Military sizes during World War 2?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The French actually had a very good tank, the Char. It was better than the Panzer 1 and 2. But the French didn't have the tactics to defend against Guderian.

Well... how good the Char-B was is debatable. Better armed and armoured than the German A-vehicles, but much slower and less reliable. It was very much built with War 1 paradigms in mind, thinking of tanks as a kind of "land battleship for supporting infantry". Really such tactical thinking was obsolete by 1917 and Monash's utilisation of combined arms. The Char-B is an excellent example of war planners "fighting the last war".

 

[F1fan]

I disagree that we (Britain) would have been invaded by Germany had it not been for USA: maybe we would not have been able to liberate Europe but I'm sure we would have been able to repel any invasion and the Germans would have just given up. The Royal Navy and the RAF were extremely powerful and second only to the USA.

I never looked into Operation Sealion so I'm not sure how Germany would have invaded England. I don't think it would have been easy for Germany. How Ireland would have sided on an invasion would be a huge factor. If I had to put money on it I'd say the invasion would fail, and that is mostly because the Royal Navy would go all out to be in the way. Germany would be in trouble.

 

[Stevicus]

Well... how good the Char-B was is debatable. Better armed and armoured than the German A-vehicles, but much slower and less reliable. It was very much built with War 1 paradigms in mind, thinking of tanks as a kind of "land battleship for supporting infantry". Really such tactical thinking was obsolete by 1917 and Monash's utilisation of combined arms. The Char-B is an excellent example of war planners "fighting the last war".

What do you think of the T-34? I've heard some tank aficionados say it was the tank that won WW2.

 

[F1fan]

What do you think of the T-34? I've heard some tank aficionados say it was the tank that won WW2.

I've seen a number of documentaries that rank tanks in different ways. One said it was the best tank of WW2. I think in the most broad assessment it was the best tank. It was diesel which means it could run in subfreezing temps unlike the german tanks that ran on petrol. Plus it wouldn't burn when hit and tankers could get out. It had a good gun. And the suspension design was based on the Christie concept and ahead of it's time. The whole design was excellent, and easy to build. In Stalingrad they were building tanks and driving them out the factory into battle. It was perfect for Russia in the war. Like the Sherman they could produce thousands of them.

 

[F1fan]

Well... how good the Char-B was is debatable. Better armed and armoured than the German A-vehicles, but much slower and less reliable. It was very much built with War 1 paradigms in mind, thinking of tanks as a kind of "land battleship for supporting infantry". Really such tactical thinking was obsolete by 1917 and Monash's utilisation of combined arms. The Char-B is an excellent example of war planners "fighting the last war".

It's hard to assess how reliable it was since it didn't have much time to be used. It was a bit dated as a design, but had a cast turret and I think it had a 37mm gun, which was pretty good for 1940.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What do you think of the T-34? I've heard some tank aficionados say it was the tank that won WW2.

It was very good, not least because it was used as it was designed, and also because there were so many of them. 1:1 comparable German tanks were arguably (and that's very arguably) better, but given the Sovs were producing something like 10 t-34s to every German Panther, the Germans were gunna lose. As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all of its own".

The Germans made some very nice tanks that in a "spherical tank in a vacuum" sense, were better than the Russian equivalents. However, the German tanks were complex, highly engineered, temperamental beasts that had a very long logistic tail. Russian tanks, in contrast, tended to be much simpler, more reliable, with parts that could be repaired and replaced in field with pretty much whatever was to hand.

On a perfect day, a brand new, just out of the factory Tiger II was probably the best tank of the war. But after months of campaigning and supply shortages and mud and snow and all sorts of other conditions it wasn't really built to operate in, I'd take a JS-1, or if I had to have a medium, the t-34/85.

Also, I feel I must mention that Australia built her very own, very good tank when isolated from Allied logistics, the Cruiser AC-1. She never saw combat, but by all available metrics and field trials she was at least as good as comparable tanks of the Brits and Sepps at the time. Compared with the homemade "tank" New Zealand produced, the Bob Semple, which is an abomination unto man and God and, frankly, the reason New Zealand gets left off maps to this day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hitler had no patience at all. He had a peace with Russia in 1940 and Stalin was happy about that. Hitler could have kept bleeding England in definitely. Sink cargo ships. Keep the pressure on the RAF. The big error is that Germany changed their focus of attack from the RAF airbases to the cities and manufacturing. That gave the RAF time to breathe and rebuild, and then beat the Luftwaffe. That was a blunder.

