Were the Nazis more advanced than the British and French?

Well, the guns were better, the optics, the width of the tracks allowed for better cross country performance, and the Panther actually had sloped armor versus the blocky tiger.

 

Not really new technology though.

Just improvements.

 

Well I'm no expert, but evidently there is another school of thought on this one. Here's a point of view from one source

Link
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/hitlers-strategic-blunder/

Perhaps, but there are many sources that are in agreement that the cold weather was a decisive factor.

Link
http://www.allworldwars.com/Effects-of-Climate-on-Combat-in-European-Russia.html

Any rate, there are more sources, but the point is that weather was a decisive factor, and while you seem to have made a case, I still believe that if it had not been for the weather, the Nazis would have been successful.

Although I agree with you on the point that simply taking Moscow would not have guaranteed a Nazi victory, the success of the Nazis in Russia, up until the point they encountered cold weather, and as you say stiff Russian resistance, indicate to me that had it not been for the cold weather, they could have been successful in Russia.

That's just my opinion. However, you have given me something to think about, and I believe you have made some strong points.

 

Yes, someone else has pointed this out.

 

I thought I had seen something that indicated that the US had provided certain items to Russia to aid in its production efforts. Although this type of aid may not have been as large as I thought, I did run across this

https://orientalreview.org/2015/05/13/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-that-helpful-ii/

So machine tools, railway tracks, and locomotives would definitely help production, although I am not sure of the amount of this type of assistance.

However

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union

Furthermore here is the opinion of one writer

https://blogs.voanews.com/russia-wa...ped-russians-three-times-in-the-last-century/

There you go. According to that writer STALIN HIMSELF SAID THAT WITHOUT US AID THE WAR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WON.

I'm no expert. Just saying

Perhaps I don't. I admit, I am no expert here. What I do know is that quite a few writers have indicated that cold weather played a decisive role in the affair.

 

Go back and read what I wrote. Read it very carefully. I make a point of not trying to summarize complex situation in one or two sentences. There is a difference between being 'doomed' and 'not winning'. I went to some lengths to make that clear. I am clearly wasting my time.

Now that is something I can agree with.

I can find 'quite a few writers' to say almost anything, and the quality of WW2 writers varies wildly. The German offensive on Moscow had already ground to a halt when winter started.

 

OK. I don't want to waste your time.

However, I honestly don't mean to be rude or nosey, but let me ask you something. Do you have actual experience with war strategy and tactics, or are you basing your information on things that you have read? Just trying to get an idea of the depth of your actual understanding of these things. I admit, have no experience whatsoever in this. Just relying on things that I have seen and read.

 

It was certainly more than just making them heavier.

 

Yes, I probably should have worded that differently lol.

 

Technology wins wars. Obviously if leaders do really dumb things (such as Hitler did fighting a war on two fronts) you can still lose but in general, the story of history is:

Technological innovation leads to military superiority which leads to economic hegemony.

 

The myth of the advanced NAZI military is greatly overstated.

The Germans could not figure out how to make a useful jet engine plane for combat, they gave up on a nuclear weapon, and their missile technology had negligible results.

The Nazis would have eventually lost to Soviets. Adding the massive industrial advantage the US had to the pile of **** they had to deal with just made it happen quicker.

 

Well put. In general, people do tend to argue back and forth about the performance of tanks in a vacuum, without taking into consideration the proper context.

For instance, the M4 Sherman with its standard 75mm gun may have been much inferior to the Tiger, but that fact was never going to win the war for Germany. If the entire war consisted entirely of Tigers versus Shermans in equal numbers, then yes, but that wasn't the reality. Just because the Sherman couldn't beat the Tiger it didn't mean it was useless. If you asked a bunch of soldiers if they wanted to advance alone or with the backup of five big tanks, I'm pretty sure approximately all of them would choose the latter.

There were numerous roles to be filled by various tanks, and if you could have a pretty reliable tank to back up your soldiers in any number of scenarios all over the place, then that will make all the difference.

Heck, even as a tank destroyer, it could pick a fight with a Panzer III or earlier types of Panzer IV, and there were about 3,4 times as many Shermans built as those panzers combined.

You know the old saying; a Tiger was equal to five Shermans, but you were a lot more likely to have five Shermans than one Tiger on the battlefield.

 

Taking Moscow does not equal defeating Russia. The Russian government would withdrawn East and would have still had the majority of their industrial power under their control.

