obershutze916, I agree there are to many out comes to debate it to conclusion.  I seriously doubt Russia would have ever fallen to the Germans, due to Hitler's insistance of overriding his generals.  I do think it was possible (though unlikely) under very certian circumstances that Germany could have won in so far as capturing Moscow.  We must remember the first rule of war is 'You don't march on Moscow'.  

By the way, thanks for the debate, my wife gets so sick of me talking about WWII.

Slave1, let your wife know she is not alone.  I do WWII re-enacting as a German. It drives her crazy always hearing talk about this stuff. TAt this house it is all History channel all the time. Drives her crazy whenI point out mistakes they make.

I agree, Hitler most likely lost in Russia because he didn't listen to his generals, he was the biggest idiot in charge of the greatest army ever fielded.  Its good for the rest of the world that he was there.

"You don't march on Moscow"  yeah! just ask  Napolian.

My house is History channel or Discovery channel all the time.  My wife hates the fact that I can not pass up Nazi's or other WWII stuff on TV.  Just to let you know my wife is very pro gun, she was born in Ohio, raised in Georgia, and now lives with me in Arizona.

I would disagree.  Stalin voved to never leave Moscow. With the collapse of Moscow the whole country would have unravelled. The Germans made too many errors at Stalingrad, I dont think it was just the Russian resistance.

Let's asay for arguments sake that Russia did fall, and Germany was now in control of it (not counting for some armed resistence).  How long would Britain last in a war with a Germany of this size?

Word.  [:D]

I have a problem with the statement that most of the tanks were back in action on either side.  While it is true that the Russians were able to repair thier tanks far more readily than the Germans they still lost an estimated 50% at Kursk.  The Germans lost 300+ tanks and played a defensive game from then on in Russia. Kursk was by far the turning point of the war.

Slave1, my wife is now pro-gun. I transformed her by having her watch the nightly news when they run stories on pharmacies. (She is a pharmacist)  When she would get really mad about the BS and outright lies, I exoplained to her the gun issue was the same way.  You could almost see the light come on in her head.

As for your last question, would this be an Englan with U.S. troops or England alone.  Englan alone against a veterin, upgraded German army would not stand a chance.  The Russians were much tougher fighters despite their individual lack of intelegence.  The English were civilized to fight that hard.  Once the beachead was secured, Englad would be a gonner.

The U.S. would have to invade England before France, losses would be too high, and the supply line for the U.S. would have been to long. Naval supremacy could most likely be maintained by the U.S. with British ships that escaped, but the cost with such a long supply line would be intense.

Atencio, I found it hard to believe as well, but both sides were able to recover a large proportion of their knocked out armor. My book that I take this from is loaned out right now.  I will get it back next weekend. When I do, I will copy the  tank recovery data for each side.  It's remarkable how many tanks each side were able to get back into action in a week.

Yes The Germans were forever on the defensive after Kursk, but their tank losses were the least of their problems at that point.
They shot their wad in every area in this battle, and could never recover.  They bounced back after Stalingrad, but Kursk was the final nail in the coffin for sure.

It would be an England with all allied support.  I think the US would still have beat Japan and would be turning it's naval arsenal to help save England.  Although I think under such odds, we (USA) might end up having to worry about our own continent, it's just a short jump into Alaska.  This might be advantageous to the Germans to help divide our forces and help keep the Canadians at home.  We might have ended up having to lose Britain while saving her government officials and regrouped elsewhere.  I know it's a long shot, but hey why not.

I'am surprised that we even won! with the sherman tank and all. thankfully we had the M1 garand.I am wondering what would of happend if we entered the war soon has hitler attacked poland, Instead of waiting around to see what will happen to us like pearl harbor, like what the world is doing now with saddam.

Without the use of the Candians to do their dirty work the English would have serious problems. It would take U.S. and Commonwealth troops out of the battle for a while.

With Russia out, that would have freed a large number of Jap. troops to fight the U.S.  I think though that they would have been used to sure up the island defences. The issue of Jap naval losses would still create problems.  The U.S. still would have had a MUCH harder time in the Pacific. I really don't think the Japs would have invaded Alaska to any greater extent, but the THREAT of that would have had the U.S. and Canadians suring up the western coasts to a much greater degree; again diverting troops from an attack on Europe.

