I've heard said that "if" the Germans would have concentrated on building the Panther and FW-190 (only) they could have lengthened the war by possibly two years. Giving them enough time to accomplish who knows what...A-Bomb, Jet aircraft, super Subs, better Rockets, Night vision, Proximity warheads, Radar, etc...
Obvisously this decision would have to have been made as soon as the war became defensive, and not at the last minute.
They did appear to have many designs, and not all of them worth much (as time went on) [img]graemlins/bullet.gif[/img] , easily able to be dropped, and massively increasing the production potential of those concentrated upon.

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

I really doubt that is the case. With the Fw 190 until the D model comes out in 1944, well after the Germans had already pretty much lost the war, the 190 isn't capable of dealing with escorted US high altitude bomber missions. The A model BMW 801 engine falls off in performance dramatically above about 20,000 feet. Tooling up for production by other firms would definitely have hurt interm production as well. Also, this does nothing to stem the British nighttime raids.
As for the Panther, the same holds true. First, not all the firms manufacturing armored vehicles were capable of building a Panther. This limits production to a handful of German companies that must tool up for production. The other obvious problem for the Germans regarding the Panther is one of logistics. The Panther is only about 75% as reliable as a Pz IV. It uses nearly twice the fuel requiring many more trucks in the supply train of each battalion to carry fuel. Recovery and maintenance are complicated by the weight of the vehicle. An all Panther panzer division would have had little use for its FAMO 18t recovery half tracks or even the BgPz III.
As far as the rest:
Even with two additional years the Germans were at:

Radar: Barely starting to manufacture centimetric radar. This would have put them a mere 3 to 5 years behind the Western Allies instead of 5 to 8 years.

Jets: The US and Britain would have swamped the Luftwaffe by mid 45 with jets of their own. Not only would the Allies have jets but, unlike the German models they would have been reliable. Remember the Jumo 004 the most common German jet engine, had a service life of about 10 hours on average versus about 100 hours for a British Dewent.

Proxmity fuzes: A non-starter. Germany lacked any ability to manufacture the miniature tubes necessary.

Nuclear weapons: Germany was about 10 years from producing a workable bomb in 1945.

Night vision: The US and Britian both were working on various IR systems just as Germany was. The difference was Germany rushed theirs into production while the Allies took more time to develop reliable and more useful systems. An example is the US "Sniperscope" IR sight issued in late 44 early 45 for use primarily in the Pacific on rifles and machineguns.

Rockets: The US would have put in service the MX 774 by mid 46. This had 3 times the range of the V-2 and twice the payload for the same throw weight (launch weight).

Subs: The XXI had serious production problems due to being build modularly. The Allies, aware of its existance were already working on solutions to this problem such as scanning sonars, longer ranged ASW weapons and, homing torpedoes.

In fact, the longer the war goes on the worse the technological advantage shifts in favor of the Allies. The Germans simply lack the manpower, material and, manufacturing base to compete on equal terms with the Allies in developing weapons. They might stay more or less abrest Allied developments in many fields but, they could not put much of what they developed into any useful amount of production.

All true, in reality.
When the FW first appeared it took it to the Spitfires that opposed it. What if they were all FWs(and their improved versions including Ta-152). Getting spanked whenever crossing the channel might have changed minds/strategy, even the invasion.
Panther with it's teething trouble, fuel consumption, vulnerable side armor was a good defensive weapon. Hull down in ambush a difficult kill, with double range of its opponents. After that the Panther (Jadg Panzer V) would have enjoyed advantages over their advesaries in a defensive war. No doubt that after Stalingrad, El Alimein, Kursk, it was defensive.
The enemy comes to you. Defense still takes fuel/ammo/food, but you are closer to home.
I understand better than most that re-tooling for production of different things takes years.
Theoretically, when these two weapons came out they were "top notch", and if (big IF), production was for these only, already (I know, a no win situation)(anyhow), they may have gotten a better bargaining chip towards a different end to the war, and perhaps a different end all together.
There is no doubt the Germans squandered their resources on a virtual cornucopia of exotic/usless, yet interesting array of weapons. I only proposed what if, they concentrated (early on) on ones that worked.
Dance with who brung ya, so to speak.

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

Of course if all the planes would have changed into FW 190´s and all the tanks into Panthers in early 1944 then who knows...

Personally I think that just by laying his cards better Hitler might have won himself that 1-2 years actually.Just thinking how many good men he lost in the eastern front and Africa just because he would not let them leave their positions when the battle would have required that.Winter 1941-42, Stalingrad, Tunis, Kurland, Crimea, Falaise etc etc. Lost the men for plain stupidity really when he might have had them around by letting them "fight normally".

