I'm not sure if I've brought this up before or not. I can't acces my older posts so I"m not sure. If I have ignore it.
I've often thought that it is ironic that the thing the so many people cite as a reason they prefer to model German equipment, the huge variety of that equipment, is one reason Germany might have lost the way. The Germans were famous for so many, to my ideas, outrageous weapons systems. For example on another thread it was brought up they were actually thinking of putting tracks on a Dora, as if the Dora itself wasn't a big enough waste of effort, for street fighting. The Allies on the other hand concentrated on quantity. As Stalin supposedly said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own."
Lets say that Germany decided that quantity was better than quality. Instead of spending all the time and effort on heavy tanks they built two or three times as many Pz IVs. Instead of the ME 262 more ME 109s. Instead of the Walter U-boats, more Type VIIs. Etc, etc.
Would this have changed the outcome of the war?
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Germany re: "quality vs quantity"
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 11:51 PM UTC
Tigercat
Member Since: July 20, 2005
entire network: 216 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 12:16 AM UTC
In terms of Aircraft it wouldn't have made much difference. The Luftwaffe main problems towards the end were lack of fuel and replacement aircrew. As the war progressed the quality of pilot training deteriorated drastically. Superior tactics and experience can overcome superior performance in a dogfight. But not necessarily greater numbers. The jet designs at least offered the Luftwaffe pilot to choose to engage or flee with a chance of survival.
David
David
USArmy2534
Member Since: January 28, 2004
entire network: 2,716 Posts
KitMaker Network: 531 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 01:32 AM UTC
I am not so sure it would have mattered. Would it have prolonged the outcome, oh yeah definitely. Would the Axis still have lost, yep. I don't think Germany had the manpower to sustain the kind of losses it would have attained using large numbers of tanks and aircraft.
As far as technology goes, the Allies had just as much if not more and much of it was implemented. The Allies just kept their goal realistic. Also, they just had the capacity to mass produce that technology. American examples include the P-51, M-1 Garand, B-17 and B-24 and the Norden bomb sight, better radar and electronic equipment (though Britain had a huge hand in this).
Jeff
As far as technology goes, the Allies had just as much if not more and much of it was implemented. The Allies just kept their goal realistic. Also, they just had the capacity to mass produce that technology. American examples include the P-51, M-1 Garand, B-17 and B-24 and the Norden bomb sight, better radar and electronic equipment (though Britain had a huge hand in this).
Jeff
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 01:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
In terms of Aircraft it wouldn't have made much difference. The Luftwaffe main problems towards the end were lack of fuel and replacement aircrew. As the war progressed the quality of pilot training deteriorated drastically. Superior tactics and experience can overcome superior performance in a dogfight. But not necessarily greater numbers. The jet designs at least offered the Luftwaffe pilot to choose to engage or flee with a chance of survival.
David
I actually kind of "threw in" the aircraft anology, since I tend to agree with you that it wouldn't have made as much difference as the other things listed.
It is always hard in such "what if" scenarios to divorce oneself from the realities of what actually happened. This idea kind of asks you to forget such things as fuel production and manpower constraints.
I think the subs and tanks might have made more of a difference to how long they lasted. As Jeff says though, not that much of a difference.
USArmy2534
Member Since: January 28, 2004
entire network: 2,716 Posts
KitMaker Network: 531 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 02:28 AM UTC
Quoted Text
It is always hard in such "what if" scenarios to divorce oneself from the realities of what actually happened. This idea kind of asks you to forget such things as fuel production and manpower constraints.
This is the paradox of history. The collision of our innate sense of trying to improve something hitting the reality that the past truely can't be changed. I have seen both sides of the argument drilled into me by different profs, but I kind of tend to side with the idea that it is bad ("bad" here is used loosely) to study the what if scenarios, but to instead look at what really happened in a sort of After Action style analysis ("What did we do right?" "What did we do wrong?" "How can we improve?") to increase the chance of predicting an event (much harder than the news critics make it seem) and to lessen the chance to screwing up again (something that is even harder). But I hope this doesn't kill the topic. I'm interested to see other responses.
