Were the Nazis more advanced than the British and French?

In the strategic long run your are absolutely correct.

 

Chord. The distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(aeronautics)

 

It did not fail. Again

If it failed, then why where the Soviets concerned about it? There is no need to be concerned about something that is a failure.

 

If it succeeded, then suredly the Nazis won, right? The overenginneered expensive Tiger lacked the qualities necessary to beat the cheap, easy to produce, mechanically reliable, and user friendly T-34’s. The Germans lost every major tank battle they fought against the Soviets from 1942 on.

 

So you are saying that there was no need to develop the Tiger tank because they could defeat the Russians with inferior tanks. This argument makes no sense. You may be right that the Russians had better tanks, but the point is that the Nazis had to develop the Tiger and upgrade other models because of the effectiveness of the T34. I posted this earlier. Its worth considering again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks

 

I honestly don't know much about tactics of warfare so forgive me if I sound stupid. So are you saying that instead of putting tanks in front of the infantry formations, the French embedded them inside of the formations?

 

I agree with you with regards to Bush. However, I fail to see your point about reading comprehension. Since I am so deficient, could you please explain what you mean so that my feeble mind can understand?

 

I'm not good at that and not native.

French staff made globally tanks work with infantry and not fight alone. German made formations only of tanks, a tank go much faster than infantry and could strike far in the country. A tank of that time could ride 50 or 60 km a day when infantry could travel a dozen of kilometers.

The organization of the french army made them much more slower and adaptive when the german took all the tactical advantages a tank could afford.

 

I don't think you are correct on either point here. With regards to Heisenberg and the nuclear bomb the history appears to be in a state of obfuscation. Reportedly there is a letter that Heisenberg wrote in which he states that he deliberately misled others with erroneous math because he did not want the Nazis to have the bomb. Was he telling the truth? Perhaps, perhaps not. Then there is a reported conversation that he had with Otto Hahn, who actually discovered fission in the first place, where he described accurately how a bomb could be built without using a ton of fissionable material. He told Hahn you could do it using a quarter of that amount by bringing two halves of a sphere of the material together and use reflectors, which is pretty much they way it was done. Not only that, but it is said that he wanted to use plutonium instead of uranium because it was better in the use of a bomb.

Now there are various accounts. I am just saying, the history is not clear on this point.

 

The Nazis got suckered into following the Soviets deep into Russia and got caught in a very cold winter.

Again, if the tank was such a failure why where the Soviets so concerned about it? There must have been something about it that was a cause of concern.

 

The Germans were concerned about crappy French S35’s even though they had superior tanks. A worse tank can still kill people.

 

I think I kind of see what you are saying. Please don't be offended by me asking, but are you using a translator to formulate your responses? Nothing wrong with that, I am just wondering.

 

The French, still fighting WW1, spread their tanks out to support their infantry as, more or less, mobile pillboxes. As such, the did not need to be fast, not fight in a fast-moving situation.

The Germans adopted the fast-moving combined arms concept, where they would concentrate maximum force of a small area. break through the line, and exploit said breakthrough by running amok in the enemy's rear. To this end, they concentrated their armor into tank-only battalions and regiments, supported by (as the plan went) mechanized infantry battalions/regiments and then followed up by motorized and foot infantry units.

Isolated and unable to react, French armor, while individually better than some of the German armor, was unable to react and concentrate in sufficient numbers to repel the Germans.

See: Principles of War - Mass, Economy of Force, Speed and Violence of Action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_war#Clausewitz

 

A Toyoto Camry is worse than an Nissan Infiniti. That does not mean that a Camry is a failure.

 

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

If the Infiniti’s goal is to ensure no one drives Toyota’s, yes it is.

 

In other words you just didn't read what I wrote? Either that or you didn't understand it and that's why I said your reading comprehension is failing. It looks to me that you want to encapsulate something that is in constant development. It can't be done.

 

Let me put it like this with an example from the hood. A good domino player can beat a bad domino player even though he has drawn a bad hand. The Tiger was an effective counter to the T34. There were other factors that led to the defeat of the Nazis. It was not the quality of the Tiger relative to the T34.

 

I read what you wrote, and I still don't get your point. Perhaps you are just too intelligent for me. Sorry, I am not on your level.

 

Tigers were not effective counters to T-34’s which is why in every major tank battle, T-34’s advanced while the Tigers made “retrograde maneuvers” by the time the battle was done.

In the qualities that really mattered in that war, the T-34 is wildly superior to the Tiger.

 

I don't think you did read it. Nor did you read the one you've just quoted.

Who knows.

You're probably just in a slump right now.

 

Again

Sounds effective enough to me.

Furthermore, the Nazis did not lose to the Soviets because of the quality of their tanks. They lost because the Soviets got enormous assistance from the US to aid their weapons production and because they made the mistake of following the Soviets deep into their territory and got caught in a very cold winter.

 

Fair enough. You win.

 

I was once on an Alternate History site and they say just about exactly what you do. My question is how COULD Hitler have successfully invaded Britain or was it simply impossible?

This is very interesting and I had not known this. It does clarify many doubts I had about my own knowledge in this area. Do you remember your source so i could read more? Thank you very much,

 

They lost because their tanks utterly lacked the qualities needed in a war winning tank:

Ease of use, ease of maintenance, ease of manufacture, simplicity in operations and logistics, and being just effective enough in armor and weaponry to not throw off those other qualities.

The Germans made losing tanks because they focused on armor and weaponry and in the process made expensive, difficult to produce, logistically complicated, non-user friendly, mechanically unreliable monsters that they never had enough of.

You seriously know nothing about WW2 if you really think “cold” defeated Germany.