Without  England as a staging area for Europe, Japan might have been the first target. This would have given the Germans more time to dig in.  With that time, I don't think an invasion of Europe would have been pulled off all things being equal.

I only heard it mentioned once, but the Japs were supposedly closer to a nuke than the Germans.  Theory is that they acctually had one in the last few days.  If this were true, Japan could have at least stalemated the war on their front as well.

Mr LWilde, wow what a post you had there in response to mine.

If I may, I think that if you look at Germans Z-Class destroyers, you will see they weren't bad, and they had fiarly good top speeds.

If you look at RN destroyers, and light cruisers, you will see they were less armed and armored, but they had much longer ranges than our boats. Which was improtant for them stategically.

I think German heavy cruisers, and pocket battleships were very well designed. Their light cruisers, were seriously deficient. Remeber also to look at the Prinz Eugen/Hipper and compare them to waht the USN had in 1940. I think the comparo looks a little different, since you have mentioned late war US ships vs early war German ships.


Gniesnau ans Scharnhorst were pretty good light battleships, and Germany's fleet was more defensive in nature anyway. They couldn't be used to "project" power just because of their size.

The Germans used AA rounds in their 15" guns. The nickname for the rounds was something like daisy-cutter. It was a giant canister round, Tirpitz fired more than a few at RAF planes. Often directed by radar. I believe the Tirpitz had it radar upgraded 3 times as the war progressed. I wonder what US ships had radar in 1940, because the Bismark did.    

IJN heavy cruisers were also judged as very good. Not as much armor as the US boats, but fast and well armed.

Submarines, the US had the most effective fleet. It has something to do with the quality of our boats and crews, and the ineffectiveness of the IJN. The German's made more boats and were fighting an enemy that used radar and aircaft very effectively to destroy submarines.

The Germans did launch the type XXI boats before the war ended. These were the first true submarines, and the USS Nautilus and it's predecessors were somewhat based on the type XXI hull designs.

In aircaft carriers there was only one country..........USA

The Me-262 was an interceptor, not a fighter. Everything I've read about it indicates it had the flight charactersistic of a brick. A very fast brick with quad 30mm cannons. It was made to shoot bombers, not tangle with fighters.

Hitler, a few of you have said that Hitler caused Germany to lose the war. When Hitler took over Germany, it was suffering a terrible depression, and the govt. was failing. He instituted massive jobs programs, built the autobahn, and built up German industry. He re-militarized Germany. If there was no Hitler, then Germany would have been a bankrupt, weak nation. Not to mention his initial campaigns were stunning successes.  

If the Germans had control of Russia, they could also invade Alska by sending over troops other than the better trained Germans.  This would cause the US and Canada to have to leave some defenses (ships, planes, men) in country to combat this new threat.  All the while they (Germany) are busy invading Britain.  I think that if this were the case that we would have to make an African landing and attempt to push them back from there.

I have never heard that the Japs were close to a building a nuke.  If they were mutually assured destruction might have come around much sooner, and if it did the war might have ended in a stalemate with the Axis holding much of the world hostage.  I don't think it would be long before the Japs would nuke China, or the Germans would nuke the USA and Canada (remember they are sitting just across the way from Alaska now.  I believe they were crazy enough to try to win in a nuclear war.

What??

The Japanese did invade the Aleution(sp) islands of Alaska, as a diversion just before Midway. We sent troops, planes to keep their heads down, basing them nearby until wars end.

We did invade N. Africa. Luckily for us the Italians attacked Ethiopia in like 1936. When WW-II got hot Britian sent troops there to attack the Italians, that's why Germany sent troops to N. Africa.

Between N. Africa and the invasion of Greece those Italians sure managed to get the Germans spread out.

Oly-M4gery- German Z- boats were fast, but not armored enough and not heavily enough armed.  They were over gloified torpedo ships.  (Although a few were able to cause some trouble at night in coastal waters in raids.)

England also had aircraft carriers.  

The Me-262 was more of an interceptor although it was designed to be an air supremacy fighter. It obviously never had that chance.  German fighters were never more manouverable than allied. All german fighters were "slash and Zoom" attack style fighters.