Jeff
Tigercat
Member Since: July 20, 2005
entire network: 216 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 02:34 AM UTC
Agreed if the Kreigsmarine had more U-boats at the start of the war, things could have turned out very different. Even if more U-boats had been available in winter 43-44 D-day could have been delayed. Especially if the Type XXI and XXIII had been developed earlier and brought into service.
David
David
3442
Member Since: March 23, 2004
entire network: 2,412 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,030 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 03:24 AM UTC
I think Germany went to war a little to fast and agaisnt to many people at once. Bismarck united germany by fighting one enemy at a time, and Lenin and his Bolsheviks decided to leave out of world war one to have support of they army becasue he new he couldnt fight on a front and fight for communism in his country.
I find it ironic Germany came up with the schlieffen plan in the late 1800 if im not mistaken to avoid a two front war against france and russia then in ww2 fought britain and russia at the same time when not long after japan got the americans involved.
Hitler,once in power, struggled to get rid of the impact the treaty of versaille had on its country then right after went to war. if after obtaining his politic goals and waited 3 years to mass produce quality goods and TEST them properly, germany would have won the war because in my opinion, no one was realy excpeting it, although many believed the versaille treaty more of an armnistice than a real treaty.
Frank
I find it ironic Germany came up with the schlieffen plan in the late 1800 if im not mistaken to avoid a two front war against france and russia then in ww2 fought britain and russia at the same time when not long after japan got the americans involved.
Hitler,once in power, struggled to get rid of the impact the treaty of versaille had on its country then right after went to war. if after obtaining his politic goals and waited 3 years to mass produce quality goods and TEST them properly, germany would have won the war because in my opinion, no one was realy excpeting it, although many believed the versaille treaty more of an armnistice than a real treaty.
Frank
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 03:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
This is the paradox of history. The collision of our innate sense of trying to improve something hitting the reality that the past truely can't be changed. I have seen both sides of the argument drilled into me by different profs, but I kind of tend to side with the idea that it is bad ("bad" here is used loosely) to study the what if scenarios, but to instead look at what really happened in a sort of After Action style analysis ("What did we do right?" "What did we do wrong?" "How can we improve?") to increase the chance of predicting an event (much harder than the news critics make it seem) and to lessen the chance to screwing up again (something that is even harder). But I hope this doesn't kill the topic. I'm interested to see other responses.
Jeff
First of all Jeff I certainly don't think this will kill off this topic. I should hope not anyway.
I have also had such things brought up by different history teachers but I can also see the other side of the coin. By focusing on "what if" you can try to see what one side could have done differently, and then plan on what you might do differently in similar circumstances in the future.
Though thanfully we never got to the point of trying the weapons out in a World War it seems to be that the US and USSR seemed to take the lessons of WWII and appy them to the cold war in different ways. The USSR continued with the "quantity has a quality..." idea in their weapons and tactics. America, to me, went a bit more to the German method, realizing they couldn't, or wouldn't, build as many tanks, planes, ships, as the Soviets so they went for quality over quantity.
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 04:16 AM UTC
I think Germany took the only approach it could. It's material assets were very small. They could only make so much so they opted for high quality. The too little too late axiom is definitely proven here. Their jets, Type XXI submarines. Had they been made in high quantity were so advanced tha they would have absolutly ovewhelmed the quantity. We all know the ratio was 5 Shermans for a Tiger. If the Tiger had been designed a yar or two earlier adhad a chance to have the kinks worked out of the transmission / motor and been built in higher quantity would the Alllies have had the overwhelming success in Nrmandy or been tied down to a toehold for several months slowly crawling their way accross France. The war could have ended in only one way. manpower. Germany just didn't have enough folks to fight against the millions that were being thrown against them.
