# The Battle of the Atlantic



## Brian G Turner (Jul 12, 2018)

Lindybeige posted a video about the Battle of the Atlantic - which although at nearly an hour in length, remains educational and entertaining throughout:






Aside from having watched _Das Boot_, I find this especially interesting as the first WWII biography I read was about U-boat captain Wolgang Luth - one of the most decorated serving soldiers under the Nazis.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 23, 2018)

And here's the second video he did on the Battle of the Atlantic - and, OMG, those marvelous 18-year old WRENs who figured out U-Boat tactics.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jul 23, 2018)

Have you ever read _The Cruel Sea_ by Nicholas Monserrat? It's a really good novel about a submarine hunter - pretty grueling and frank for its time. The film's good, too, although comparatively sanitised. I also once read a memoir called _U-Boat Killer_, which did what it said on the cover.


----------



## Tirellan (Jul 24, 2018)

My father was a merchant seaman during WWII and had a lot of books on sea operations. 
The story of Capt FJ Walker is a good read on the Battle of the Atlantic  https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0905778898/?tag=brite-21
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/085052315X/?tag=brite-21


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 20, 2018)

The Germans had a very tiny surface fleet compared to the Royal Navy which, at that time the best and most powerful navy in the world. The  Boat did slot dammam but in end what killed them was development in Sonar, new tactics to combat them.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 20, 2018)

The British had the largest surface fleet (their policy a the time was to have a fleet larger than the next two navies combined) but it was far from the best. Most of their battleships were antiquated or not particularly good. The Rodney (a design result of the Washington treaty) leaked like a seive, for example. 

The Washington treaty, which limited the tonnage and  number of ships  that could be built had a particularly bad effect on the RN (who had to get rid of some ships) but actually was beneficial to navies that were busy rebuilding because in the end their ships were much more up to date than much of the British Fleet. Even it's best known ship The Hood, was built in 1916, whereas the Bismark and Tirpitz took advantage of the latest build techniques. 

Pocket Battleships like the Graf Spee pushed the treaty limitations to the most extreme and effective way of inerperting the intentions. Even newer British ships like King George V (built after the Washington treaty was abandoned) was no match on its own to the likes of Bismark. Britain had to rely on sheer force of numbers to gain victories. Even in the later parts of the war like the Battle Of North Cape (the last ever big gun duel between Britain and Germany), it took the Duke Of York with the cruisers Norfolk, Sheffield, Belfast and Jamaica (along with a number of destroyers) to defeat the Scharnhorst and five destroyers.

Churchill said that the Battle of the Atlantic was the only theatre of war that filled him with fear. It could have been much worse if the Versailles and Washington treaties hadn't delayed rebuilding of the kreigsmarine. Just imagine if Britain had to face ten Bismark class ships as well as the wolfpacks...


----------



## The Ace (Aug 20, 2018)

Hitler did lay down an ambitious programme for a surface fleet to take part in a projected war beginning in 1942-43, but despite this over-ambitious (or insane) plan to build a complete fleet in less than five years, not even he contemplated ten Bismarck-class battleships (his projected total of four was hopelessly over-optimistic, and the two he got was a near-miracle).

The loss of 10 destroyers at Narvik was catastrophic for the Kriegsmarine, whose surface elements never really recovered, and the sole mission of the Bismarck - as a commerce-raider - was an expensive and dangerous folly.

What got me about the Battle of the Atlantic was the use of the, "Flower," - class corvettes.  Tiny ships with an open bridge and laughable armament, which actually made a difference in what turned out to be the longest battle of WW2.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 20, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> The British had the largest surface fleet (their policy a the time was to have a fleet larger than the next two navies combined) but it was far from the best. Most of their battleships were antiquated or not particularly good. The Rodney (a design result of the Washington treaty) leaked like a seive, for example.
> 
> The Washington treaty, which limited the tonnage and  number of ships  that could be built had a particularly bad effect on the RN (who had to get rid of some ships) but actually was beneficial to navies that were busy rebuilding because in the end their ships were much more up to date than much of the British Fleet. Even it's best known ship The Hood, was built in 1916, whereas the Bismark and Tirpitz took advantage of the latest build techniques.
> 
> ...



If Hiter had been able to implement his navel building program the way he wanted. The results would have been dire for the Royal and US Navy.