What you said about Hitler is true, and since I do not own a major league base ball team I can get away with saying that. On the other hand, you have to look at the decisions he made during the war after France.  Almost all bad. Many are misunderstood as bad, but still mostly disasterous.

Iam_naked - I think the outcome of the war would have been the same.  The U.S. troops would have been lead by the arogent British, they would have suffered greater losses because we really were not ready for the war.  There would have been more tention between the U.S. and that idiot Montgomery.. but the U.S. was resiliant and they would have figured things out just the same as they did.  

If you really want to know about the Sherman read the book "Death Traps" by Belden Cooper.  His job was to keep track of every tank in the Third division.  It has some misconceptions about german equipment, but after reading that, the U.S. government should have been ashamed to field those tanks.

You really know your WWII, oberschutz.  You said everything I had to say and a whole lot more.

Slave1 I am not so sure the Germans would have gone to Alaska. I think the Japs would have considered that as their territory of influence. Besides, the germans would have had enough to worry about in keeping all the "locals" underwraps in all th occupied lands.

An Afican landing would have been the only allied option, but........would you want to fight a well supplied German army (Fighting on only 1 front) in open desert warfare. I have no doubt we could land, Africa is too large to defend all the coast, but to take north africa from the Germans in thei scenario would be a bloodbath.  A long war of attrition at best.

The Nuke thing with Japan would lead to mutual destruction..if it is true.  I agree, I think that Tojo and Hitler were crazy enough to try to win a nucular war.

Naval history is my hobby.  I am a retired USN officer with 28 years service.



The Z-destroyers were large, fairly capable DDs with some distinct weaknesses.  Their 150mm main battery was the largest in the world for destroyers, but they were only single purpose guns for surface warfare, and aircraft were fast becoming the real threat to ships.  They had some 37mm and 20mm AAA but not enough and they couldn't ship any more because of weight and moment restrictions (They would have rolled over in a heavy sea.).  The Z-class were also very wet seaboats.  They had little freeboard and rolled heavily.  They were good gun platforms in a calm sea but otherwise not so hot.  Germany made about twenty of them.  (America built about 500 destroyers in WW II...not counting the ones already in commission on Dec. 7th.)



Actually, the max range of US cruisers was pretty close to their RN contemporaries.  Our Brooklyn class could go 10,000 miles @ 15kts.  HMS Belfast, a Brit contrmporary could do 12,200 miles @12 kts.  That is very close.  And our ships were larger and carried a much heavier armament fit, especially in anti-aircraft guns.  Brooklyn also had one more main battery turret with 3 more guns than her RN contemporaries and her fire control was the best in the world.  I can't stress that enough:  [b]USN gunnery fire control was by far the best in the world![/b].  Not brag...just a fact.



I would agree that in 1940 Prince Eugen and the Japanese Takao classes of heavies were probably the best in the world...but the war lasted over five years and lots more ships followed them.  The Cleveland class light cruiser was probably the best in the world after 1942 and the Baltimore class heavy WAS the best without doubt.  By the end of the war, the American Salem class was in the fight and they had [b]fully automatic[/b] 8" guns!  I have seen them shoot and they were most impressive.



Agreed.  That is why they were almost useless.  They were beautiful ships but their 11" main battery was useless against a capital ship and they were unable to outrun cruisers.  Scharnhorst died a glorious but useless death at the hands of HMS Duke of York (a real battleship with 15" guns) with almost all of her crew off North Cape in the winter.  Gniesnau was broken up and her turrets used as land-based artillery.



The main battery AA round were totally useless.  The Japanese also used them, even some in their 18.11" guns in Yamato and Musashi.  They didn't work either.  I know of no record of an aircraft loss due to these rounds.  In 1940, the US was totally at peace...and moneys weren't being spent on radar installations on ships.  The radars were pretty much in the developmental stage.  The first Navy shipt to see an air search radar was the CXAM installation in USS Augusta (CA 31) in June 1941.  By war's end, all USN combatants carried an SC air search radar and an SG surface search radar and the gun batteries had integral fire control radars directing them.

Try this hyperlink: [url]http://www.world-war.co.uk/[/url]



I really like the Takao class IJN cruisers.  All Japanese cruisers were VERY tough ships that would take a great amount of damage.  Their main weakness was a lack of radars.  They were also heavy and were very wet seaboats.  Plus, the Japanese just never made enough of them.  They would make five of one class, we made twenty five!