Hohenstaufen
Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 02:33 PM UTC
The danger with all the "what-if" scenarios, is that they tend to be one-sided, i.e. if you change one of Hitler's dodgy decisions, there would be a different outcome. But what if you look at both sides? If Gamelin hadn't been so cut off from reality in 1940, but had been more aggressive with quicker reactions, would the Germans have won in France? They were outnumbered in tanks & aircraft by Britain & France together, had the resources been handled better, the outcome could have been completely different.
Taking Rodgers aircraft analogy, it would have been quite conceivable, had both sides developed the technology available to them, that the Battle of Britain (if it occurred, see above) could have been fought with jet planes. How cool is that, & what's the likely outcome?
If you allow one side to change their decisions, you have to allow the others to correct their mistakes also for balance. In this way, Hitler may never have got to power at all & WW2 never happened. Conversely, the Germans might have won WW1!
Taking Rodgers aircraft analogy, it would have been quite conceivable, had both sides developed the technology available to them, that the Battle of Britain (if it occurred, see above) could have been fought with jet planes. How cool is that, & what's the likely outcome?
If you allow one side to change their decisions, you have to allow the others to correct their mistakes also for balance. In this way, Hitler may never have got to power at all & WW2 never happened. Conversely, the Germans might have won WW1!
Hohenstaufen
Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 02:43 PM UTC
If you want something to ponder on, how about this? The Germans put the same resources into the Afrika Korps in 1941 that they did 2 years too late in Tunisia. Egypt & the Suez Canal falls into German hands. The Arab nations all rise against the British mandates & come over to the Axis. Germany now has unlimited supplies of oil. Turkey (now almost surrounded by German influence) comes in on the Axis side, pushes up into Southern USSR. The two pincers (Germany & Turkey) meet at Stalingrad, where the Russians, fighting two adversaries have to yield the city. Germany now controls Europe from France to the Volga. The Germans turn north, & capture Moscow with a pncer movement. Russia surrenders.
Fun ain't it?!
Fun ain't it?!
Snowhand
Member Since: January 08, 2005
entire network: 1,066 Posts
KitMaker Network: 324 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 10, 2006 - 03:56 PM UTC
Equipment was not what why Germany lost the war.
The better ability of the allied forces to get ammunition, water, food and fuel to the front won the war for them.
5 Shermans against 1 tiger won't do you any good if those 5 Shermans are out of fuel and ammo.
As for the U boats.. at some point in time, it wouldn't have mattered anymore.. The allied airforces bridged the atlantic gap, and they no longer had any place to hide.
If anything, the German inability to hit allied industries eventually hurt them more than they would have imagined. ( both Detroid and the Ural being out of reach of the German bombers, while allied bombers devastated the Ruhr area )
The better ability of the allied forces to get ammunition, water, food and fuel to the front won the war for them.
5 Shermans against 1 tiger won't do you any good if those 5 Shermans are out of fuel and ammo.
As for the U boats.. at some point in time, it wouldn't have mattered anymore.. The allied airforces bridged the atlantic gap, and they no longer had any place to hide.
If anything, the German inability to hit allied industries eventually hurt them more than they would have imagined. ( both Detroid and the Ural being out of reach of the German bombers, while allied bombers devastated the Ruhr area )
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 12:09 PM UTC
Quoted Text
As for the U boats.. at some point in time, it wouldn't have mattered anymore.. The allied airforces bridged the atlantic gap, and they no longer had any place to hide.
The Allied air forces never bridged the Atlantic. Right to the end, the Allies relied on shipping for transport of both material and troops. If Germany had concentrated on developing more U-boats and a better long-range bomber capability it could have closed the Atlantic to Allied shipping. The squandering of money and time on super-weapons like jets and V1s was an error.
bgazso
Member Since: January 25, 2006
entire network: 150 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2006 - 02:45 AM UTC
Whenever I read or hear about the "what if" scenarios, I can't help but think about one small element, namely the atomic bomb. It was developed specifically to be used on Germany, since of course the British and Americans believed Germany was developing it as well. In fact, when Germany surrendered, a lot of the Los Alamos scientists thought the project would be cancelled!