----------



## The Ace (Aug 20, 2018)

BAYLOR said:


> If Hiter had been able to implement his navel building program the way he wanted. The results would have been dire for the Royal and US Navy.



True, but the project was so resource-intensive, expensive and impractical that its implementation would've been near impossible - even without the outbreak of war in 1939


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 20, 2018)

The Ace said:


> True, but the project was so resource-intensive, expensive and impractical that its implementation would've been near impossible - even without the outbreak of war in 1939



Germany had very limited resources  to work with of which the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe tended to get the most of even that wasn't enough for them. .  Combine that with the fact hat by  the Nazi economy  was on the verge of economic   collapse because the bills for rearmament were past due.  Everybody talks about how mechanized the German army was,  not really . They were still using horses and a fail amount of their tanks and weapons came from the takeover of Czechoslovakia.  Getting hold of that countries financial resources and  industries  like the Skoda factory made ups for some the short fall.


----------



## Tirellan (Aug 20, 2018)

Also significant that Hitler lost faith in his surface fleet, and concentrated on submarines


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 20, 2018)

Tirellan said:


> Also significant that Hitler lost faith in his surface fleet, and concentrated on submarines



Had the Germans  been able to produce and deploy the type 21 Uboat in large numbers , that could have presented a problem to both the Royal and the US Navies and merchant shipping.  . But again lack of resources came into play .


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Sep 30, 2018)

It's interesting how the tech and tactics changed as the war went on.
I highly recommend "Aircraft Versus Submarine" by Dr Alfred Price.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Apr 3, 2019)

Early on in the war the u-boats had it all their way, it was so, so easy for them, like shooting fish in a barrel, but it was a very different story by the end.
Thanks to cracking the four rotor enigma (thank you Bletchley Park) , hunter killer groups, escort carriers, use of airfields on Iceland, better sonar and tactics, long range aircraft such as the Liberator and Sunderland, rocket carrying Mosquitos, airborne radar, acoustic torpedoes, Liegh light, huf-duf, hedgehog, and last but by no means least Western Approaches WATU ( thank you WREN J. Laidlaw), if you don't know what I mean look up the film by Lindybiege on YouTube about war gamers!!!)), with all this lot the poor b*****s never stood a chance!
Which is why four out of five German submarines never went home, that's an 80% mortality rate, which must be the highest in the war for any military or naval branch!
P.S. I wish someone had shot the american Admiral King early on in the war, it would have saved a hell of a lot of ships and lives!!!


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 9, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> Early on in the war the u-boats had it all their way, it was so, so easy for them, like shooting fish in a barrel, but it was a very different story by the end.
> Thanks to cracking the four rotor enigma (thank you Bletchley Park) , hunter killer groups, escort carriers, use of airfields on Iceland, better sonar and tactics, long range aircraft such as the Liberator and Sunderland, rocket carrying Mosquitos, airborne radar, acoustic torpedoes, Liegh light, huf-duf, hedgehog, and last but by no means least Western Approaches WATU ( thank you WREN J. Laidlaw), if you don't know what I mean look up the film by Lindybiege on YouTube about war gamers!!!)), with all this lot the poor b*****s never stood a chance!
> Which is why four out of five German submarines never went home, that's an 80% mortality rate, which must be the highest in the war for any military or naval branch!
> P.S. I wish someone had shot the american Admiral King early on in the war, it would have saved a hell of a lot of ships and lives!!!



The U-boat  Captains  referred to early period as the Happy Times .


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Apr 9, 2021)

There were two happy times, at the start of the war 1939/40 then 1942 when America enters the war.
Sinking ships just off its coast was so easy at first, plus the Americans blundered badly by putting Admiral King in charge of convoys, he was supposed to cooperate with the British but had a pathological hatred for them!
But as I said before once the allies got their act together plus scientific and tactical advances which include, Hedgehog, better Sonar, HufDuf, Leigh light, B24 Liberator  bomber and Short Sunderland flying boat of Costal Command, acoustic torpedo, use of Icelandic airfields, escort carriers and U-boat hunter/killer groups, breaking the four wheel enigma cypha, Western Approaches and W.A.T.U. and their extraordinary young WRNS!
I could go on and on but the end result was four out of five German submarines never went home, the U-boat service had the highest mortality rate of any unit in the war!I
P.S. I may come off as a bit obsessed with this but this battle was absolutely vital, if we had lost it then we would have lost the war.
Also people do not realize how vital the Arctic Convoys were to the Russian war effort, there is an argument that without the massive supplies from America and Britain they might not have defeated the Germans.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 9, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> There were two happy times, at the start of the war 1939/40 then 1942 when America enters the war.
> Sinking ships just off its coast was so easy at first, plus the Americans blundered badly by putting Admiral King in charge of convoys, he was supposed to cooperate with the British but had a pathological hatred for them!
> But as I said before once the allies got their act together plus scientific and tactical advances which include, Hedgehog, better Sonar, HufDuf, Leigh light, B24 Liberator  bomber and Short Sunderland flying boat of Costal Command, acoustic torpedo, use of Icelandic airfields, escort carriers and U-boat hunter/killer groups, breaking the four wheel enigma cypha, Western Approaches and W.A.T.U. and their extraordinary young WRNS!
> I could go on and on but the end result was four out of five German submarines never went home, the U-boat service had the highest mortality rate of any unit in the war!I
> ...