 

Moscow is the crossroads of Soviet logistics -- literally, all (rail)roads lead to and from Moscow.
Taking Moscow does not mean an immediate end to the war with the Soviets, but it does hugely diminish their ability to make war.

 

Except for all the railways running into and out of Stalingrad, and the railways on the Eastern side of Ural, which were way more important to the war effort at the time.

 

Actually I have decided to go back and read what you wrote very carefully. When I do, I find that some things that you have written are baseless and quite frankly bogus. That being the case, you are indeed wasting your time if you think I am going to believe what you put forward simply because you have said it.

Let's start looking carefully. In the following post, you have said that

Now what I said was

So what I am saying is that cold weather was a major factor in the Russian defeat of the Nazi invasion of Russia. Now you are saying that I don't know anything if I think it was. I say your claim is bogus. And I am going to put forward evidence to back up this claim. It turns out that the winter of 41/42 was especially severe. Here's an account of what happened

And as I have posted before concerning the effects of the cold on the invasion

http://www.allworldwars.com/Effects-of-Climate-on-Combat-in-European-Russia.html

Here's something from another source

http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/camp/eur/ger/bar/weath/bcw-wint.html

Now it is debatable as the whether it was the decisive factor, but there is no doubt that it was a major factor. Therefore I say your claim that I don't know anything IF I think it was a major factor is bogus and totally without merit.

Consider

http://www.allworldwars.com/Effects-of-Climate-on-Combat-in-European-Russia.html

So a careful reading of what you have said has yielded AT LEAST one very bogus claim.

 

Nothing here diminishes my point.
Absent the ability to move thru Moscow, road and rail traffic suddenly becomes localized.

 

I don't disagree with the point of taking Moscow meant the defeat of Russia. What I would put forward is that the defeat of the Nazi offensive of Moscow was a critical turning point in the offensive and indeed in the war.

 

I agree with you on some points and disagree on others.

Many of the technological wonders & sophisticated weapon system produced by Germany before & during WW2 were so ahead of their time that they were frantically seized & adopted by the Allies.(1), (2).
Additionally, it is commonly accepted that even though the ME-262s were few in numbers & late entering the war, they are accredited with making about 542 "kills"(3). I suspect that the numerous victims of ME-262 considered the the plane useful in its role as a jet fighter.
I don't know exactly how much emphasis the Germans put into developing a nuclear weapon & you're right, the German missiles accomplished very little in disrupting the Allied war effort because they, like many things, were too few too late.

I think that there is some credibility to Peter Padfield's theory that Hess's mission in 1941 was to deliver a peace proposal, supported by Hitler, for British neutrality but Churchill was intent on continuing the war using the US as an Ally to destroy Germany & expand the British Empire which already comprised 1/4 of the globe.
If Hess's mission had been successful & if Germany only had to fight only Russia, the result would have been a grisly stalemate, at best.
At any rate, a clash between fascist Germany & communist Russia was inevitable.




(1) "8 Nazi German Inventions The US Made Use of After WWII"
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/top-10-inventions-discovered-wwii.html/3


(2) "6 things the US stole from the Nazis during WWII"
http://www.businessinsider.com/6-things-us-stole-from-germans-during-wwii-2015-5

EXCERPT "The Germans in World War II were at the forefront of industrialized warfare.
They produced the first jet-powered bomber, developed the first tilt-rotor plane, and discovered fission. In most cases, Allied scientists and planners struggled to close the technological gaps exposed by German advances.
When possible though, they just stole everything they could find and called it a day."CONTINUED



(3) "The Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter"



https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-messerschmitt-me-262-jet-fighter/

EXCERPT "The Me 262 did take a toll from its adversaries. Its pilots – intrepid men all, for the Me 262 was cantankerous and dangerous to fly – claimed 542 allied warplanes shot down while sustaining just 100 combat losses. Luftwaffe ace Hauptmann (Capt.) Franz Schall was credited with 17 aerial victories, including six four-engine bombers and ten P-51 Mustangs."CONTINUED

 

Except the majority of German gains in the East happened after that point. Stalingrad was the turning point, not Moscow.

 

When I used to play football, the coaches would tell us that the game was 90% mental. Honestly, at the time, all of that used to go in one ear and come out of the other. However, as I got older I realized that there is some truth to that statement. Up until Moscow, the Soviets were being routed. The Nazis concentrated considerable resources in terms of men and weapons on Moscow. The effects of the unusually cold weather, and the fierce Russia resistance, exacted visible physical and psychological damage on the Nazis. The Nazis lost a big psychological advantage at Moscow in that the invincibility of the Nazi army was destroyed. Therefore, it was indeed a turning point, despite subsequent Nazi gains.

