What single weapon was the most crucial to Germany?

German weapons, vehicles and equipment 1919-1945.

Moderator: sniper1shot

User avatar
Flak88
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:33 am

Post by Flak88 »

trebizond wrote:
A Heer just shy of 13 million isn't going to beat a 35 million strong army equipped with T-34s.

And any observer would say the same in 1941...

trebizond wrote:
Say that the Kriegsmarine had 1000 U-Boats of various capabilities to call upon, and destroyed all hope of convoy traffic across the Atlantic.

The result would have been negligible upon the course of the war, except that Russia would destroy Germany alone, instead of a via a second front. As German advances were turned in '42 and '43, the war was essentially over. This was without the help of the Allies, except for some second-rate armour and deuce-and-a-halfs.
Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back on production of nonessentials severely, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military/industrial economy.

For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1944 nearly half the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. US supplies of waterproof telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical.
User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie »

With out the U.S Russia would have crumbled away.
trebizond
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:10 pm

Post by trebizond »

von_noobie wrote:With out the U.S Russia would have crumbled away.
Well, that's a whole new argument :) I personally don't think it would have, but it's a contentious point. Can we all accept, though, that if Britain had been subjugated, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war that much?
User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie »

Well, actually Russia would have in my view crumbled away, But i respect your view, and would love to talk about it....

But on the topic of Britain being subjugated i do actually see a major change in the war,
No bombing of Germany or Nazi controlled Europe,
No supplies reaching Russia,
Middle East becomes German possesion,
NA becomes axis possesion,
Iran (Persia) most likely becomes axis allie,
Russia forced to surrender,
No more fighting by 1945 (except for partisans)
User avatar
Flak88
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:33 am

Post by Flak88 »

trebizond wrote: Well, that's a whole new argument :) I personally don't think it would have, but it's a contentious point. Can we all accept, though, that if Britain had been subjugated, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war that much?
one thing i can accept though.., if Britain falls, we will be speaking either German or Russian.
User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie »

Well thats you guys, I would still be speaking english.
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

All predicated on the fact that Germany invades Russia in timetable in june 1941. IF there had been any delay whether compulsory or intentional, then the Germans would have met a Red Army fully equiped and integrated with T34's and KV1-2s etc, new aircraft designs that were just coming off the board in 1941, and a reconstructed officer corps. Might not have been as much of a walkover as it was between june and december 1941....

phylo
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

All, just been thinking - the question at the top of this thread is wrong, given....that through the six years of WWII, for the first three Nazi Germany was basically all-conquering, but for the last three was wholly on the defensive.

So, perhaps the QUESTION should be split up at this late stage -

Which weapon was the most crucial to Germany in its ascendant years, 1939-42?

AND

Which was most crucial to Germany during its retrenchent, defensive years 1943-45?

Restate, and choose which period.....?

phylo
User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie »

For the 1st post i have made an estimate on the number of T-34's and KV1-2's:
T-34's: approx 3,800 give or take
KV1's: approx 1,000 give or take
KV2's: 330
The Russian tank strenght would go up by several thousand but there officer corps was to ill trained, And there tank crews had very little or no training in attacking togethor, or defending for that matter.

But in this spare time just how many extra Pz IV's would Germany build, Not to mention all of there resources they would be getting out of Europe, Middle east etc.....

Russia yes had the ability to build tanks, aircraft and put togethor scratch armys of un-trained troops but they did not have the fuel for the aircraft or the boots for the soilders, Russia's airforce was vital in there victorys, They spotted German columns, attacked there supplies and tanks and laid smoke screens for the attacking infantry and tanks, Without it conquest is improbable.

On your 2nd post between the years 1939-42 I would have to say Germanys Generals, They were the BEST, But when Hitler got involved and battles were lost he sacked the generals when he should have been sacking himself

Between the years 1943-45 i would have to say germanys soilders, The Generals at this late stage were good but not the BEST, To be able to fight on 2 main fronts and a side show front in italy is a victory in its self.
Paul Lakowski
Supporter
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:56 am

Post by Paul Lakowski »

Soviet armed forces reached about 12 million by the end of the war while the best the germans got was about 9.5 million 1944.

Germans won most of their early battles inspite of not having the required equipment. This strongly suggest that training and doctrine were by far their most important weapons....not sticking to their strategic plan was what killed them in the long run. Hitler was more of a hinderance than a help...almost like fighting with one hand behind your back.
Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb »

Trebizond

A few deuce and a halfs? How about 400,000! And tanks? Six thousand - more than Germany every managed to field in the East.
Several hundred thousand miles of telephone wire and tons of rubber and other war materials are what made it possible for Ivan to concentrate production on tanks and guns.