Having 1-2 million men more would definitely have helped him to protect Reich.

The battle of production was lost when the US entered the war for sure.

Also there were other problems like getting the pilots for the planes ( in later phases there were planes but no pilots ). As well important minerals were not received and tank armor was more brittle , and the most important was that they were not getting the oil for their vehicles and planes

So actually it is a bit more complicated.....

__________________

I'd have to second much of what Kai points to. I don't know much about the air wars and planes, but on the ground, the german technology wasn't really a problem in the later years of the war. The russian tanks gave the germans a run for their money, and that was coupled with massive weight of numbers- something that couldn't have been avoided no matter what tanks the germans were fielding.

I think it would be easy to make an argument that the Panther, despite its issues, was easily one of, if not the best all around tank of WW2. But when you're faced with the massive numerical disadvantage the germans faced in the east, the quality of the tanks became much less of a factor. Plus, as Kai notes, with Hitler forcing the issue in some relatively pointless campaigns that cost thousands of german soldiers and resources... again, the technology becomes somewhat secondary.

Especially with the russians pumping out so many T34s- not the best tank on a 1v1 basis, but perfect for its role and for mass production.

And I'd have to very much second TA's points about logistics- fuel consumption and complexity of manufacture for the Panther. Those two aspects are critical, especially for germany in the latter years of the war.

Heh, logistics, always logistics!

But all that being said- I would be interested to see what would have happened in some of the more famous armor battles had the germans been able to field a greater percentage of their "better" tanks.
Would Kursk have turned out differently if there had been more Tigers and had the Panthers been past their serious initial reliability issues?
Would the germans have been able to better slow the huge russian advances in 44-45 with a larger percentage of Panthers and Tigers?

Some interesting food for thought, no doubt!

[img]graemlins/salute.gif[/img]

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

Never such words of wisdom as these were uttered in WWIIF!

A tank is as good as the railhead behind him. If the railhead ist kaputt (magic words here: B-25, B-26; A-26 and Soviet Mobile Group Let Loose In Your Rear) you can have the best tanks in the world but you are going to achieve zippo with them cos' you ain't got no fewl and no ammo to play with.

The Germs might have the prettiest tanks in the world, paint them with the sexiest camo schemes, have Hugo Boss dress their crews, but if the logistics are allowed to go, that's how you lose wars.

__________________

My brother has many books on the Eastern front. One I glancingly read (the juicy parts) told of an Armored division sent back to be re-equiped. The entire division was down to "1" 38t. They were re-equiped with Pzkw III "L"s. They thought they were hot stuff...(compaired to the 38t's)...until they got back to the front and discovered they were still outmatched. Too little, too late.
Many of Germanys best pilots and best tank crews were killed in inferior equipment, fighting in Pre-Lost attacks, because (as was said) Hitler wanted it.
Reminds me of my money and my X-wife!
Before the pilots, tankers, and fuel were used up on hopeless causes, in sad equipment, was what (I guess) I was attempting to propose...not reality.
Rod Serling said...it is said..."Science fiction is the possible made probable, and Fantasy is the improbable made possible."
from...The Twilight Zone

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

I'd say this is a legitimate idea, and one with some potential. I would certainly imagine that this would have given the germans even more of an upper hand in the armor battles of the first couple years of the Russian campaign.
T34 vs. PzIII L- T34 would most often win, and probably rather easily.
T34 vs. Panther- wow, there's a different story!

But even above the logistical aspect- the main problem for the germans I'd see there would be the most common situation would be: Panther vs. 5+ T34s. And even if the PAnther- with the superbly skilled German tank crews- could knock out 4 of those T34s, well...
And even if they knocked out all 5, the one thing the Russians always had the the germans didn't, was 5 more T34s waiting in the wings. And 5 more, and 5 more...

BUt before that strength in numbers really came into play (late 42-43, roundabouts?)- arming the german tankers with Panthers as opposed to PzIIIs undoubtedly *would* have made a huge difference in the early battles.

[img]graemlins/salute.gif[/img]

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

Changing some of the equipment might have affected the outcome of some actions, but it would have made very little difference overall IMO. Only one piece of kit could have done that - the A-bomb.

In fact, if Hitler had by some means managed to extend the war, the most likely outcome would have been that Germany rather than Japan would have received the US A-bombs.