The Japanese destroyers were among the best in the world.  The Fubuki class ushered in a wonderful combination of speed and firepower.  Her three new twin 5" turrets and nine torpedo tubes made her the most heavily armed destroyers in the world in the thirties and they were a rude shock to allied shipbuilders and naval officers.  When they got the Long Lance torpedoes in 1938, they were damn near unbeatable.  But...no radar!  Not until the very end of the war, when most were already sunk!



No arguments from me on this...



You omitted the most important point about Hitler and the Nazis:  They were the greatest plague on civilized mankind ever.  Not the Assyrians, not the Mongol Horde, not the Islamic conquerors of Mohammed, not the Crusaders...NOBODY killed like the Nazis...not ever in the history of the world.  Hitler and the Nazis were, in the end, responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people, all over Europe and Eurasia.  That, my friend is a lot of folks.  The Japanese were more brutal as in Nanking...but they lacked the Teutonic efficiency of the Germans.  I only wish we could have brought that rat bastard to justice and hung him like the dog that he was...and I fervently wish we could have caught more of the SS and hung them too.  They were gangsters on an incredible scale.  Read William Shirer's, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" to see how they did it.  Simply amazing...that a great country like Germany could sink into the abyss like that...just amazing.  But that's for another thread.

Cheerz,

[soapbox]

Raven, taken our past history that says a lot.  I actually tried to agree with you on another thread today (I wrote ditto) but by time it was posted it came out right after the wana-be-NAZI posted and it looked like I was agreeing with him. The thread was locked before I realized my mistake.

This is scary, we are getting along for a whole day!

Really though, WWII from the German, not NAZI, perspective is my specialty.  I have read over 400 books on the subject.  I am full of useless information perfect for driving the wife nuts.

IIRC the Submarine corps for both the U.S. and Germany had the highest loss ratio of the war.

The German navy did have a second wind in supporting the army in its coastal areas at the end of the war.  Several times German heavy ships had to have their gun barrels replaced due to the volume of fire they put out.  They took a heavy toll on the Soviets that winter, but in the end, made no difference in the outcome of the war.

As far as the Japs defeating us,not a chance.They could have prolonged the fight and better defended their winnings if they had used their limited resources wisely, and hadn't been so eager to draw the entire US battle fleet into one gigantic,definitave battle to decide the war once and for all.

That urge and splitting their forces in a most unimaginative plan(along with good US intel)cost them the best part of there carrier forces and left them ,for the most part, operationally lacking for the rest of the war at Midway.

As far as Europe is concerned IMO very possible,except for a couple of important problems.

The German system of development and procurment was total chaos.Many different entities devoloping solutions to the same problem with no coordination or communication with one another.

Production of many types to do the same job rather than focusing on producing massive quantities of a couple of the very best types to do a job.

The Germans never went on an actual total war economy until it was too late.Never using women in industry to free up the men for military service for example.Hitlers insistance on continued production of consumer products to keep the populace happy with no shortages,ect.

The biggest one is Hitler being in charge of Germany and eventually every German military opperation and procurment decision in the war(right down to which units got what equipment)[rolleyes].Those on this board are I'm sure familiar with Hitlers foibles and to innumerate them would take to much bandwidth.

The second is that the "axis" was really not an agreement of mutual support and strategy,war aims ect, in the mold of the allies.It was more an agreement between assholes that they were infact assholes,and that they all wouldn't stand in the way of each others lawlessness.

Yes they did share some technology and intel,but that allience was for the most part useless.

Infact Mussolini undertook adventures without notifying the Germans.Eventually the Germans would have to waste valuable time and considerable resources saving him from himself.

Hitler gained absolutly nothing from declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor(which if I remember correctly was a total surprise to him)except the entry of the US into the european conflict,with a pledge of "europe first".

The Japanese could have helped Germany immensly by tying down red army forces with a threatening move out of Manchuria.They didn't even have to gain territory,the threat would have been enough.The Japs wanted nothing to do with the Russians,they had been mauled baddly in a previous border dispute in Manchuria by Zuhkov lead forces(I think in '39').If I remember correctly the Russians freed up something like 45 divisions of winter combat trained Siberian troops during the battle for Moscow,once they were convinced that the Japs weren't a threat.

