How good was the T-34? Really?

[Mister Fork]

Yes. However, the allies did make mistakes, thus giving the Germans a chance to win. They didn't because they made some horrible mistakes of their own. After the Battle of France the Germans had every opportunity to keep what they had taken and thus win. Perhaps even gaining American support in attacking the Soviets. But America was just a country run by degenerates controlled by Jews, so what harm could come from declaring war...

The fact that Germany was run by a Nazi government meant that it's ability to think strategically and rationally was impaired, right from the start. Luck had little to do with it - you can only drive a bulldozer over countries so far before you just run out of ground or gas. They made mistakes with incarceration and genocide of the Jewish communities and minorities. They made mistakes with military strategy with the Battle of Britain. They made mistakes invading the Soviet Union by not equipping their soldiers for an all-climate war. They made mistakes by not ensuring they had sufficient resources and support for their African forces.

And the largest one - Germany AND Japan made the biggest mistake of waking the sleeping giant.

[nrshida]

the only reason that Hitler got as far as he did was all the mistakes made by his opponents.

What an utter load of condescending, revisionist claptrap. You know some of you young fellas ought to unimplant your noses from your beloved military text books, stop playing Top Trumps with which tank had the bigger engine, better armour and more destructive gun and look to the broader context in which your favourite hobby is firmly nested from time to time.

The narzies enjoyed an effective 20 years advancement in armament technology and tactics by indirect virtue of the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler structuring his military from the platform of a dictatorship. Just look at the antiquated cack and pre-historic tactical thinking the rest of Europe was fielding at the outbreak of The Big Show (a gap swiftly closed and surpassed I might add). Perhaps dedicating equal research to the reasons for that might prevent these odious and fully erroneous notions cropping up on this forum every three months.

[Zimme83]

What an utter load of condescending, revisionist claptrap. You know some of you young fellas ought to unimplant your noses from your beloved military text books, stop playing Top Trumps with which tank had the bigger engine, better armour and more destructive gun and look to the broader context in which your favourite hobby is firmly nested from time to time.

The narzies enjoyed an effective 20 years advancement in armament technology and tactics by indirect virtue of the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler structuring his military from the platform of a dictatorship. Just look at the antiquated cack and pre-historic tactical thinking the rest of Europe was fielding at the outbreak of The Big Show (a gap swiftly closed and surpassed I might add). Perhaps dedicating equal research to the reasons for that might prevent these odious and fully erroneous notions cropping up on this forum every three months.

(Image removed from quote.)

Zzz..

[Beamont]

To address your points about the winning and losing of the war, the greatest man of the period knew it was about economics and manpower.

"saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."

Winston Churchill, December 7, 1941

[Chris79]

It was doctrine that led to the success of the Heer not superior AFVs during the early war. During the invasion of France the British and French had more and depending who's POV better tanks. The Germans organized their AFVs into divisions supported by motorized infantry where as the Allies distributed their armor at the battalion level amongst their infantry divisions. The Matilda tank was damn near impervious to contemporary German tanks of the time, that is where the 88mm was converted into a anti-tank gun. The same is true for the OstFront, although the T34 came as a shock to the Heer they were able to improvise at first. It was not until the Soviets figured out amassing large number of tanks, "Tank Armies", and use those units in conjunction with mobile deep operation tactics did they become successful. Even then, the soviets experienced some serious teething issues until mid 1943. It also ought to be noted that victory in the east was all but impossible, had Hitler not issued some of his ludicrous orders it was well within reason up to onset of operation Bagration for Germany to reach a brokered peace with the Soviets.

[Oldman731]

It also ought to be noted that victory in the east was all but impossible

There was a professor in the Penn State system who pointed to the map.  If you look at it, greater Russia is a funnel pointed toward Europe.  Invasions from west to east necessarily spread out into the funnel, and always failed.  Invasions from east to west necessarily concentrated, and tended to succeed.  I thought it was an interesting point.

- oldman

[GScholz]

The Battle of Moscow from October 1941 to January 1942 more or less decided the outcome of the war on the Russian front, and Europe for that matter. Germany lost that battle because they were ill equipped and ill prepared to fight a winter war in Russia, due primarily to the racist ideology and overconfidence of the Nazi leadership. Had Moscow fallen Stalin and the hard-line Soviet leadership, who had opted to stay in the beleaguered capital, would have collapsed, and it was the only thing keeping the organized resistance going at that point. Germany could have essentially won the war in Europe in 1941, before Pearl Harbor.

[nrshida]

It was doctrine that led to the success of the Heer not superior AFVs during the early war.

It was a combination.

So talking details:
Only 16 Matilda IIs were available by the Battle of Arras on 21 May 1940. And the following day 2 were still serviceable. The armour came at a price. About 15 m.p.h. on tarmac and something like 6 off road. One of the luxuries of a clean sheet of paper is you can design your equipment in accordance with your new tactics. The 'Lord' already had his gear and moves well sorted in the Spanish Civil war. The Matilda was slow and 27 feet long because the noobs still thought they would be breaching trenches when they designed it.

