yes and no. The VK1602 Leopard was going to be the replacement for the Luchs.

http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/VK_2801

Quote

In 1943, Germany planned to stop the production of the Panzerkampfwagen IV no later than the fall of 1944, and since it served as the base for numerous conversions, a replacement was planned. In June 1943, Guderian envisioned a new vehicle - Mehrzweckpanzer (multipurpose tank)- to be used as a reconnaissance tank, artillery observation tank, anti-aircraft tank, light tank destroyer, and light self-propelled carriage as well as other specialized vehicles. The new vehicle was to be designed by Krupp and was designated the VK 2801. Plans were made to start production of this 28 ton vehicle in April of 1945, but in October of 1943, the entire project was cancelled and production of the Panzerkampfwagen IV continued. In June of 1943, Krupp proposed the Mehrzweckpanzer mit Vierling 2cm VK 2801 anti-aircraft tank armed with quad 20mm Flak guns, but it also remained only a project.

Panzer IV was designed originally as an Infantry support tank. Then by the edge of the war, pushed as an anti-tank vehicle. And on desperation of the last days, it practically was making any role was needed. It ended as a multipurpose tank. Pretty much what the VK2801 goal was. Wouldn't be bad on the 28, but the PzIV was already too old and stressed out for such role.

http://www.achtungpa...isance-tank.htm

Quote

Finally, the task of combat reconnaisance was taken by PzKpfw V Panther and PzKpfw IV.

Was OK because the desperation of the War with the PzIV. But Panthers as reconnaisance? I hardly doubt it the Panther could made it out of a scouting Alive. Not even counting it could perform even better than just scouting.

Lunaris #18 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 07:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
First they need to learn democracy first. That's their biggest mistake for preferring totalitarian regime over democratic one. Germans never interested in politic instead always elect dictator after dictator and their worst luck is getting Hitler elected.

Second they need to touch real world on real issues. The racial superiority stuff and their thirst for glory allow Hitler to stay in power. Hitler always in need military victory because its the only thing needed for him to stay in power. This explain why he keep waging war after war. Isolating and blaming Jewish community is their worst mistake since the Jew are the one who allow them to do well in WWI, kicking them out help the allies greatly.

Invasion of Russia is inevitable because Hitler rise to power. He already made promise to destroy communism and grant German people their "Lebensraum". That why Barbarossa so messed up, the army want Moscow, Hitler want Kiev.

Quote

The Panther was in Blue print in the Mid to late 30's & the Devs wanted full scale production but powers to be said it was to heavy & continued on with the Lights, had the Panther of been in production pre-WW2 I dont think it would of made too much difference to the outcome depending on the Launch Date of Barbarossa remembering they would of done it easy with what they had if they went on time instead of going to Greece.

Isn't panther prototype is VK3002? While Tiger prototype is VK3001 and VK3601. Which explain why armor design of Panther is superior to Tiger. And they haven't do research for sloped armor until encounter with T-34. Panther is designed to be German version of T-34, to be a universal tank but since tank aces are much higher propaganda value, Panther armor increased from original 35 tons worth of steel to 55 tons, its mobility became more and more limited. It can be cheaper to produce 35 tons panther but it wont produce tank aces.

DerJager #19 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 07:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,231
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011
Sealteam, had the Panther been in production pre-war, barbarossa would have turned out ENTIRELY different. Soviets lacked a towed AT gun capable of penetrating its frontal armor, and the 76mm guns on their T-34's could only penetrate the lower hull at close range.

Same for the french and British AT guns.



Imagine german tanks being able to advance with not just well-deserved confidence, but absolute impunity. With the Panther as its main combat tank, losses among the Panzer Korps would have been in the area of dozens, rather than hundreds.

IronsightSniper #20 Posted Nov 20 2011 - 07:37

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 472
  • Member since:
    01-18-2011
1. Kill Hitler