There are many scenarios that could have changed things.

One thing I never understood was Hitlers obsession withn the actual occupation of England.Another example of no real thought ,Just the next "thing" to do.

He could have just continued the effective U-boat war ,turned his attention to more important matters and saved some of the cream of the Luftwaffe from destruction.Britain would have been irrelevant.

I've always wondered why the Germans didn't set out to make the Mediteranian a German pond.They could have driven the British out with air power if they had eliminated Malta.Then their supply lines to Africa would have been unfettered.They certainly could have driven the British out of Egypt.What Rommel did with limited resources was amazing.He was sent there not to go on the offenseve ,but to keep the Italians form being driven off the continent.Infact many in the German General staff were disturbed with his actions and thought him a maniac for burning up his limited supplies in offensive operations.Just imagine if he had been well supplied and renforced on a regular basis rather than only seeing a fraction of the supplies intended and having to scroung and steal from the British.

Its a very real possibility that the Germans could have defeated the Russians if the Italians would have worked with the them and informed them of their intentions instead of exsposing their flank and disrupting their timeline for operations against Russia(by 2-3 months)in assinine adventures.Even without the the afformentioned Jap help ,certainly with it.

I don't believe the Germans could have indefinatly ignored the Russians.Some historians believe the Russians were getting ready to stage something of their own.As mentioned earlier,the Germans were shocked at the number of Russian troops they encountered along the border area in middle Poland.The Russians had something like 3-4 million troops operating in the vacinity.Far more than normal or typically needed.Stalin was on a military buildup of his own,he knew the clash was inevitable.

What were the Russians up too?

Of course all this is moot.If Hitler weren't around to be the single biggest reason that Germany ended up the way it did,he wouldn't be the reason this all started.

Unless uncle Joe..............

Obershutze916, The RN had escort carriers, the USN had over 100 carriers, IIRC, appx 30 "fleet" carriers, and the rest escort carriers. Not only did we have more ours were better.

LWilde, I think we are kinda saying the same thing. My divergence from your assesment is I am comparing 1940 ships vs 1940 ships. 1941 ships vs 1941 ships. Since only one country was really building ships during the war, that country's ships would be much better at the end of the war. We all know who that is.

Kinda like tanks, look at the MK-II and MK-III panzers that Germany started with. Many were MG tanks weighing around 5 tons. By the end of the war tanks would weigh over 50 tons, Tiger, JS-II come to mind. The had very little resemblence to early war tanks. Lessons get learned quick in war.

Same for ships. The US was learning lessons and building new ships throughout the war. Who else was? Certainly US ships made toward the end of the war were much different than the pre-war ships.

I'd also point out we were using some WW-I destroyers in the "flush decks" and Mahan classes, if I remeber nomeclatures correctly.

The USN in 1940 was a whole different story than 1943 USN. 1945 USN was probably as different from 1943 USN as 1943 was different from 1940 USN.

Byron2112, well stated, the only thing I would ad, is that Hitler allowed the Italians to contol the Mediteranian.  He wanted to keep them happy and let them think they were being productive.  This is why they had so many problems in North Africa, and why Malta was never taken. If it was up to the Germans the deed would have been done, but political agreements with the Italians screwed that up.  Like they say, if you want something done right, do it yourself.

Ever notice how it always comes back to 'those damn Italians"!

IIRC the British had two or three small carriers.  You call them escort carriers, you know more about it than I do so I will take your word for it.  I understand that they had one advantage over U.S. carriers though - armored flight decks. This was probably nulified by a lack of defensive armorment though.  Just guessing on that one.

Lets not forget the German carrier.  What ever happend to the 1/4 built hull of that ship anyway?

The "Graf Zepplin"?I think the hull was scrapped after the war.

The Italians[:)]

I often wonder why they put up with Mussolini so long.They were obviously not motivated from the start.

I don't know if they had an internal terror network that compelled the citizens to cooperate or not?

Things that make you go hmmmmm..........

Having the wooden flight decks on our carriers was one of our bigger mistakes.

"One thing I never understood was Hitlers obsession withn the actual occupation of England.Another example of no real thought ,Just the next "thing" to do."