I think it was also pivotal on the strategic direction of the war for the Western allies. 

My understanding was that General Marshall as chief of staff, with many other in the US military, wanted to push an invasion of France in 1943 rather than have an "adventure in the Mediterrean", which seemed peripheral to the US. (Why not just land in France and go straight to BerlIn?) 

However we Brits we a bit worried about the Atlantic supply line and the fact that even by the end of 1942 it was still not clear who was on top regarding the battle of the Atlantic, so instead pushed an invasion of North Africa and then the invasion of Italy, which would be less of an impact on the Germans but was feasible with the riskier supply situation. 

Logistics were everything in WW2 (just ask the Japanese) and when the U-boat situation was contained by late 1943, it was then much easier for the US and the UK to devastate the Luftwaffe, gain air superiority, so that we could invade France with the most optimum and well supplied armies possible for success. (It was still a slog and a grind to get out of Normandy, but that, with the destruction of Army Group Centre by the Russians in Bagration, meant that there was no way back for the Nazis after this point.) 

A minor point about not invading France in 1943 that few people bring up. In Jan 1943 the sixth army surrendered, leading to the loss of something like 300,000 men to the Germans. Yes, El Alamein, which occured at roughly the same time, was a _much _smaller battle, but at the conclusion of the North African campaign, when the Germans were cornered in Tunisia, they lost approximately the same number of men.


----------



## .matthew. (Apr 9, 2021)

It's really quite harrowing to think how close the whole war was, right up until the end. Mostly we have Hitler's rapidly escalating drug addiction, pathological need to micromanage, and surrounding himself with sycophants to thank for it not tipping the other way.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 9, 2021)

.matthew. said:


> It's really quite harrowing to think how close the whole war was, right up until the end. Mostly we have Hitler's rapidly escalating drug addiction, pathological need to micromanage, and surrounding himself with sycophants to thank for it not tipping the other way.



I disagree. I don't think the war was so finely balanced. At least by December 1941. By that point Germany and the axis was definitely going to be defeated. It was just a question of how long and therefore how much suffering the world would take. 

Pre-Barbarossa and post the fall of France, there just remained the UK against the Nazis, and although I think the British Empire at the time was not as weak as it is generally protrayed in some sources, the US, via Roosevelt, was essentially supporting the Britain. Also, the USSR had signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, but eventually I think Stalin knew there was going to be war.

But Hitler unleashed the perfect storm. He invaded Russia surprising Stalin, _definitely _underestimating their ability and reserves, then he declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour, _definitely _underestimating their industrial capabilties with no real reason to do so. 

After that it was a fricken' hard slog but the Allies were going to win, no matter what.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 9, 2021)

Venusian Broon said:


> I disagree. I don't think the war was so finely balanced. At least by December 1941. By that point Germany and the axis was definitely going to be defeated. It was just a question of how long and therefore how much suffering the world would take.
> 
> Pre-Barbarossa and post the fall of France, there just remained the UK against the Nazis, and although I think the British Empire at the time was not as weak as it is generally protrayed in some sources, the US, via Roosevelt, was essentially supporting the Britain. Also, the USSR had signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, but eventually I think Stalin knew there was going to be war.
> 
> ...



