View Single Post
  #119 (permalink)  
Old November 1st, 2009, 07:10 PM
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: U. S.
Posts: 4,731
Salute!: 4
Saluted 284 Times in 195 Posts
T. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to beholdT. A. Gardner is a splendid one to behold
Default Re: What if Germany had it's advanced technology earlier on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
I think that you are exaggerating. Better technology earlier would mean that the german forces would have been more powerful in the 1939-1942 period. This period had decisive importance for the subsequent periods.

For example, if they had better tanks, Barbarossa would still fail, but the Russians would suffer more severe casualties, so in 1942 they would be weaker. Maybe Operation Blue works and then, inexorably, the allies lose the war*.
The problem here is that the two technologies the Germans needed most they were the shortest on and were doing the least about. Those would have been logistics and civil engineering. Better tactical equipment would have made nearly ZERO difference in Russia in 1941-42. What was debilitating the Germans most was lack of supplies and lack of ability to improve infrastructure to deliver supplies.
The Germans by mid 1942 were operating roughly one ninth of the necessary rail lines needed to support their army. AGS at Stalingrad was relying on trucks and air lifts to deliver 100% of their supplies before the Soviet counter offensive began. In fact, the Germans had to strip most of their divisions of their trucks in AGS just to support the supply effort.
Why? Because the German rail head ended at Stalino almost 300 miles to the rear of Stalingrad and AGS's railway engineers (too few in number and ill-equipped) were busy trying to just maintain the existing rail lines forward. There were none available to repair or build new tracks forward to support the troops at Stalingrad.
In civil engineering the same is true. The German army was virtually unmechanized when it came to construction machinery. Their construction engineers had little more than hand tools to work with. There was no way the troops they had could build or maintain roads over long distances. Building something like the ALCAN highway or Ledo Road were impossibilities for the Germans.
So, the Germans went into Russia ill-prepared for the conditions they met. They took weeks or or months to bridge rivers properly that the US or British would have bridged in a day or two. They couldn't maintain the rail system properly. They couldn't build roads. The result was their troops suffered continiously from supply and material shortages.
Winter clothing? It was in Germany and there was plenty of it. Problem was in the winter of 1941 -42 that the rail system into Russia was so overloaded the Germans had a choice of sending food, fuel and, ammunition or, clothing and other non-combat supplies but not both. So, they sent what food and ammunition they could. It also meant that when the Russians attacked that German reinforcements arrived peicemeal, often had to march on foot long distances to get to their positions.
None of this would have been made better by a "better tank" or a "better" machinegun.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
Sure, if the US made the bomb in 1943 instead of 1945, the germans would have responded in kind in short order.
The difference here is that Germany was not even in the same race when it came to nuclear weapons. They didn't even have a working reactor, the first step in unravelling the nuclear puzzle. The one design they were working on using 1 kg blocks of un-enriched uranium with heavy water would not have worked had they completed the design (based on postwar examination of it). So, they would have been forced back to the drawing board to try again.
Once they did have a reactor they would have quickly realized that enrichment is necessary or they might have discovered plutonium too just as the US did. Either way would then require a massive investment in money and materials to produce enough weapons grade fissionable material to build a bomb.
So, if the US had a bomb in 1943 and used it on Germany it would have been literally years before the Germans could have responded in kind even knowing that such a weapon was possible. That is how far behind they were in that race.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
The war was quite close until 1944.
Not really. After the fall of France there is only one incident where a German infantry division managed to defeat a British or US division of any kind on the offensive. That is the 18th VG against the 106th US ID in the Ardennes. Outside of that one case, 80%+ of the German army was essentially worthless as offensive troops.
Even in Russia German infantry divisions rarely proved capable of successful offensive action on their own. After Kursk, the Germans were basicly in the same position in Russia that they were in the West: 80% or more of their army was worthless for offensive combat.
Once again, a minor... or even major... tweak of tactical equipment would have made nearly ZERO difference. Germany was already defeated. It was a powerful zombie army that could no longer win but was very hard to kill.

That's the reality here.
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Salute T. A. Gardner For This Useful Post:
A-58 (November 2nd, 2009), brndirt1OKF Moderator (November 1st, 2009), Falcon Jun (November 5th, 2009), ickysdad (November 2nd, 2009), JagdtigerI (November 16th, 2009), LJAd (November 13th, 2009)