The reason was what was stated earlier, England provided a base of attack against "Fortress Europe".  Without England we would have had no way to land a sizeable force in Europe and keep it supplied.

I think the Japanese were a little crazier than the Germans.  I believe they would have used chemical and bio-weapons against us once they were able to prefect them.

I understand that part.

What I'm saying is that if the Italians wouldn't have distracted and delayed the Germans,And the Germans could have launched their attack on the Soviets(including the greater resources they would have had without burning up pilots and equipment in the pointless Battle of Britain)England would have been irrelivant.

After France fell the British were in no position to threaten Germany in any way.The expeditionary force had left all their equipment  in France.They were struggling just to feed and fuel themselves.This is a year and a half before  Pearl Harbor so the US wasn't really a factor and wouldn't be until around '43'

The Germans could have launched Barbarossa in april instead of late june '41'.Reached Moscow(before winter,possibly before the autumn rains),and shocked the Russians into suing for piece before Stalin could rally the population.

This would take place around the time of Pearl Harbor.

So this would mean an end of hostilities on the european continent,and allow the Germans to consolidate there gains and strengthen their position.

The end of '41' gives them a couple of years before any "srategic bombing campaign",or allied buildup in England.

During this time they could concentrate their resources on slowly strangling England and cleaning them out of the Mediteranian with air power.And clear them out of North Africa,which the Germans damn near did by accident when their resources were incredibly stretched.

This would leave England pretty well irrelivant,as they would be struggling for survival and would find it difficult to mount offensive operations.

With the Russians outta the war its debatable whether the US would agree to a "europe first" policy since there was no allied force with a foothold on the continent.

By the time they came around to trying to put something together ,through the air or even possibly building up for an invasion attempt,in England the Germmans would have had around two years to build their continental defense and air forces pretty much unfettered.

Where would the Anglo/Americans land?

How could they possibly hope to be successfull in an invasion if the Germans sould concentrate the full might of their armed forces in defense without worring about their back door?

Stale mate.

Even the bomb really makes no since in this scenario.What would it accomplish?The Germans would already be masters of a fortified europe.

Sounds like 1984 with Greater Germania,North and south America,and Asia.[:)]  

Germany expected to sweep over France so quickly that the Brits wouldn't be able to get into the game before it was all over.  German tactics were far superior - they invented squad infantry tactics based on lessons learned from WW1 not to mention combined arms assaults.  Thank God for Hitler's refusal to listen to his generals.  If Hitler had just sat back and watched the Germans would have owned Moscow in the first year of Barbarosa instead of diverting resources to Stalingrad in the south.  D-Day and the western front were not the major factors in the German defeat.  The best troops were always pointed against the Russians once the French were defeated.  If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor and our material aid to the Russians (thousands of jeeps and trucks that gave them a mechanized infantry capability, tanks, ammo, 1911A1's) was delayed, big big difference.

This is truly a never ending subject. You could what if every day of the war. It ended how God intended.

A10er, you are righ. I usually never get into these conversations because of the endless outcomes and because theybecome pissing matches at some point.  This has been an entertaining conversation.  No one has really agrred all that much with anyone else, but it has been civil and polite. I think that swhy it has continued for so long.

You are correct though, the war ended the way God intedned.  It ended the way it HAD to.  Even my grandfather who fought the Russians from the first day of the invasion to the fall of Vienna told me to his dying day that fighting Russia was justified, but the Nazi's had to go, Germany HAD to loose the war.

good points byron2112.  I think what most people forget is how many men and equipment the Germans had tied up in the eastern front. Had all those troops been free on the western front there would have been no discussion about where to put the panzers, they would have had enough to cover most areas.  The allies faced a small number of that and still had a hard time, thank goodness for our air superiority.

If only the Italians could have repeated their sucessful win over the Ethiopeans, a tribal land.

The Germans made a drastic mistake by moving on Poland and other countries too early.  If they would have waited for several years, I'm afraid with their technology being what is was, nobody could have stopped them.  They had all the raw materials, brains, but were too greedy.  It would still be difficult for them to rule the world since they didn't rule the seas.  Practically no large battle ships, mostly just subs.  There problem was Adolf Hitler.  He was good at speeches but not so good at commanding.