Hitler had no reason to go after England in 1940. He really should have attacked Russia instead and not let the Red army have another year to build. Of course, I doubt the result would have been different. Those Russian winters....

I disagree. So far, I have not read every post yet, everyone forgot that Russia was originally one of the "bad guys". They did not attack other countries, except for perhaps Poland, I will get back to that. They had an agreement of non-aggression with Nazi Germany. The deal was that they would not attack each other and split Poland:

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia

And that worked well for both countries But in 1941 with Hitler's amazing success he turned on Russia. That was probably his biggest mistake in the war.

 

[F1fan]

I disagree. So far, I have not read every post yet, everyone forgot that Russia was originally one of the "bad guys". They did not attack other countries, except for perhaps Poland, I will get back to that. They had an agreement of non-aggression with Nazi Germany. The deal was that they would not attack each other and split Poland:

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia

And that worked well for both countries But in 1941 with Hitler's amazing success he turned on Russia. That was probably his biggest mistake in the war.

That was pretty bad. I learned a few years ago that Barbarossa was delayed 6 weeks because Germany had to send troops to Greece because Italy couldn't do the job themselves. I've thought how things would be different if they had those 6 weeks. Maybe they would have taken Moscow.

But my previous post I mean what if Hitler had invaded Russia in 1940 instead of focusing on England. Or even no worry about taking France. Still, Napoleon had bad luck in Russia, too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was pretty bad. I learned a few years ago that Barbarossa was delayed 6 weeks because Germany had to send troops to Greece because Italy couldn't do the job themselves. I've thought how things would be different if they had those 6 weeks. Maybe they would have taken Moscow.

But my previous post I mean what if Hitler had invaded Russia in 1940 instead of focusing on England. Or even no worry about taking France. Still, Napoleon had bad luck in Russia, too.

Every lengthening lines of supplies and harsh weather can be a very bad combination. My father was on the wrong side of that in Korea. When North Korea invaded it looked like it was going to be a romp for them. They had driven the South Korean Army all the way to the southern part of the peninsula. When we joined in we did not land in the south were it would have been unopposed. we landed very close to Seoul. The North Koreans were woefully unprepared for this and we had a relatively easy counter invasion. Then we cut the supply line and the North Korean army had to retreat as fast as they could. Then we foolishly decided to "end the threat" and invaded North Korea. They were almost driven back to China and that was where it went bad for us. My father was a young Marine and he was part of the group that first ran into the Chinese presence. That was at the Chosin reservoir. The Marines suffered casualties of over 50%. He was one of them. He was shot through the thigh and had to be evacuated on the back of a an unheated truck. Winter had hit hard and it got down to -30 F. That is about -35 C. He was too afraid to fall asleep because he thought that he would freeze to death.

 

[John53]

I disagree. So far, I have not read every post yet, everyone forgot that Russia was originally one of the "bad guys". They did not attack other countries, except for perhaps Poland, I will get back to that.

Finland. They got embarrassed and a few Russian Generals were in a lot of trouble but they attacked Finland. Actually they attacked them twice.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't understand how France was defeated so quickly; they were very harsh toward Germany after World War 1 and were prepared for German expansion but still lost.

I don't agree Britain would have lost against the Germans: both HM Navy and the RAF would have beat back any sort of invasion.

The French put most of their resources and focus into preparing the Maginot line. The Germans simply went round it.

At the start of WWII the Germans were far ahead of all the other European powers in weapons, military leadership, and tactics.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I disagree that we (Britain) would have been invaded by Germany had it not been for USA: maybe we would not have been able to liberate Europe but I'm sure we would have been able to repel any invasion and the Germans would have just given up. The Royal Navy and the RAF were extremely powerful and second only to the USA.

This is an interesting topic, so perhaps I'll start here.

German mistakes with regards to invading Britain commenced pretty much from the Invasion of France, and certainly from the point of Allied evacuation at Dunkirk. The best German fighter (Bf109) lacked range and was deployed from airfields which limited their operational time over the battlefield. British Spitfires and Hurricanes could operate from Southern England, and spend more time over the battlefield. Theoretical numerical advantage didn't mean much in this scenario. Similarly, German bombers (operating largely from Germany still) were at their range limit whilst carrying payload, operated in daylight, and with insufficient air cover due to the lack of fighter range.

German aircraft losses were quite heavy, despite the momentous German victory.