So, Me 262's, V-2's, captured oil fields, none of it would have prevented the eventual devastation of Germany by U.S. dropped A-bombs, right?
A sobering thought.
So, Me 262's, V-2's, captured oil fields, none of it would have prevented the eventual devastation of Germany by U.S. dropped A-bombs, right?
A sobering thought.
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2006 - 03:19 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Whenever I read or hear about the "what if" scenarios, I can't help but think about one small element, namely the atomic bomb. It was developed specifically to be used on Germany, since of course the British and Americans believed Germany was developing it as well. In fact, when Germany surrendered, a lot of the Los Alamos scientists thought the project would be cancelled!
So, Me 262's, V-2's, captured oil fields, none of it would have prevented the eventual devastation of Germany by U.S. dropped A-bombs, right?
A sobering thought.
Barry, in case nobody else has done so welcome to Armorama. Thanks for posting in the History Club forum.
What you write is exactly my response to those people who say the atomic bombing of Japan was a rasicst thing on the part of the United States. While I in no way dispute the fact the United States was extremely racist in WWII, I do not believe they only used it on Japan because of race. If the bomb had been ready six months earlier it would probably have been a a-bomb attack that took out Dresden 61 years ago today, not a fire bomd raid.
screamingeagle
Member Since: January 08, 2002
entire network: 1,027 Posts
KitMaker Network: 269 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2006 - 06:30 AM UTC
Hi Gents, wow ! ......... It's been quite a while, ( 2 yrs. ) but I finally got a new PC, and it's nice to be back online.
Anyhow, one thing is sure, we will never know the true
answer of the "what if's " because in regards to Steves reply, any attack most always brings a counter-attack
Personaly, I think that Germany should have put all there production into the Pz.IV series and the StuG III's & IV's.
As for what history has shown us, is war should be fought by the soldiers and commanded by the campaign Generals.
................. Never, and I mean, never let it be ran by political leaders who stand in front of battlefield maps and think their egos will win battles ........ As we know not only did this destroy Germany but also led to unneccesary consequences for America & the brave vets that fought in Viet Nam. Pres. Johnson & Mr. McNamara were IDIOTS !
I guess my bottom line is no matter what Germany could, should, or didn't do, we should remember one very important thing, and that is, it took America, Britain, Russia, France, Poland, etc. to deat Germay itself ! .
As patriotic and very thankful to the Allied vets as I am, in 1944 I don't think any of the countries I mentioned could have been victorious in a "one on one" war against Germany . And look at the weapons that we have today ..... many of them are direct decendants of German military tecnology , introduced 65 YEARS AGO
Sometimes, though things are not always in the best of interest, we have to give credit where credit is due.
- ralph
Anyhow, one thing is sure, we will never know the true
answer of the "what if's " because in regards to Steves reply, any attack most always brings a counter-attack
Personaly, I think that Germany should have put all there production into the Pz.IV series and the StuG III's & IV's.
As for what history has shown us, is war should be fought by the soldiers and commanded by the campaign Generals.
................. Never, and I mean, never let it be ran by political leaders who stand in front of battlefield maps and think their egos will win battles ........ As we know not only did this destroy Germany but also led to unneccesary consequences for America & the brave vets that fought in Viet Nam. Pres. Johnson & Mr. McNamara were IDIOTS !
I guess my bottom line is no matter what Germany could, should, or didn't do, we should remember one very important thing, and that is, it took America, Britain, Russia, France, Poland, etc. to deat Germay itself ! .
As patriotic and very thankful to the Allied vets as I am, in 1944 I don't think any of the countries I mentioned could have been victorious in a "one on one" war against Germany . And look at the weapons that we have today ..... many of them are direct decendants of German military tecnology , introduced 65 YEARS AGO
Sometimes, though things are not always in the best of interest, we have to give credit where credit is due.