The Germans had enough raw materials to a point. Very early on they were faced with prospect that because of materials they could only develop one of their armed services to the strength that they wanted.  They chose to build up their land forces.  If you look at the Luftwaffe the planes were pretty much developed to support land based forces.  They never developed any appreciable heavy bombers.  The navy was to be no more than a force to disrupt shipping by means of speed and stealth. By contrast the United States had the materials to build up all three services.

Atencio, I now have the information on tank returns for the battle of Kursk.

This is from the book Citadel by Robin Cross.

"In the years after the war Prokhorovka achieved almost mythic status as a dramatic symbol of Russian armoured resistance and a convienent rationalization of german defeat by overwhelming numbers - the Steamroller - of Russain military legend.  An examination of Fourth Army's daily tank returns, however, suggestes that, for all the violence of the encounter, German armoured losses at Prokhorovka were relatively slight.  If, as the Russians claimed, over 400 tanks were dug up from the fields around Prokhorovka after the war, the great majority of them must have been T-34's of the 29nth and 18nth Tank Corps. (Russian).

At Kursk Fourth Army suffered its worst losses in the first six days of the fighting before the climactic encounters at Prokhorovka. Tank figures are hard to pin down because of the regular replenishment of front-line units as damaged vehicles were repaired and brought back into action.  On the 13nth Vasilevsky was informed was informed by a German POW that after replenishments in the first week of fighting, the strength of Das Reich stood at 100 tanks.  Fourth panzer Army's daily returns show that, between 11 and 13 July, its armored strenght fell from 530 vehicles (on the 11nth) to 505 (on the 13nth), a loss of only 25 tanks after the epic clash at Prokhorovka.  Many more tanks have been lost there, but to be replaced by a surge of vehicles on the 12th; this seems unlikely, however, given that, after the 13nth, Fourth Panzer Army's strength remained relativly stable, dropping to 466 on the 15nth and then recovering to 530on the 16nth and 591 on the 17nth.

German daily tank strengeth for the battle of Kursk. This is all tank units involved.

July 4 - 916
    5 - 884 - the day the battle began.
    6 - 865
    7 - 621
    8 - 626
    9 - 501
   10 - 519
   11 - 530
   12 - 508 - The battle of Prokhorovka
   13 - 505
   14 - 488
   15 - 466
   16 - 530
   17 - 591

So as you see, the German tanks strength was not decimated.  What happened was the Germans lost an entire month production of tanks, while the Russians had lost an unknown amount of their production, they had fresh shipments comming in mass numbers very soon from the U.S. and England.  Also, very shortly afterwards, Russian tank production was over 2,500 tanks per month. Despite the German ability to slaughter Russian tanks through the last day of the war, they could never regain the initiative after this.

1945 was originally planned to be the first book in a trilogy, but had INCREDIBLY poor sales and even worse reviews.  While the second book in the trilogy, "Fortress Europa," was written, it was never published, and most likely never will be.

[url=http://www.baen.com]Baen Books[/url] published the first and had the rights to the second.  If you want more information, you might contact them (the owner is quite receptive to email.)

Much of the "Battle of Kursk" is told from the Allied, in this case Russian point of view. This was one of the most planned battles for the Russians. They packed the area with artillery, anti-tank, and infantry. Anything less than a clear victory would have been DEATH for the Russian commanders.

According to some sources German losses weren't that out of line for an offesnive. They were used to fighting outnumbered, and often facing Russians that had superior T-34 tanks with their MK-III's, and MK-IV's.

So how do we get those numbers?? Could it be that the Russian commanders downplayed their losses and inflated German losses, to keep "Uncle Joe" happy?

If the losses were as bad as the Russians claim I don't think the Germans would have even had enough tanks/Jpz's for defense after the battle.

I'm not sure which is which. I think the whole story is about attrition, and production. Germany passed it's high-water mark.........

This perspective is taken from both Russian and Germa reports and combined into one persons view, which is always just that, one persons view.

But you are correct, the Russians knew the exact minute the attack was going to take place. Probably no battle has ever been prepared for more by any side more than this one. The Russian PAK fronts were devistating, especially on the German Panzer Grendiers.  The Mone fields were especially rough as well.  Germany commited most of their best infantry units to this battle.  They just flat out "got the stuffing knocked out of them in the first few days". They lost a lot of tanks, but the infantry losses were too high.  Especially in the best infantry units.