All three of the Axis  powers lacked the essential crucial resources for a sustained conflict,  in particular , oil and metal and, their combined industrial bases couldn't come close to  the Industrial and Manufacturing capability  of the United States. They were doomed to defeat.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Apr 10, 2021)

I think Churchill said that he got his first good night's sleep during the war after America entered!
P.S. I had an uncle who took part in the Arctic Convoys but he never liked to talk about them, his ship was the destroyer HMS Venomous, someone who wrote a book about it called it a hard fought ship, very, very true.
Apart from the Arctic Convoys it took part in the Dunkirk evacuation and Operation Pedestal in the Mediterranean escorting a very vital convoy from Gibraltar to hard pressed Malta.
One of the ship's taking part was the SS Ohio, an American tanker filled with aviation fuel, vital for keeping Malta's air defences flying, the bravery of its crew was truly outstanding as the Germans and Italians did everything they could to sink it.
They really should make a film about this, but knowing modern day Hollywood they'd only muck it up!


----------



## mosaix (Apr 10, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> Also people do not realize how vital the Arctic Convoys were to the Russian war effort, there is an argument that without the massive supplies from America and Britain they might not have defeated the Germans.



A question about the arctic convoys. I understand that shipping could deliver war equipment in bulk to the Russians but there was a terrible loss of ships, men and materials. Was there no supply of materials from the U.S. to Russia via Alaska, the Bearing Straights and then overland by rail to the Eastern front? Volumes would have been less but there would have been a practically 100% success of delivery.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Apr 10, 2021)

Good question, never heard of this, I suppose it could have been done, the Japanese in the Aleutian Islands weren't much of a threat, but don't forget it's a hell of a long way from Vladivostok to the front but then again there is the Trans Siberian railway as you said, on the other hand going the other way you first have to brave the Atlantic before the Arctic Circle!
P.S. I don't know how true what I wrote is or not about the convoys being vital to Russia winning, am only going by what some experts said on a TV documentary.
P.S. HMS Venomous also took part in the liberation of Norway!


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 10, 2021)

The Japanese did not attack US shipping going to the USSR because they wanted to keep the USSR as at least neutral. 

And yes the US did ship a lot via that route:






The British and US also used the land route via Iran as a major supply line.

Why they shipped so much via Murmansk? 

Well, I suppose the main production centres for the British were in the UK and was also where a great deal of shipping was. Sailing it across two oceans, either Pacific or South Atlantic/Indian could have been done, but would have taken much longer and Murmansk was about the closest Russian point to land. 

There was also political value in the convoys as they were demonstrating that the allies were steadfastly helping their USSR buddy. 

Perhaps also it gave the Royal navy a chance to 'take the fight' to the Germans and maybe they had strategic reasons for operating this route, as this would take German air and sea resources away from other fronts and arenas

?


----------



## .matthew. (Apr 10, 2021)

True, by the very end it was a certainty, though Germany could have made it vastly more difficult. They had stockpiled over 12,000 tons of the newly developed Sarin that could have been used against the superior numbers on the Eastern Front. Perhaps the only reason for them not deploying it was Hitler's own experiences in WW1 giving him uncharacteristic humanity. It could also be argued they feared retaliation but as they were doomed to defeat, there was really nothing to lose - plus the Allies didn't even think nerve agents were real until they found them, despite a captured German scientist telling them all about it.

Either way, it was largely the Nazi High Command, led by Hitler, that repeatedly blundered the conflict by escalating the scope of the war and making otherwise terrible strategic decisions. With a more competent leadership in place - ones with experience or those who weren't too scared to give accurate reports - the war could have been drawn out for substantially more time, much like what would have occurred in the Pacific if not for the development of the atomic bomb.

And, much like the bomb, a single leap in technology could have flipped everything on its head. The Germans were playing around with jet propulsion along with what amounted to early cruise missiles, and while this was all in its infancy, a single breakthrough could have allowed for a reversal of fortune.

Combine that with Sarin for instance and the largely ineffective Blitz could have sent millions of British civilians to an agonising death and much as the A-bomb forced the surrender of Japan, could have brought the war to a halt or at least crippled the Allies severely enough to hold the line.