More fact: Germans would have been far better off if they had lost more quickly, before being bombed to perdition and overrun by Russians.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

Unfortunately I believe (when speaking of wars), the ideal scenario would be to WIN in a hurry, or make it last forever.
All this for reasons of taxation, Martial Law, conscription, and the ability to shoot anybody for "defeatest" attitude, policies, even allegations.
A legal (cough/cough) firing squad to get rid of all your opponents/criticism.
Losing in a hurry is only an option for "Boxers" who are paid to take a dive.
I believe that's why they (Germany) took so long to give up, because of what happened after WW1. Being chopped up, robbed, bankrupted, and over-run with carpetbaggers.
This abuse made Hitler (and his absurd ideaology) popular.
History has learned from this with the way governments and lawyers do their (so-called) jobs. There is no benefit for these (afore metioned) people to be quick or correct.
Their dream come true is to make "it" last forever, under the guise of "You need us, or nothing will happen".
We know now, not much happens anyway, and we pay dearly for that priviledge.
Remember the hundred years war? It could have been over on the first day with a "Banzai" charge. Why so long then, besides communication/transportation problems?
I doubt nukes would have been used in the ETO, but we were stupid about the aftermath back then, so who knows.
It's all a control issue. If you win you're in control, if you're evenly matched, no one is in control. If you lose, you are out of control.

__________________
All opinions expressed here are those of "Little Green Men" and don't necessarily represent views, positions, policy, thoughts, actions, or anything else.

I know many of us consider the use of the A-bomb quite necessary in WW2 ( I personally tend to think so ), but it also does require some responsibility and as we´ve seen, it created some rather nasty reputation in the eyes of the world. So, just remember Cassino, wouldn´t you like to think first before dropping the bomb in Europe, really.(?!) I would not like to offend Japan as a nation here although I do...Sorry Japan!

---------

Also winning time on either of the fronts might have changed things for the Reich. How about launching the "Wacht am Rhein" in the east and pushing the Russians back while opening the western front for the western allied troops to enter Berlin? We know how Monty and Patton felt about continuing the attack , possibly with German troops...

----------

And the third thing: If the USSR would be forced to pull out of the war for some reason because of the better German equipment, say, before Operation Torch, how much would that affect the number of the US troops sent to Europe? Or would it?

__________________

I think that's using hindsight. The British started research into A-bombs with the specific intention of using them against Germany, and I'm not aware of any consideration at the time which would have dissuaded the USA from dropping the bomb in Europe if that was felt to be necessary to bring an end to the war. After all, the USAF and RAF were already doing their best to flatten every city left standing, and were unconcerned about civilian casualties.

I don't think that slightly superior equipment would have made any difference to the outcome. Germany didn't even come close to forcing Stalin to surrender.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

I'd say this is a legitimate idea, and one with some potential. I would certainly imagine that this would have given the germans even more of an upper hand in the armor battles of the first couple years of the Russian campaign.
T34 vs. PzIII L- T34 would most often win, and probably rather easily.
T34 vs. Panther- wow, there's a different story!

But even above the logistical aspect- the main problem for the germans I'd see there would be the most common situation would be: Panther vs. 5+ T34s. And even if the PAnther- with the superbly skilled German tank crews- could knock out 4 of those T34s, well...
And even if they knocked out all 5, the one thing the Russians always had the the germans didn't, was 5 more T34s waiting in the wings. And 5 more, and 5 more...

BUt before that strength in numbers really came into play (late 42-43, roundabouts?)- arming the german tankers with Panthers as opposed to PzIIIs undoubtedly *would* have made a huge difference in the early battles.

[img]graemlins/salute.gif[/img] </font>[/quote]Again, the Germans come off worse earlier in the war with the Panther. Technically, it is better than the T34/76 but at a high price. Because it is far less reliable than the Pz III et al., and uses far more gasoline many of those advances made across the vast expanses of the Russian steppe would not have been possible.
Aside from the logistical aspects, the Panther isn't really necessary in 1941 - 42 fighting the Soviets. First, the T34/76 only makes up a fraction of the tanks in use even through early 1943. All 1941 - 42 tank brigades use a combination of vehicles with the most common by 1942 being half T34/76 half T60 or T70 light tanks.
The Pz III with either the 50/42 or 50/60 gun is more than a match for either the T60 or T70 both of which I would describe as motorized death traps for their two man crews. These tanks have an almost total lack of vision ports. The commander/gunner/loader has only the gun sight and a couple of vision slits available. Fighting the tank unbuttoned means having no firepower. The driver has a single vision slit forward. There is no intercom system or radio. The armor on these tanks is not sufficent to stop the 50/60 round either at typical battle ranges.
As for the T34/76 the Germans, like the US does later in the war, can resort to using their superior communications, crew coordination and, organization to run circles around the Russians and shoot them to pieces from the flanks. The T34/76 has many of the same problems as the light tanks: Lack of good vision devices properly placed. The two man turret is a big disadvantage with the commander being the gunner. In fact, like the early M3 Stuarts, the Valentine, and some other British early cruisers, the two man turret usually results in the crew fighting the tank more as an assault gun (ie turret trained forward and the whole tank is turned towards the target as it is difficult for the turret crew to be looking in one direction while the driver is going in another due to the lack of a dedicated commander directing things).
This is very true of the T34. What wasn't in front of it often went unnoticed. If you add in the German expedients of the Marder series and other anti-tank gun "fixes" the Germans were fairly well prepared for taking on the T34 by the end of 1941. It was simply a lack of wider distribution of these weapons to many infantry divisions that hurt them.

