world war 2 (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

I did mean the T 34

 

[felix_suwarno]

did those tanks ever really meet on the battlefield? i have seen ww2 dog fighting scenes in movies before, but not tanks on tanks battle.

 

[Greg Morse]

Felix, I would advise you to look up the battle of Kursk. It is noted as one of, if not the greatest tank battles in history. Problem for the Germans was that it was very much like dogfighting. Think of tanks blasting away at each other from only a few yards. Really negated the advantage of the better German tank armor. Tactically, it was probably a slight German victory or a stalemate; strategically, it was a German debacle. The Russians were able to replace their ruined equipment in a matter of days, whereas the Germans just didn't have the capability of churning out men and materiel to replace their losses.

I would really say to read a few books and see a few movies about the Eastern Front. It's really quite fascinating. I find The Winter War (Russia vs. Finland 1939-1940) to probably be the most interesting story of WWII.

 

[Jeremy Illingworth]

technologically speaking, during world war 2, who had the better weapons?

This is a topic of endless debate. There are always two answers. One for the best and one for the best make in signifigant quantity. Obviously the German ME-262 was the finest fighter but its already been mentioned that it was made in tiny numbers. There were lots of bodies made but the high quality metal needed for the engines was not available. Obviously the later planes are considered better because they were refinements of the earlier versions. The US Garland was probably the best all round rifle. The Germans had an AK 47 style assult rifles (Sturmgewehr 44) but they were very expensive and had low production. The British Vickers machine gun was cumbersome but the water jacket provided endless firing capacity without barrel changes, which plagued German heavy machine guns. The Germans complained that they fired too fast, over heating barrels and using up ammunition too quickly. The Germans had the best artillery. While Allied nations used towed artillery which had to be unhitched and turned to face the enemy lots of German equiment was self prepelled and always faced the front. The 88 was the best and most versitile artillery piece of the war. It was used for traditional soft target work, anti air and flat tragectory anti armour. It was mounted on trailers, fixed installations, in tanks and as self propelled units. The Germans loved it and the Allies feared it.

There are also the non traditional weapons, like radar. The British used it to win the Battle Of Britain and no nation had as nice a system. The Germans had the best coding machine, the Enigma, but the British had the best code breakers, as well as captured Enigmas.



As the war progressed it became clear to more and more Germans that the end was near. After the loss of the Battle of the Bulge it was clear the western allies could not be stopped and the Soviets were getting closer in the east. Resources were steadily being diverted to the east because the Germans wanted to slow the Soviet advance in the hopes that the western Allies would take and subsequently occupy Berlin; the Germans had a well founded fear of the Russians. Even while this was happening there was still German resistance in the west. If the Germans wanted the western Allies to capture Berlin instead of the Soviets, why not just abandon the western front and let the Allies advance freely?

jeremy

 

[Kirk Gunn]

I never heard this theory. Imagine how this would have drastically changed the post-war political landscape (best saved for another forum) . Interesting stuff.

Thanks to everyone for a great thread !

 

[felix_suwarno]

all of you must have worked for national geographic company for a few years.

thanksss again.

 

[Jeremy Illingworth]

I never heard this theory. Imagine how this would have drastically changed the post-war political landscape (best saved for another forum) . Interesting stuff.

I don't know if the post war landscape would have been changed much. The Germans clearly wanted the western Allies to capture (and hopefully occupy) Berlin because of the number of soldiers they sent to the east to slow the Russians down. Experienced men were sent out east while 15 and 45 year old men were left to fend off the attacks in the west. The Germans knew after the way they treated the Russians during the campaign in the east that things would be bad when the Russians come to Germany. The decision to let the Soviets take Berlin was political; the western allies stopped short. But if the western front were abandoned (and those soldiers sent to the east) and the western allies were much closer to Berlin the arrangment to capture Berlin might have gone the other way. If the Russians were quite a distance from Berlin and the western allies signifigantly closer they might have captured Berlin simply because they were there; the Soviets might have even supported such a plan because the leadership, control and communications were centered there and such a move would end the fighting sooner.

Even with the fall of Berlin to the western allies I don't think the post war situation would have been much different. Germany was divided in to four occupation zones of roughly equal size. I don't think the direction the Berlin fell would have effected this. The post war situation was brought about at the Yalta conference, which took place after the allies were certain of a victory, but probably before they knew exactly how the end of the war would play out. Even if a western allies capture of Berlin did lead to a different division of occupational duties the cold war would have been more or less the same. The fact that Berlin was in the Soviet sector brought about the Berlin airlift, but otherwise I think Berlin's location was insignificant in the development of the cold war. As long as Germany was divided things (in my little opinion) would have stayed the same.

My other favorite what if is the plan for the western allies to link up with the Germans and fight the Soviets to crush communism. It was clear at the Yalta conference that there would be post war tensions between the east and west and even after the surrender Germans captured in the west were still armed while the leaders discussed the plan. Patton was very keen to command the Germans against the Russians. In the end Ike and Truman decided that after the long hard war in Europe that it wasn't a good idea. I wonder how that would have played out. The western allies had lots of good, experinced German prisoners, over 200,000 from Operation Torch alone, as well as the armies of the western allies. The Russians had a lot of infantry but as the Germans proved early on in the campaign in the east that numbers alone aren't enought. Imagine what would have happened if the Germans' superior weaponry were to be combined with American industry. The western powers would have had a limitless supply of Tiger tanks and jet fighters. Plus the bomb, which Stalin knew about before they were used. While Soviet production was high, nothing compared to the volume of anything that the Americans could produce. Shermans were made in three times the volume that the T 34 was. Plus the Americans could have tried crossing from Alaska to Russian and opened a second front. If it weren't for the war in the Pacific, the plan might have been on.

jeremy