----------



## Danny McG (Apr 10, 2021)

The Ace said:


> What got me about the Battle of the Atlantic was the use of the, "Flower," - class corvettes. Tiny ships with an open bridge and laughable armament


Wasn't there a HMS Pansy?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 10, 2021)

.matthew. said:


> True, by the very end it was a certainty, though Germany could have made it vastly more difficult. They had stockpiled over 12,000 tons of the newly developed Sarin that could have been used against the superior numbers on the Eastern Front. Perhaps the only reason for them not deploying it was Hitler's own experiences in WW1 giving him uncharacteristic humanity. It could also be argued they feared retaliation but as they were doomed to defeat, there was really nothing to lose - plus the Allies didn't even think nerve agents were real until they found them, despite a captured German scientist telling them all about it.
> 
> Either way, it was largely the Nazi High Command, led by Hitler, that repeatedly blundered the conflict by escalating the scope of the war and making otherwise terrible strategic decisions. With a more competent leadership in place - ones with experience or those who weren't too scared to give accurate reports - the war could have been drawn out for substantially more time, much like what would have occurred in the Pacific if not for the development of the atomic bomb.
> 
> ...




I think there were too many people in WWII who had experience of he use of chemical warfare in WWII; of it's relative ineffectiveness after the original shock, of the fact that it's use could just as easily harm the perpetrators as the intended victims, and of the inevitable retaliation on a similar or even worse scale. Not only this, but the sight of what damage it did to those affected by it.

Although much more difficult to deliver it by flying bomb, it could conceivably have been delivered by sells from long-range cannon far behind enemy lines to wreak devastation, but thankfully none of the sides used it. although the carpet bombing of towns and cities, incendiaries creating firestorms and ultimately the atomic bomb were hardly more humane.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 10, 2021)

.matthew. said:


> True, by the very end it was a certainty, though Germany could have made it vastly more difficult. They had stockpiled over 12,000 tons of the newly developed Sarin that could have been used against the superior numbers on the Eastern Front. Perhaps the only reason for them not deploying it was Hitler's own experiences in WW1 giving him uncharacteristic humanity. It could also be argued they feared retaliation but as they were doomed to defeat, there was really nothing to lose - plus the Allies didn't even think nerve agents were real until they found them, despite a captured German scientist telling them all about it.
> 
> Either way, it was largely the Nazi High Command, led by Hitler, that repeatedly blundered the conflict by escalating the scope of the war and making otherwise terrible strategic decisions. With a more competent leadership in place - ones with experience or those who weren't too scared to give accurate reports - the war could have been drawn out for substantially more time, much like what would have occurred in the Pacific if not for the development of the atomic bomb.
> 
> ...



By 1939 the German economy was on the verge of collapse. The mefo  off the book bonds used  to pay fo for  German rearmament    were coming  due with no way to pay it all back and,  they desperately needed oil and other resources to keep things going .   Germany had two stark choices , go to war or collapse.  Every country they took  , the first thing they did was  loot that countries gold reserves to stave off  the collapse . The only the could keep things going was the had to keep on conquering.


----------



## The Ace (Apr 10, 2021)

Danny McG said:


> Wasn't there a HMS Pansy?


She was renamed _Heartsease _(K15_) _before launch.  She rescued quite a few survivors during her career as a convoy escort, before colliding with a (friendly) destroyer, repaired, and flogged to the US.

The flower-class, while cramped and uncomfortable, provided sterling service, sinking or driving off U-Boats, fishing people out of the water, escorting damaged ships, and often just being there.  I was casting doubt about their classification as warships, not the courage of the men who operated them in terrible conditions, and played no small part in the Allied victory.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 11, 2021)

When it comes to bravery in little ships, it’s also worth remembering the role of the Shetland Bus - special operations groups and supplies ferried from Scotland to Norway in fishing boats.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Apr 11, 2021)

Corvettes were truly awful ships to serve in, based off whaling boats they had very poor sea handling.
Someone said that they could roll on wet grass, much better were the frigates that came after.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 11, 2021)

I think the worst maritime jobs in WWII were probably the merchant navy; journeying from one side of the Atlantic to the other with no defences and in fear of sinking without warning any time of the day or night. And many of the seamen had signed up in peacetime, so had no expectations or choice in being conscripted into the battle of the Atlantic.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 12, 2021)

One of my uncles served in the Merchant Navy during the war. He survived two ships sunk by U Boats. It took a terrible toll on him. I found all this out as child when my dad explained to me why his brother was always drunk.


