German WWII Technology

@aequitas:

ok Kurt Godel, explain please how you would have seen the Invasion against the Soviet Union without the Oil of Ploesti in '44-'45?..I see you would have tried to obtain the oilfields in Mid.east but I think you would be out of gas right then…

better weapons introduced in early '43 would not have much of an impact to win the war for Germany since it was more likley overkill in the diversity of types of ammo and ammo at all…
for example Stug III w. 3 -4 diffrent KwK’s and up to 6 diffrent Panzergranaten/Panzer grenades…

the Wehrmacht was on top in '41, undefeated and fearless. providing the Wehrmacht in '41 w. SturmGewher '44 modells, Panthers and panzerfaust and they would have conquered siberia on foot…lol

Far fewer tanks, soldiers, and planes were involved in the Middle Eastern conflict of 1940 than would later participate in the war between Germany and the Soviet Union. All else being equal, a smaller conflict means less need for gas. Also, Germany had access to some fuel supplies, both from its own synthetic fuel production and because of Romania. That fuel would have been perfectly adequate to launch a full-scale invasion of the Middle East in 1940 or 1941; just as that fuel was instead used in the invasion of the Soviet Union. Long-term, of course, the plan would have been for the Middle Eastern invasion to result in the capture of Persia’s oil fields; which at the time were the most abundant and best in the world. Persian oil would have been instrumental in the invasion of the Soviet Union.

There were several reasons why the Wehrmacht wasn’t provided with Panthers, Panzerfausts, etc. in 1941. One was that those designs were largely the result of Germany’s experience fighting the Red Army, and its resulting insights into the needs of its military. Another reason was that the Wehrmacht was thrown together quickly from 1933 - 1941. In 1939, for example, the German Army’s tank force consisted almost exclusively of obsolete light tanks which could not penetrate the armor of enemy tanks. They added large numbers of medium tanks to their army between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of France. But even during the invasion of France, roughly 70% Germany’s tank force was still obsolete light tanks.

During the early 1940s Germany could not devote its entire effort to military production, because Hitler wanted to also devote large amounts of resources toward building up Germany’s production capacity. He realized that unless he did so, Germany would fall behind in the air production race against Britain and the U.S., and that its cities would consequently be destroyed. The resources devoted to building up industrial capacity (as opposed to immediate military production) are one of the reasons why the Soviet Union was able, in 1942, to outproduce Germany 3:1 or 4:1 in all major land categories, and nearly 2:1 in military aircraft.

Well over 80% of Germany’s WWII military deaths were experienced at the hands of the Red Army. The decline in strength the German Army experienced from 1941 - '44 was almost entirely due to the loss of men on the Soviet front. Had Germany postponed its war with the Soviet Union until 1945, that decline in strength could have been postponed. By 1945, Germany would have been in a position to match or exceed Soviet military production. That military production would allow the German Army to be fully armed and ready for war; rather than inadequately prepared as it had been in '41. Germany would also have been in position to use its jet technology to establish long-term dominance over the skies of the Soviet battlefields–not just with jet fighters, but soon enough with jet-powered dive bombers as well. That delay would (potentially) have allowed it to develop simpler, better, more easily produced tank and artillery designs.

The main reason why the Germans lacked winter uniforms during the winter of '41 - '42 was because of inadequate supply lines. Due to the limited amount of fuel and military trucks, and the fact that so many supplies were shipped by train for most of the way and horses for the rest, there were sharp limits to the amount of supplies that could be delivered to Germany’s rapidly advancing army. Instead of adequate winter clothing and tents, German soldiers were often sent food, medical supplies, and ammunition. There just wasn’t enough logistics capacity to send them everything they had to have. The conquest of the Persian oilfields would have solved the lack of oil problem. The threefold or fourfold increase in military production capacity from '41 - '44 would have solved the problem of lack of military supply trucks. Not only would the German Army of '44 or '45 been fully armed, it would have been fully supplied.