Also remember that the new Panther and Elephant tanks were commited to this battle. Most Panthers were lost before even reaching the assembly points.  Most were repaired over and over, but more were lost to engine fires than Russian fire.  The Elephants were unstopable in the advance, but their lack of infantry protection for the crew cost them big in the Russian counter attack.

German losses were out of line for an attack, BUT most were able to be put back into the line, so both arguements will work, just as long as you don't finnish the entire story.

It is always likely that the Russians inflated German losses and down played their losses.  That is how war is fought.

Germany would go on to increase production until the end of the war, but could never keep up after this. They did loses air superiority on the Eastern front after this battle, but the Germans to this day still claim that this was not a problem.  

Have to go, will finnish this later.

After this battle, the Germans no longer had a pool of reserves to pull from, the decreasing quality of their troops, the Allied landings in Sicily a few days later, and the famed "Russain steamroller" picked up speed.

The Germans were able to recover from Stalingrad, they couldn't do it twice.

Japan:
     Prior to the battle of Midway, the Japanese had a larger and stronger Navy than the US.

Prior to 1941: the Japanese Zero was better than anything that the US had in its inventory.

Military Weaknesses:
The Japanese unlike the US did NOT make good use of its submarines.
They built too few of them, and deployed them the wrong way.

Japan used the Arisaka rifle as its main infantry weapon. There is no reason to beleive why they couldn't have simply stolen a M1 Garand and copied it in their cartridge: 6.5 Japanese.

Japan's biggest weakness was its industrial capacity and lack of raw materials.

Germany:
       prior to WWII, the Germans were about 10-15 years ahead of the US in terms of military technology as well as scientific expertise.

They built better fighters. Their Submarines though very small and had shorter range were able to dive deeper (in excess of 600 feet).

They had the most sophisticated encryption machine (Enigma).

They invented Assault Rifles (the Stg 44), Jet Fighters, Jet Bombers, Missles (The V1 Buzz bomb forerunner to todays cruise missle, the V2 Rocket).

They had superb military commanders.

They had world class physicists: Heisenberg, Pauli, Enstein, (the Italians had Enrico Fermi). If the Germans and the Italians did not engage in waging genocide and persecuting Jews..they would have kept a lot of their scientists and mathematicans.

The biggest strength that the US had was NOT its industrial capacity (which was its second biggest strength) but its ability to BREAK ENEMY CODES. This ability allowed our forces to sink U Boats and ambush German and Japanese forces before they were able to carry out their attacks on us.

Could Germany have won Europe? Yes.

Japan switched from 6.5mm Arisaka to 7.7mm Arisak part way through the war.  Their machine guns sucked except for one.
At the end of the war they did copy an M-1 in 7.7 Arisaka.  I think they made 7 of them.  Hard to do it when your navy is part of a coral reef and you have nothing to build it with. Yhe firebombing couldn't have helped either.

The Americans broke the Jap. code, but the British cracked the Enigma code. Acctually the Poles stole a machine and took it to England. Enigma was cracked in 1939.

German U-boats were better than the American and used better, but the allies had more capability to deal with the threat. German U-boats sailed to Baton Rouge and Japan, their range was never an issue.

The Germans may have had most of the best weapons and leaders (except about 6 or 7 at the very top) but they lacked man power and the industrial base. That, and their fresh manpower Americas main contribution.

Your numbers of lost tanks pretty much match mine at around 300 tanks.  So the question becomes, was it loosing the battle or the increased Russian production that ended the German offense on the Eastern front at Kursk?

In my opinion, it was 3 things.
1) Increased Russian production
2) The loss of ALL German armored reserves to drawl upon.
3) The HEAVY loss of well trained experienced German infanry.  You just can't loose that many veterin soldiers and continue to fight overwhelming numbers of enemy; advanced weapons design or not.

My example, put all the Iraqi soldiers in American eqipment with the same level of training and leadership during the Gulf War. Now give the Americans the Iraqi weapons but with the same American training standards and leaders.  Losses would have been higher, but it still would have had the same outcome.