 

By the time the Me-262 was operational the war was much pretty solely being fought in German skies. The Germans lost more than 500 bombers to conventional propeller driven fighters during the Battle of Britain as well. Plus the British had their own jet fighter entering the war in 1944, and US developed the P-59 but didn't put it into production.

I'm not saying the Germans weren't smart or innovative. Operations Paperclip had the sole purpose of getting to German scientists before the Soviets. Still, they weren't light years ahead of the allies, or even ahead at all as has been suggested. They may have been ahead in some areas, but they were behind in others. The Russians, for example, developed rocket propelled artillary which Germans had no way of dealing with. The Brits had the best radar and cracked enigma. The Americans, of course, built a fissile explosive device.

 

By October 1941, when the Battle of Moscow began, the German offensive had pretty much stalled, and afterwards Soviet counter attacks had forced the first German retreats. The only major land gain made by the Nazis after that were in the South, and that certainly didn't constitute a majority.

Check out the Battle of Kursk. It followed Stalingrad in the South and basically ended German offensive, and defensive, capability.

The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, even if Hitler had gotten peace, on the Western Front was doomed from the start. We can debate the turning point or whatever, but it was a lost battle the instant it began.

 

The events after the conclusion of the Battle of Britain resulted in a turning point of WW2 as I have said before. Germany couldn’t leave the coasts of France unprotected by employing all their troops in the invasion of Russia. Also the bombing of Germany was started by Britain in early 1941 and the night bombing of England was underway after their daylight attacks had failed. When you add that more than 1700 Luftwaffe (German air force) planes were destroyed by the R.A.F and the 2662 German casualties included many experienced aircrew. The Stuka dive bomber that was so effective in a ground attack roll in France and Poland, was decimated by British fighters and had to be withdrawn from the battle.
William Maxwell Aitken, a Canadian, took over British industry and did a great job of putting it on a war fitting. By the end of the Battle of Britain the UK was turning out more aircraft than Germany.

As any vet will tell you that an advancing army needs continuous supplies to continue its advance and each mile adds to the length of the supply chain. In the summer the advance was just possible, in the coldest Russian winter for years it was impossible.
The basic lesson all generals learn is never to engage on a war on two fronts.As Napoleon found it before them, they learnt the lesson the hard way.

 

Good post.
If you consider Italy & N. Africa, Germany was fighting a 3 front war.
I've heard slightly different numbers as far as German aircraft losses & the Stuka was excellent in doing what it was designed for but not, as you noted, as a fighter aircraft.

Hitler expressed his aversion to a two front war in his book, "Mein Kampf" in 1923 & reserved a fondness for the British* while receiving open support from King Edward Vlll, the Cliveden Set etc in the 1930s. I believe that Germany's National Socialism enjoyed significantly more popular support in Britain during the 1930s than is readily admitted.
Therefore, I think that Hitler was surprised that that the British wouldn't negotiate some sort of peace, neutrality or cease fire especially when Hess delivered a peace proposal(1).

Hitler was used to dealing with a more malleable Neville Chamberlain however Churchill, on the other hand, had a history of being pro war, fixated on expanding the British Empire(2) & destroying Germany & according to historian, Peter Padfield, refused to meet with Hess who, of course, imprisoned.
Documents related to Hess's mission were supposed to be disclosed by the British Government last year but it was decided that they remain sealed for another 20 years.
Based on Hitler's historic aversion to a 2 front war & the prospect of the U.S. entering the war, I think he would have made significant concessions to have Britain & the U.S. become neutral countries.



* "The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to shed," Hitler said. "Our two people belong together racially and traditionally. That is and always has been my aim, even if our generals can't grasp it." (Kilzer, p.213)


(1) "Hess, Hitler & Churchill"
https://www.amazon.com/Hess-Hitler-Churchill-Turning-History/dp/184831602X
EXCERPT "Peter Padfield presents striking new evidence that demands the wholesale reappraisal of the episode. For, allied to a powerful argument that Hess must have had both Hitler's backing and considerable encouragement from Britain, Padfield demonstrates that he also brought with him a draft peace treaty committing Hitler to the evacuation of occupied European countries. Made public, this would have destroyed Churchill's campaign to bring the United States into the war."CONTINUED



(2) "Winston Churchill: the Imperial Monster"
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/28/winston-churchill-the-imperial-monster/