There was a great deal of anti-British sentiment throughout the Middle East. Middle Easterners were tired of being colonies of Britain and France. Initially, that sentiment would have allowed Hitler to recruit men for war against Britain. Later, those same recruits (and others) could be informed about the Soviet Union’s persecution of all religions (including Islam), and its repression of Muslims in the southern Soviet Union. A large force of Muslim men could invade the Soviet Union from the south, creating an additional front for it to have to deal with; not to mention entire armies that it simply didn’t have to face in WWII. Germany could supply this force with some jets and other modern weapons to improve its morale and military effectiveness.

One key reason all these things did not happen was because the German military had underestimated the size of the Red Army. German military planners had believed the Soviet Army consisted of 200 divisions, total. Against a force like that, the German Army with its 150 divisions (as it had in 1941) would have been more than enough. The German Army was better on a man-for-man basis than was the Soviet. The plan was to quickly conquer the Soviet Union; thereby eliminating the long-term threat of communist invasion, while obtaining the resources and industrial capacity Germany needed to defend its cities from the Anglo-American bombing effort. However, by the fall of 1941, the Soviet Army consisted of a staggering 600 divisions. German military planners had grossly underestimated the sheer size of the Soviet military; and hence the difficulty of conquering the Soviet Union. It is also worth noting that the Soviets were significantly ahead of the Germans in military production capacity in '41 and '42, but that the Germans had caught up by '44. Had German leaders been aware of these things, it’s quite possible they would have postponed the invasion of the Soviet Union until '44 or '45.

@KurtGodel7:

There was a great deal of anti-British sentiment throughout the Middle East. Middle Easterners were tired of being colonies of Britain and France. Initially, that sentiment would have allowed Hitler to recruit men for war against Britain. Later, those same recruits (and others) could be informed about the Soviet Union’s persecution of all religions (including Islam), and its repression of Muslims in the southern Soviet Union. A large force of Muslim men could invade the Soviet Union from the south, creating an additional front for it to have to deal with; not to mention entire armies that it simply didn’t have to face in WWII. Germany could supply this force with some jets and other modern weapons to improve its morale and military effectiveness.

If Germany had occupied the Middle East, I’m not sure Germany would have been able to recruit the local population to its cause (assuming Germany was inclined to try doing so in the first place).  During the early days of Operation Barbarossa, some of the population groups in the western Soviet Union briefly entertained the hope that the Germans might prove to be more agreeable rulers than Joseph Stalin.  The SS and the Gestapo soon came along and dispelled that particular notion.  Germany was able to raise a certain number of troops in the various countries it occupied, but even with the help of collaborationist governments like those of Vichy France the forces asssembled in this manner were relatively small.

Similarly, the Japanese were never able to capitalize very much on the anti-British (and anti-French and anti-Dutch) sentiments that existed in the Far East.  When Japan marched into one country after another in 1941-1942, it tried to market its conquests as a campaign for the liberation of Asia from white European colonial oppression.  The conquered locals soon realized that they’d simply traded one kind of foreign imperialism for another, and that life under Japanese occupation was no picnic.  Even Thailand, which was nominally an ally of Japan, was squeezed in a way which convinced pretty much everyone except the country’s top leadership that the proper response was to resist rather than collaborate.  Japan also made efforts to cultivate the Indian nationalist movement, but apart from getting some support here and there from people like Subhas Chandra Bose it never got anywhere near to provoking a serious uprising against British rule.

@CWO:

@KurtGodel7:

There was a great deal of anti-British sentiment throughout the Middle East. Middle Easterners were tired of being colonies of Britain and France. Initially, that sentiment would have allowed Hitler to recruit men for war against Britain. Later, those same recruits (and others) could be informed about the Soviet Union’s persecution of all religions (including Islam), and its repression of Muslims in the southern Soviet Union. A large force of Muslim men could invade the Soviet Union from the south, creating an additional front for it to have to deal with; not to mention entire armies that it simply didn’t have to face in WWII. Germany could supply this force with some jets and other modern weapons to improve its morale and military effectiveness.