- ralph
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2006 - 06:47 AM UTC
I was not going to respond to this topic because our resident Ball State student ruined the whole "you can always if a battle won" thing for me. (Kidding Jeff, PM me, we will get together)
Anyhow, I will stand on the fact that no matter who else the German's managed to defeat the United States still would not have lost the war. The US had a huge technological edge, a huge manpower edge and a huge spacial advantage. Assume that the Russians capitulated and the British Isle fell. How much man power is it going to take to just occupy those countries, let alone make them productive? You think the Brits would have been doing their best to get coal out of the ground for the Germans?
All things considered, I think nukes would have been raining on people way before the SS ever made it to Pittsburgh, or Denver. (For the mod, had to mention Denver)
Shaun
Anyhow, I will stand on the fact that no matter who else the German's managed to defeat the United States still would not have lost the war. The US had a huge technological edge, a huge manpower edge and a huge spacial advantage. Assume that the Russians capitulated and the British Isle fell. How much man power is it going to take to just occupy those countries, let alone make them productive? You think the Brits would have been doing their best to get coal out of the ground for the Germans?
All things considered, I think nukes would have been raining on people way before the SS ever made it to Pittsburgh, or Denver. (For the mod, had to mention Denver)
Shaun
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2006 - 07:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
All things considered, I think nukes would have been raining on people way before the SS ever made it to Pittsburgh, or Denver. (For the mod, had to mention Denver)
Shaun
That would be ok by me if Pittsburgh and Denver got nuked. As long as the Broncos were out of town when it happened. I'm not a fan of big cities, and Pittsburgh, well let's just say Pittsburgh isn't high on my list right now. :-)
greatbrit
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2006 - 01:28 PM UTC
I always think these sorts of discussions miss two valuable points.
Should the war have gone on any longer the Germans technological edge would have vanished completely(it had been on its way since the war started).
The allies in particular had better tanks and aircraft that were either just entering, or about to enter production in 1945, Centurion or JS3 tanks for example.
And anyway, the war would not have lasted past august. Berlin would have had an early morning one 1KT of instant sunshine wakeup call just like Hiroshima had Germany not fallen by then.
The fact that the US had operational atomic weapons may have even caused the Germans to surrender, having seen its effects on Japanese cities.
Should the war have gone on any longer the Germans technological edge would have vanished completely(it had been on its way since the war started).
The allies in particular had better tanks and aircraft that were either just entering, or about to enter production in 1945, Centurion or JS3 tanks for example.
And anyway, the war would not have lasted past august. Berlin would have had an early morning one 1KT of instant sunshine wakeup call just like Hiroshima had Germany not fallen by then.
The fact that the US had operational atomic weapons may have even caused the Germans to surrender, having seen its effects on Japanese cities.
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2006 - 04:37 PM UTC
Quoted Text
IAssume that the Russians capitulated and the British Isle fell. How much man power is it going to take to just occupy those countries, let alone make them productive? You think the Brits would have been doing their best to get coal out of the ground for the Germans?
Nukes aside, Germany would have attempted to make peace with the US if it was at all possible once Europe and the USSR had been conquored. As for manpower, look at how hard the East Germans, Ukranians, Rumanians and all the rest of the Warsaw Pact countries worked in support of Russia. In spite of having once been brutally conquored. I think it would have eventually been the same in western Europe if Germany had conquored it. We might have seen another Cold War stretching for years once Germany and Europe had recovered.
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 03:18 AM UTC
I concur with Spooky6 in that Hitler would have bent over backwards to get an Armistace with the US. With no toehold in Great Britain to close up the supply lines, we would have probably gone along with it concentrating our efforts solely on the Japanese . After the "BOMB" had been released I think the new Axis would definitely make for peace and stepped up their efforts to develop their version of Atomic firepower.. Probably a confrontation would have occured in the mid to late 50's with the outcome... ?????
screamingeagle
Member Since: January 08, 2002
entire network: 1,027 Posts
KitMaker Network: 269 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 07:04 AM UTC
One thing the U.S. should have done is listened to Patton. That is to join the Wehrmacht with the U.S. forces and smash Russia
Patton was one CO that the Germans literally feared & truthfully respected.