German policy at this point was to pursue peace, not actually invade England. Britain had a well-storied history of appeasement, and Hitler felt like peace would allow consolidation of his victory (in that he was quite right) and that he could extract good terms from a beaten down Britain (in that he was quite wrong).

British command had changed substantially, and was largely taking on Churchill's persona, as opposed to Chamberlains. The British sinking of the French fleet was a pretty clear indication of that, I think.

Contrary to popular opinion, a direct sea-based attack on England (Operation Sea Lion) was just one of a number of next steps identified by the OKW (German strategic planning). Where direct action against Britain was considered, air superiority both in the moment, and to restrict British aircraft production in the future was seen as vital to ALL identified approaches. Alfred Jodl, from the OKW, actually believed that combined air and sea operations could break the English spirit. This mistaken belief was not unique to the Germans, it is worth noting.

In attacking Britain, the Germans decided to attack the RAF directly, along with it's support mechanisms and ground forces. This would then lead to effective attacks on production lines, imports, etc. Interestingly, they didn't separate Fighter Command from Bomber Command...they simply saw the entire RAF as the enemy. Doesn't really make sense to me, and it had consequences...if the intent of attacking the RAF was to destroy their ability to defend production and imports, then Bomber command was really quite beside the point.

The same range issues of the Bf109 impacted here, too. German fighters could only operate over Southern England. Whilst they never had to, the Brits were ready to withdraw Fighter Command to the north, outside of German fighter range. And production centres in Liverpool (for example) were never really impacted.

Initial German intelligence was way off the mark, too. It underestimated Hurricane and Spitfire numbers, had no mention of radar-controlled air defence the RAF relied on, and believed the Luftwaffe could win the air battle over Southern England in...wait for it...4 days. This would be followed by 4 weeks of bombing to destroy the aircraft industry. So...1 month for the destruction of the RAF, and the destruction of the British aircraft industry. It wasn't just wrong...it was delusional. This is partly the problem when you have a leadership structure only interested in good news.

The Germans also had a further complication. Where a fighter was shot down, the pilot could...sometimes...eject. German pilots ejecting over England, or the Channel had far less chance of becoming operational and available crews again than English pilots. German aircraft production was problematic, as was some basic logistical supplies (for example, despite using drop tanks for Bf109s in Spain, none were available in 1940...!). But even where they HAD sufficient of their best aircraft available, they lacked crews. And certainly, they lacked experienced crews.

Despite ALL that, the RAF was pretty close to breaking at some points. German attacks on radar installations were always haphazard and ineffectual, but it wouldn't have taken much more focus to have really damaged the umbrella covering the coast. And the Brits ability to shift their resources as required was a major factor in them being able to use their smaller air-force effectively.

But it wasn't sustainable. German aircraft production was basicallly still on a peacetime footing. They lost 1636 aircraft between July and Sept 1940 alone. That's over a third of the number of aircraft they commenced with. Ultimately, when the initial German assessments proved horribly wrong (ie. the Brits couldn't be broken by aircraft and/or submarines) they had no plan B.

One of my favourite lines (translated to English) was from the Italian Foreign Minister (Galeazzo Ciano). He suggested Hitler was like a gambler who had made a big scoop, and would like to get up from the table, risking nothing more.

Of course, England didn't sue for peace, and Germany had no clear plan B.

With 20/20 hindsight, I think I could tweak German strategy to a point where the Brits just might sue for peace. But this would involve a lot of work in isolating Britain from allies, whilst strangling British supplies...not tit for tat daylight bombing of London, alongside unrestricted submarine warfare which sank American ships. And the point would NEVER to have been an invasion, but instead to get favourable peace terms.

Once the Germans turned to Russia, their designs on England were done. They simply couldn't focus on a multi-front war.

I'm over-simplifying, but trying not to write a book...!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The French put most of their resources and focus into preparing the Maginot line. The Germans simply went round it.

At the start of WWII the Germans were far ahead of all the other European powers in weapons, military leadership, and tactics.

I don't agree with your last sentence.
The Germans were advanced in tactics, but had strategic deficiences I think point directly to leadership issues at the highest levels.

And their weapons were of mixed quality, and supply. Which German weapons in 1940 do you see as more advanced than Allied weapons?