If Germany had occupied the Middle East, I’m not sure Germany would have been able to recruit the local population to its cause (assuming Germany was inclined to try doing so in the first place).  During the early days of Operation Barbarossa, some of the population groups in the western Soviet Union briefly entertained the hope that the Germans might prove to be more agreeable rulers than Joseph Stalin.  The SS and the Gestapo soon came along and dispelled that particular notion.  Germany was able to raise a certain number of troops in the various countries it occupied, but even with the help of collaborationist governments like those of Vichy France the forces asssembled in this manner were relatively small.

Similarly, the Japanese were never able to capitalize very much on the anti-British (and anti-French and anti-Dutch) sentiments that existed in the Far East.  When Japan marched into one country after another in 1941-1942, it tried to market its conquests as a campaign for the liberation of Asia from white European colonial oppression.  The conquered locals soon realized that they’d simply traded one kind of foreign imperialism for another, and that life under Japanese occupation was no picnic.  Even Thailand, which was nominally an ally of Japan, was squeezed in a way which convinced pretty much everyone except the country’s top leadership that the proper response was to resist rather than collaborate.  Japan also made efforts to cultivate the Indian nationalist movement, but apart from getting some support here and there from people like Subhas Chandra Bose it never got anywhere near to provoking a serious uprising against British rule.

And yet after the war, when it was safe to do so, most Indians praised Bose

@CWO:

If Germany had occupied the Middle East, I’m not sure Germany would have been able to recruit the local population to its cause (assuming Germany was inclined to try doing so in the first place).  During the early days of Operation Barbarossa, some of the population groups in the western Soviet Union briefly entertained the hope that the Germans might prove to be more agreeable rulers than Joseph Stalin.  The SS and the Gestapo soon came along and dispelled that particular notion.  Germany was able to raise a certain number of troops in the various countries it occupied, but even with the help of collaborationist governments like those of Vichy France the forces asssembled in this manner were relatively small.

Similarly, the Japanese were never able to capitalize very much on the anti-British (and anti-French and anti-Dutch) sentiments that existed in the Far East.  When Japan marched into one country after another in 1941-1942, it tried to market its conquests as a campaign for the liberation of Asia from white European colonial oppression.  The conquered locals soon realized that they’d simply traded one kind of foreign imperialism for another, and that life under Japanese occupation was no picnic.  Even Thailand, which was nominally an ally of Japan, was squeezed in a way which convinced pretty much everyone except the country’s top leadership that the proper response was to resist rather than collaborate.  Japan also made efforts to cultivate the Indian nationalist movement, but apart from getting some support here and there from people like Subhas Chandra Bose it never got anywhere near to provoking a serious uprising against British rule.

In the Soviet Union, anti-communist sentiment was strong enough that nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army. Had Germany actually been in a position to feed the people in the territories it conquered–which it was not–the number of people who joined might have been significantly larger. You also raised a good point about the heavy-handedness of the occupation effort–a heavy handedness which may have been due at least in part to the desire to suppress Soviet partisans and guerrilla warfare.

In the scenario I have hypothesized, Germany would have ruled its Middle Eastern colonies with a light touch, with an eye toward winning over as large a percentage of the local population as possible. Cooperation with local leaders would have been paramount. Obtaining adequate food supplies would also have been critical–if necessary by advancing southward along the Nile.

But is the food surplus of the Middle East enough to offset the food defecit elsewhere?

@KurtGodel7:

@CWO:

If Germany had occupied the Middle East, I’m not sure Germany would have been able to recruit the local population to its cause (assuming Germany was inclined to try doing so in the first place).  During the early days of Operation Barbarossa, some of the population groups in the western Soviet Union briefly entertained the hope that the Germans might prove to be more agreeable rulers than Joseph Stalin.  The SS and the Gestapo soon came along and dispelled that particular notion.  Germany was able to raise a certain number of troops in the various countries it occupied, but even with the help of collaborationist governments like those of Vichy France the forces asssembled in this manner were relatively small.