.. As far as Bradley and Montgomery went the Germans weren't quite biting their nails.
Sorry Roger, I didn't mean to get off the main topic you put out there.
It's always a good "what- if " question that bring's about many opinions.
- ralph
Patton was one CO that the Germans literally feared & truthfully respected.
.. As far as Bradley and Montgomery went the Germans weren't quite biting their nails.
Sorry Roger, I didn't mean to get off the main topic you put out there.
It's always a good "what- if " question that bring's about many opinions.
- ralph
spooky6
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 08:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
One thing the U.S. should have done is listened to Patton. That is to join the Wehrmacht with the U.S. forces and smash Russia
Patton was one CO that the Germans literally feared & truthfully respected.
.. As far as Bradley and Montgomery went the Germans weren't quite biting their nails.
Actually, I doubt Patton would have had much impact on the Russians. His generalship never came close to the skills of Zhukov and Koniev who were geniuses at envelopment. Max Hastings (I think correctly) places Zhukov as probably the most skillful general in the history of warfare, surpassing Napolean or even Julius Caesar. Zhukov was already commanding tens of thousands of troops when Patton was still a battalion commander. Patton never commanded a force larger than an army, while Zhukov at the end of the war commanded millions. Patton was only at his best in the cavalry dash with open country in front of him. When he faced mountains, built up areas or slow heavy fighting, he was no better than Bradley.
Also, Patton was a selfish and short-sighted soldier, and had no concept of strategy. His statement was similar to McArthur's China comment for which he was fired. An alliance between the US and Germany would have encompassed far more than tactics, but a clash of cultures.
On the military side, the western Allies style of (casualty-saving) fighting wouldn't have fitted in with Germany and the USSR. The final drive to Berlin clearly showed Zhukov's ruthlessness and Koniev's brilliance, neither of which the US possessed at that level.
The closest we could have seen of the suggested scenario would have been if the Germans allowed the western front to collapse and raced all of their troops across to the Oder while the western allies occupied the country. Even then, Yalta demanded a Russian zone of occupation, so it would have saved many civilian deaths but nothing else.
A German-US alliance was certainly out once the camps were discovered.
Clanky44
Member Since: September 15, 2005
entire network: 1,901 Posts
KitMaker Network: 237 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 09:04 AM UTC
IMO, this whole argument of Quality vs Quantity is flawed. Material resources are just that, material. One costly strategic flaw in planning will counter any numerical or qualitative superiority on paper. I offer the following to ponder....
Admiral Yamamoto forced by the Army to split his gathering force for the upcomming battle for Midway, and support the Army in their Southwest Pacific capture of Port Moresby...... Result,.... loss of the light carrier Shoho and the temporary loss of both of their top front line heavy carriers, Zuikaku and Shokaku, which would of turned the tide at Midway. The real loss wasn't the carriers, but the highly trained and experienced crews of Carrier Division 5.
Frank
Admiral Yamamoto forced by the Army to split his gathering force for the upcomming battle for Midway, and support the Army in their Southwest Pacific capture of Port Moresby...... Result,.... loss of the light carrier Shoho and the temporary loss of both of their top front line heavy carriers, Zuikaku and Shokaku, which would of turned the tide at Midway. The real loss wasn't the carriers, but the highly trained and experienced crews of Carrier Division 5.
Frank
Clanky44
Member Since: September 15, 2005
entire network: 1,901 Posts
KitMaker Network: 237 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 09:25 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Equipment was not what why Germany lost the war.
The better ability of the allied forces to get ammunition, water, food and fuel to the front won the war for them.
5 Shermans against 1 tiger won't do you any good if those 5 Shermans are out of fuel and ammo.
Interesting enough, considering that what most people consider to be Hitlers biggest flaw, (the delay to capture Stalingrad in the summer and turn north as the southern pincer between the Don and the Donets) was done so Germany could drive south towards the oil and grain, towards the Russian supply lines and towards isolating Russia from Iran.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.