Here's a couple of my what-if equipment changes:

The He 100D replaces the Me 109D - E in service with the later being phased out by 1941. Easier to build and maintain, the He 100 also has more range and more possibilities for upgrading than the 109. Only Ernst Udet's moronic narrow-mindedness and a personal preference for Willy Messerschmitt (and veiled contempt for Ernst Henkel) kept this from happening. This could occur starting in late 1939 and many squadrons could have been in serivce by mid- 1940. Imagine the Germans having a faster fighter than the 109 in service that also has about 30% more range. What kind of difference would this have made in the Battle of Britain?

The Pz IV is redesigned in 1941 to bring it on par with the T34. To do this, the armor is now sloped with the front being about 60 or 70 mm thick. The sides remain 30mm but with slope out to the track fenders. A new turret is used with a 75L55 -60 gun. Frontal armor is about 80 - 90 mm. The turret resembles the later Panther II turret with saukopft. The suspension is spaced out from the hull and a new wider track about the same width as that of the Panther is installed. This gives the Germans a slower version of the Panther at a fraction of the cost and, far sooner than the Panther would have been available.

Next, the Germans make a far greater effort to recover every available hull in Europe and Russia for conversion to Marders. Basically, everything captured in France is converted on a proper production line. T34's that are captured are likewise converted. So are the multitude of early war Soviet tanks. Use rebored Soviet 76mm guns as the primary source of a main gun for these vehicles.

A few things to ponder....

Damn, TA- [img]graemlins/salute.gif[/img]
Good points all around.

I will stick with my idea in a small aspect, and a changed one- maybe, instead of focusing on the Panther, it would be more appropriate (from my point of view anyway) to say it would have helped the germans and maybe made a difference in some battles if work on a heavy tank had started at an earlier date? Maybe so Tigers would have been available earlier, albiet still in limited quantities. Something like that situation could have lessened the need for some of the expedients like the Marder. And although the gemans *could* take out the T34s using what you describe above, having access to some heavier tanks undoubtedly would have made this easier.

But... like I said, you laid out some great points above. And it's late and I really should get to sleep, so I'm just kinda throwing out some points... might not be making as much sense as usual, but i can't resist the armor stuff!

Can't argue with that- the benefits plans like that would have had to the performance of german forces. Especially in russia, in dealing with the numbers of russian tanks. The germans really brought the tank destroyer into it's own as a capable and useful afv, so having more of them with the 75mm guns would have been huge. Especially for the non-Panzer divisions, that realy had to rely on their AT forces instead of tanks.

One thing I wonder about- if efforts had been made to upgrade the PzIV, what effect would that have had on later developements, like our original topic, the Panther?
And would it have mattered?

[img]graemlins/salute.gif[/img]

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

The Germans did set out to improve the Pz IV, and put the result into service: it was the Pz V [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I did once see some production cost figures which indicated that the Pz V wasn't that much more expensive than the IV - only in the range 10-20% more, whereas the Tiger 1 was double the cost.

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

If I recall reading correctly (?) the Tiger required all in all 1 million working hours (?!!). I read this same info at least in a couple of books. Is this true? Can anyone confirm this? I mean T-34 was ready within 24-36 hours at best from scratches...( not a very good one probably but one that could fight ).

Or could it be One million Reichsmark?

__________________

As a follow-up to my previous message, I believe that the last Pz IV (Ausf J) with the 75mm L/48 pushed the chassis about as far as it would usefully go. By then the tank had put on a lot of weight (from 19 to 25 tons) which must have affected performance and probably reliability.

Basically, if you wanted a significantly better gun, and significantly better armour, you needed a bigger chassis to carry them, which required a more powerful engine. So you ended up with the Panther...

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website