Similarly, the Japanese were never able to capitalize very much on the anti-British (and anti-French and anti-Dutch) sentiments that existed in the Far East.  When Japan marched into one country after another in 1941-1942, it tried to market its conquests as a campaign for the liberation of Asia from white European colonial oppression.  The conquered locals soon realized that they’d simply traded one kind of foreign imperialism for another, and that life under Japanese occupation was no picnic.  Even Thailand, which was nominally an ally of Japan, was squeezed in a way which convinced pretty much everyone except the country’s top leadership that the proper response was to resist rather than collaborate.  Japan also made efforts to cultivate the Indian nationalist movement, but apart from getting some support here and there from people like Subhas Chandra Bose it never got anywhere near to provoking a serious uprising against British rule.

In the Soviet Union, anti-communist sentiment was strong enough that nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army. Had Germany actually been in a position to feed the people in the territories it conquered–which it was not–the number of people who joined might have been significantly larger. You also raised a good point about the heavy-handedness of the occupation effort–a heavy handedness which may have been due at least in part to the desire to suppress Soviet partisans and guerrilla warfare.

In the scenario I have hypothesized, Germany would have ruled its Middle Eastern colonies with a light touch, with an eye toward winning over as large a percentage of the local population as possible. Cooperation with local leaders would have been paramount. Obtaining adequate food supplies would also have been critical–if necessary by advancing southward along the Nile.

wich “nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army” are you talking about,please?

@aequitas:

@KurtGodel7:

@CWO:

If Germany had occupied the Middle East, I’m not sure Germany would have been able to recruit the local population to its cause (assuming Germany was inclined to try doing so in the first place).  During the early days of Operation Barbarossa, some of the population groups in the western Soviet Union briefly entertained the hope that the Germans might prove to be more agreeable rulers than Joseph Stalin.  The SS and the Gestapo soon came along and dispelled that particular notion.  Germany was able to raise a certain number of troops in the various countries it occupied, but even with the help of collaborationist governments like those of Vichy France the forces asssembled in this manner were relatively small.

Similarly, the Japanese were never able to capitalize very much on the anti-British (and anti-French and anti-Dutch) sentiments that existed in the Far East.  When Japan marched into one country after another in 1941-1942, it tried to market its conquests as a campaign for the liberation of Asia from white European colonial oppression.  The conquered locals soon realized that they’d simply traded one kind of foreign imperialism for another, and that life under Japanese occupation was no picnic.  Even Thailand, which was nominally an ally of Japan, was squeezed in a way which convinced pretty much everyone except the country’s top leadership that the proper response was to resist rather than collaborate.  Japan also made efforts to cultivate the Indian nationalist movement, but apart from getting some support here and there from people like Subhas Chandra Bose it never got anywhere near to provoking a serious uprising against British rule.

In the Soviet Union, anti-communist sentiment was strong enough that nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army. Had Germany actually been in a position to feed the people in the territories it conquered–which it was not–the number of people who joined might have been significantly larger. You also raised a good point about the heavy-fronthandedness of the occupation effort–a heavy handedness which may have been due at least in part to the desire to suppress Soviet partisans and guerrilla warfare.

In the scenario I have hypothesized, Germany would have ruled its Middle Eastern colonies with a light touch, with an eye toward winning over as large a percentage of the local population as possible. Cooperation with local leaders would have been paramount. Obtaining adequate food supplies would also have been critical–if necessary by advancing southward along the Nile.

wich “nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army” are you talking about,please?

They were affectionately called Hiwis by the Germans, and like the other post said they made up a ridiculous amount of manpower for the German army on the Ostfront. They were used a lot for labour duties, better to work a Hiwi to death than a soldier of the Third Reich, their thinking not mine. Another reason for using the Hiwis was already evident by the end of 1941, In 1939, only 19,000 German soldiers had been killed; and in all the campaigns of 1940, German losses had totalled no more than 83,000-serious enough, indeed, but not irreplaceable. In 1941, however, 357,000 German troops were reported killed or missing in action, over 300,000 on the Ostfront. From 22 June 1941 onwards, at least two-thirds of the German Armed Forces were always engaged on the Ostfront.