Now talking generally:
Look to the Dutch, Belgian & Polish armies for more common examples. They were still largely reliant on horses. France's military also relatively tiny and ill-equipped compared to the Great War. There were numerous towns and villages not even existant anymore.

For the why's you have to look beyond the military equipment and not with modern eyes.

[nrshida]

The Battle of Moscow from October 1941 to January 1942 more or less decided the outcome of the war on the Russian front, and Europe for that matter. Germany lost that battle because they were ill equipped and ill prepared to fight a winter war in Russia, due primarily to the racist ideology and overconfidence of the Nazi leadership. Had Moscow fallen Stalin and the hard-line Soviet leadership, who had opted to stay in the beleaguered capital, would have collapsed, and it was the only thing keeping the organized resistance going at that point. Germany could have essentially won the war in Europe in 1941, before Pearl Harbor.

I agree they could have perhaps reformed the Eastern European map at least for quite a long time, up to the Volga (all they really wanted I think), had they been quicker. Stalin threw the one thing he had in abundance into the machine. People. Western Europe would have never been allowed to be kept. North Africa debatable. The Nazi expansion depended on the resources of other countries to be sustained. Britain did not (and likely would not) fall and would never have tolerated Nazi occupation of its former allies. Perhaps WWII would have ended in 41 but a WWIII would inevitably have begun, perhaps late 40s, early 50s at the latest. Probably an altogether more bloody and savage war than both the WWI and WWII we know.

Any superiority of the German war machine was transient and the early success dependent on many factors.

[GScholz]

What would have happened is anyone's guess. With the resources of continental Europe and Russia under its command, a Eurasia-spanning Third Reich would be very difficult to defeat. That's the difficult part about changing history. Have you read the novel Fatherland or watched the HBO TV-movie?

[nrshida]

Have you read the novel Fatherland or watched the HBO TV-movie?

A long time ago I think. There were a lot of interesting sci-fi stories based around these sort of premises. There was a good 70s film I'm wracking my brains to think of wherein WWII didn't happen. It depicted a more socially advanced and yet technologically retarded world by our standards.

Hard to say which path was better for the long-run. Technical advances probably lead to advancement in some areas at the expense of others and vice-versa.

Had Hitler topped himself in the late 1920s in an attic studio as a failed artist instead of whimpering in his bunker, mumbling about how the German race had failed him around the muzzle of a PPK then perhaps the world would be a safer more advanced place today. Perhaps all that horror and ill-feeling had to get worked out somehow. Is still being worked out.

I don't think nature really cares about us any more than uninteresting components in a process.

[Mister Fork]

What would have happened is anyone's guess. With the resources of continental Europe and Russia under its command, a Eurasia-spanning Third Reich would be very difficult to defeat. That's the difficult part about changing history. Have you read the novel Fatherland or watched the HBO TV-movie?

There is no guess... the moment the Nazi party got elected, Germany entered a downfall.  Prior, German innovation was astounding in industry and military capacities. The brain-drain that resulted from the Nazi government that came to power greatly diminished it's ability to innovate - they had built up a great deal of technology innovation prior, but beyond 1939 tech left them hobbled even before they rolled into Poland.  Airplanes like the 262, Fw-190, jet engines, tanks, u-Boats, the mighty Bismark, and even the V-1 rockets - they were ALL on someones drawing board prior to WWII starting.  The pace the German Wehrmach and Luftwaffe advanced their designs, weapons, and technology was at a snails pace compared to American, Canadian, and British designers.

Don't get me wrong and say that Germany didn't advance their own tech, but the pace that the Allied forces were able to innovate their technology was hobbled by idealism, misguided direction from leadership, and their inability to accept that the Americans would ever enter the war.

[GScholz]

That's demonstrably incorrect. The Nazi party came to power in 1933. All the main aircraft, vehicles and weapons used by the Germans in WWII with the exception of the Mauser K98 rifle and Luger P-08 pistol was designed and produced after the Nazis came to power.

[Oldman731]

Had Moscow fallen Stalin and the hard-line Soviet leadership, who had opted to stay in the beleaguered capital, would have collapsed, and it was the only thing keeping the organized resistance going at that point.

Sez who?  I have never understood the assumption that the fall of Moscow - even if it had included the death or capture of Comrade Stalin - would somehow have ended the war in the east.

- oldman

[GScholz]

It wouldn't have ended it, but it would have destroyed the Soviet centralized command of its forces. The rest of the country might have fought on, or not, but resistance would have been compartmentalized in local areas rather than a united effort. That's the big danger of having a completely centralized command structure like the Soviets did. Germany would have won, but it would have taken them months or years to finish the job.