The Soviets might have been able to fight the Germans to a standstill but to conquer them took a degree of motorization they couldn't produce on their own.

cheers
Reb
User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie »

With out america helping out Ivan would nether be able to retake the Ukraine or Belarus or the Baltic states, Then again with Hitler in charge Germany would nether be able to win ww2
trebizond
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:10 pm

Post by trebizond »

Yes, the Allies did supply a considerable amount of material to the USSR during WWII, but compared with the output of the USSR it wasn't a great amount. You can see this if you put together the war productions lists with the Lend-Lease lists for the war period - it isn't exhaustive, but enough to get the point.

Lend Lease
Aircraft - 14795
Tanks - 7056
Trucks - 375,883
Petroleum - 2.6million tons

Soviet Production
Aircraft - 157 261
Tanks - 105 251
Trucks - 197 100
Petroleum - 110.6million tons

The figures speak for themselves. Granted the USSR was not the most industrialised nation in 1939/40, but it was in the throes of massive expansion, and was just a sleeping giant rapidly awakening.

Also bear in mind that the 7000 tanks were all woefully substandard Allied models - on the Eastern Front, only the Churchill could even hope to survive, but couldn't hurt anything with their crappy 2-pounder. Also of importance is the oil production - far from requiring the aid of the US, the USSR was second only to the US in oil production during WWII. In comparison, Germany produced only 33.4million tons (including 23.4 synthetic).

It has always been a bone of contention because, in the West, it was firstly assumed that we had beaten the Germans. Then, as historiography advanced, there was a realistion that the Soviets did most of the legwork. Britain was grasping for role in the Superpower world, but rapidly fell by the wayside. The US, on the other hand, could at least believe it had won by production if nothing else.

It seems to me though, that stark figures such as these, particularly when taken into account Soviet strategic understanding, manpower and technical achievements that we have to admit that the USSR was fully capable of winning WWII in the ETO by itself.
R :)
trebizond
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:10 pm

Post by trebizond »

Yes, the Allies did supply a considerable amount of material to the USSR during WWII, but compared with the output of the USSR it wasn't a great amount. You can see this if you put together the war productions lists with the Lend-Lease lists for the war period - it isn't exhaustive, but enough to get the point.

Lend Lease
Aircraft - 14795
Tanks - 7056
Trucks - 375,883
Petroleum - 2.6million tons

Soviet Production
Aircraft - 157 261
Tanks - 105 251
Trucks - 197 100
Petroleum - 110.6million tons

The figures speak for themselves. Granted the USSR was not the most industrialised nation in 1939/40, but it was in the throes of massive expansion, and was just a sleeping giant rapidly awakening.

Also bear in mind that the 7000 tanks were all woefully substandard Allied models - on the Eastern Front, only the Churchill could even hope to survive, but couldn't hurt anything with their crappy 2-pounder. Also of importance is the oil production - far from requiring the aid of the US, the USSR was second only to the US in oil production during WWII. In comparison, Germany produced only 33.4million tons (including 23.4 synthetic).

It has always been a bone of contention because, in the West, it was firstly assumed that we had beaten the Germans. Then, as historiography advanced, there was a realisation that the Soviets did most of the legwork. Britain was grasping for role in the Superpower world, but rapidly fell by the wayside. The US, on the other hand, could at least believe it had won by production if nothing else.

It seems to me though, that stark figures such as these, particularly when taken into account Soviet strategic understanding, manpower and technical achievements that we have to admit that the USSR was fully capable of winning WWII in the ETO by itself.

R :)
Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb »

Trebezond

"Woefully substandard." Perhaps - but they were main battle tanks by western allied standards: churchill, Lee / Grant, Matilda, Sherman. At Kursk one can see the pictures of these knocked out all over the place but they were at least as good as Pz III (still in wide use then) and equal to short barreled Pz IV. And 7000 is a lot of tanks! Don't know the figures but I believe the US sent nearly 10,000 shermans by the end of the war.

And in a war of movement Sherman was not so substandard except in a straight up fight with the big cats. The cats couldn't be everywhere and by 1945 there were only a couple thousand tanks (or less) total on the east front - the Russians could have whipped them by then using Sherman alone.

Even when not used directly they were more than enough to keep the Japanese in line freeing up production for the primary front.

I share your belief that the Russians won the war on the ground. However, they would have had at best a defensive victory, and more likely a draw, were it not for western aid. (and the western air offensive which destroyed the Luftwaffe and disrupted communications).

The Soviets lacked some critical material that we provided - of that material I'd rank trucks and communications gear as critical. Moving and commanding those huge armies Zhukov threw around took much more than they could produce themselves - at that time. Communications and transport were critical to follow up their "Ten Blows" and keep the offensive momentum that took them into Berlin.

cheers
Reb
Post Reply