 

[John53]

Also, I feel I must mention that Australia built her very own, very good tank when isolated from Allied logistics, the Cruiser AC-1. She never saw combat, but by all available metrics and field trials she was at least as good as comparable tanks of the Brits and Sepps at the time. Compared with the homemade "tank" New Zealand produced, the Bob Semple, which is an abomination unto man and God and, frankly, the reason New Zealand gets left off maps to this day.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't agree with your last sentence.
The Germans were advanced in tactics, but had strategic deficiences I think point directly to leadership issues at the highest levels.

And their weapons were of mixed quality, and supply. Which German weapons in 1940 do you see as more advanced than Allied weapons?

The Panzer IV and V. The 88 millimeter gun. The Stuka dive bomber. The key weapons, in other words, and the way they were used.

Britain and France were preparing for a re-run of the static, attritional warfare of WWI. Germany's Blitzkrieg (lightening war) tactics caught the allies, and the Red Army, completely unawares. No lessons were learned by Britain and France, after Blitzkrieg tactics were employed in the invasion of Poland.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

View attachment 55234

Put that hideous thing behind a spoiler or something, will you? There are good, decent people in this thread who don't deserve to be exposed to that kind of filth! There might be children see this thread!

 

[John53]

The Panzer IV and V. The 88 millimeter gun. The Stuka dive bomber. The key weapons, in other words, and the way they were used.

Britain and France were preparing for a re-run of the static, attritional warfare of WWI. Germany's Blitzkrieg (lightening war) tactics caught the allies, and the Red Army, completely unawares. No lessons were learned by Britain and France, after Blitzkrieg tactics were employed in the invasion of Poland.

I'm pretty sure the 88mm was originally an anti aircraft gun but I'm unsure when they worked out to point them more horizontally. I have had the privilege of chatting with a couple of Aussie Vets from the Africa campaign and they told me the 88 was by far the most feared weapon and miles better than anything we had.

Edit to fix my error of direction -.-

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What do you think of the T-34? I've heard some tank aficionados say it was the tank that won WW2.

Yup...there's a reason for that view, too.
But it's not even the best Russian tank. Still, when you can churn out a stack of good, tough, reliable tanks, that are easy to provide spares for, and easy to train crews on, you get a practical advantage over all those fancy German machines that were better, but required more skill to make and use, were expensive and time-consuming to produce, and suffered from a lack of spares...as well as being fuel hungry.

Logistics isn't as sexy as sloped armour and heavy guns, but it sure as heck plays a role in battle.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yup...there's a reason for that view, too.
But it's not even the best Russian tank. Still, when you can churn out a stack of good, tough, reliable tanks, that are easy to provide spares for, and easy to train crews on, you get a practical advantage over all those fancy German machines that were better, but required more skill to make and use, were expensive and time-consuming to produce, and suffered from a lack of spares...as well as being fuel hungry.

Logistics isn't as sexy as sloped armour and heavy guns, but it sure as heck plays a role in battle.

Competent leaders know tactics, good leaders know strategy, but winning leaders know logistics.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The Panzer IV and V. The 88 millimeter gun. The Stuka dive bomber. The key weapons, in other words, and the way they were used.

Britain and France were preparing for a re-run of the static, attritional warfare of WWI. Germany's Blitzkrieg (lightening war) tactics caught the allies, and the Red Army, completely unawares. No lessons were learned by Britain and France, after Blitzkrieg tactics were employed in the invasion of Poland.

German tactics were advanced. I agree (and already agreed in my previous post). The Germans were the first to grasp the fact the tanks weren't 'like cavalry', and that using them in combined operations, and with speed of movement was vital. But German strategic leadership was...well...less brilliant would be pretty charitable.

The Panzer V didn't exist in 1940, and was first used in mid-1943 operationally. It was a brilliant piece of equipment by the terms of the day, but wasn't a glint in Hitler's eye in the period we're talking about here, unlike the T-34, which was just starting to roll off the assembly lines of Russia. The Panzer IV Type D used in the Battle of France was good, no doubt. The Germans had only 280 from a total tank strength of 2,582 (per
Panzertruppen: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany’s Tank Force • 1933-1942).
The French, alone, had 840 Heavy Char B1 tanks and Somuas, both of which were better than the majority of German tanks (albeit with their own flaws).

The 88mm was a cracker, and definitely one of the better artillery pieces in the world, particularly in an AT role.

The Stuka was outdated, and couldn't be used anywhere the Luftwaffe didn't hold complete air superiority. There were dozens of better planes than it, but allow them to beatle around unmolested and sure...they could scare the crap out of people, and drop bombs with good accuracy by the standards of the day.