@Krupp:

From 22 June 1941 onwards, at least two-thirds of the German Armed Forces were always engaged on the Ostfront.

60% of the German GROUND Army not 60% of the German Armed Forces.

@KurtGodel7:

You also raised a good point about the heavy-handedness of the occupation effort–a heavy handedness which may have been due at least in part to the desire to suppress Soviet partisans and guerrilla warfare.

In the scenario I have hypothesized, Germany would have ruled its Middle Eastern colonies with a light touch, with an eye toward winning over as large a percentage of the local population as possible.

The heavy-handedness Germany showed in Russia may also have had something to do with Hitler’s view that the conflict in the East was a “war of annihilation” whose ultimate purpose was the extermination, expulsion, Germanisation or enslavement of the Slavic people.

I quite agree that it would have been in Germany’s strategic interests to win over the population of the countries it conquered.  I’m just wondering about their track record in this regard.  Offhand, I can’t think of any instances of a country occupied by Nazi Germany being treated with a light touch.  It would be interesting to hear of such a case.

@aequitas:

wich “nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army” are you talking about,please?

From Feldgrau.com:

The forerunner of the volunteer formations was a voluntary auxiliary service, of a para- military character, which was started in the autumn of 1941 by the German Commands on the front. On their own initiative, they organized auxiliary units of various services, made up of Soviet deserters, prisoners, and volunteers from among the local population. These so-called “Hilfswillige,” or “Hiwi,” were employed as sentries, drivers, store- keepers, workers in depots, etc. The experiment surpassed all expectations. In the spring of 1942 there were already at least 200,000 of them in the rear of the German armies, and by the end of the same year their number was allegedly near 1,000,000.(2) . . .

During 1943 the number of volunteers in the eastern formations increased allegedly to some 800,000.(19)

See http://www.feldgrau.com/rvol.html

According to Wikipedia, 1,000,000 Soviet residents who joined the German Army were taken prisoner by the USSR; and an additional 215,000 Soviet residents were killed or MIA. That implies a minimum of 1.2 million Soviet citizens or residents took up arms against communism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties

The source for the Wikipedia quote is Richard Overy–a highly respected historian.

@CWO:

Offhand, I can’t think of any instances of a country occupied by Nazi Germany being treated with a light touch.  It would be interesting to hear of such a case.

Norway…  :wink:

…Ostlegionen!..they way you described it made me wonder…now I know what you were talking about…the “eingliederung” of the HiWis and " Legionen Ost "…to catch the stretch of the Frontlines and German casulties…
One who I talked with said that his Hiwi was reliable but it was more the issue were some of them came from…Ukraines would more likley fight were a Uzbeke may take a hike…@KurtGodel7:

@aequitas:

wich “nearly 1 million Soviet citizens joined Germany’s army” are you talking about,please?

From Feldgrau.com:

---

The forerunner of the volunteer formations was a voluntary auxiliary service, of a para- military character, which was started in the autumn of 1941 by the German Commands on the front. On their own initiative, they organized auxiliary units of various services, made up of Soviet deserters, prisoners, and volunteers from among the local population. These so-called “Hilfswillige,” or “Hiwi,” were employed as sentries, drivers, store- keepers, workers in depots, etc. The experiment surpassed all expectations. In the spring of 1942 there were already at least 200,000 of them in the rear of the German armies, and by the end of the same year their number was allegedly near 1,000,000.(2) . . .

During 1943 the number of volunteers in the eastern formations increased allegedly to some 800,000.(19)

---

See http://www.feldgrau.com/rvol.html

According to Wikipedia, 1,000,000 Soviet residents who joined the German Army were taken prisoner by the USSR; and an additional 215,000 Soviet residents were killed or MIA. That implies a minimum of 1.2 million Soviet citizens or residents took up arms against communism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties

The source for the Wikipedia quote is Richard Overy–a highly respected historian.

better engines and transmissions for the tiger and king tiger tanks. that would of be decisive in both eastern and western fronts