----------



## Tirellan (Apr 13, 2021)

My father was Merchant Navy. Sunk in the Med in November 1943, fished out by a US destroyer after 12 hrs.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Apr 14, 2021)

Merchant seamen had a hell of a hard job and never got the recognition they deserved.
Plus the shipping companies had the fun practice of once a sailor got onto a lifeboat from his sinking ship he was no longer employed and therefore not paid while waiting to be rescued, its a wonder they weren't charged board and lodging while they were in the boat.
The same thing happened to sailors who survived the Titanic, they were stranded penniless and out of work in just the clothes they were wearing in New York, White Star didn't give a damn about them, so a department store gave the sailors their profits from one days sales!
The only recognition our merchant sailors got was from the Russians, who awarded a medal after the war to all who sailed in the Arctic convoys.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 14, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> erchant seamen had a hell of a hard job and never got the recognition they deserved.
> Plus the shipping companies had the fun practice of once a sailor got onto a lifeboat from his sinking ship he was no longer employed and therefore not paid while waiting to be rescued, its a wonder they weren't charged board and lodging while they were in the boat.
> The same thing happened to sailors who survived the Titanic, they were stranded penniless and out of work in just the clothes they were wearing in New York, White Star didn't give a damn about them, so a department store gave the sailors their profits from one days sales!


I didn't know this. That's the kind of behaviour nazis would have been proud of.


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 14, 2021)

A few years after the war [maybe as late as 1950] my father worked on a Cunard Ship for one return trip across the Atlantic and apart from hating every minute of life onboard, he was also charged for his food and bunk space.


----------



## Ambrose (Apr 14, 2021)

My father was master of a MN ship.  Apparently they had to fall out of convoy with engine trouble near the end of a trip to the UK in February 1941.  My mother thought they were torpedoed, but a cousin of my wife found that the ship was bombed some way west of Scotland.
The ship, with the names of the senior crew, is in the Merchant Navy Memorial on Tower Hill.  My mother and I were present at its openin, and I have visited it since.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jul 8, 2021)

I came across a story on You-Tube, the New Zealand pilot of I think a Short Sunderland flying boat pressed home his attack against a U-Boat in the Atlantic.
Even though his plane was already badly damaged on his first pass by the subs numerous anti-aircraft guns, this was during the phase in the war where subs would stay on the surface and fight it out with aircraft rather then doing a crash dive.
He succeeded in sinking the sub but his plane by then was too badly damaged to keep on flying so it crashed and sank with all on board, a few of the subs crew survived in a life raft and were eventually picked up by the Royal Navy.
Because of their eyewitness accounts of the attack the pilot was posthumously awarded a VC.
The only VC awarded based solely on the accounts made by the enemy!


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 8, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> he only VC awarded based solely on the accounts made by the enemy!


This is off topic but I think worth mentioning.
During the raid on St Nazaire (the largest commando raid of WW2). There’s a tale regarding posthumous VC recipient Able Seaman William Savage. He manned a pom-pom gun on one of the motor boats used in the raid. He returned fire on the German shore defences until he was killed (receiving over 30 wounds before succumbing to his injuries). The story goes that a German officer watched this action and turned to a captured commando standing next to him and said: ‘this man deserves your Victoria Cross’. Although not due to an enemy account, Savage got his medal. 

It’s very humbling remembering that these warriors were men in their early twenties.


----------



## JohnM (Jul 8, 2021)

I'm seeing an unbalanced view. Life magazine published a section sponsored by the Convair aircraft company during the war. Regarding the end of the war in Europe, it stated that we won "By the skin of our teeth." And the war in the Pacific was still on. Much still remains classified.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jul 8, 2021)

There were a lot of things in play that were governed by chance. The Russian winter took a big toll on the German army. If the weather had been mild, which can happen, it might have had a considerably different outcome. The allies were able to intercept and decode axis communications on a regular basis, that certainly helped. Not all the decisions the allies made were good decisions. I think it was the geographical isolation of the US that was it's strongest card. The assembly lines were never under threat and the US was prepared to end the war with nuclear bombs if it could not be done by conventional means. The Manhattan Project was not designed to build a few bombs, it was an assembly line to build 15 atom bombs.


----------



## JohnM (Jul 9, 2021)

In March 1945, there was no American atomic bomb. The supervisor of the project, James F. Byrnes, sent a letter to President Roosevelt. It stated, in part: 

"I understand that the expenditures for the Manhattan project are approaching 2 billion dollars with no definite assurance yet of production.

"We have succeeded to date in obtaining the cooperation of Congressional Committees in secret hearings. Perhaps we can continue to do so while the war lasts.

"However, if the project proves a failure, it will then be subjected to relentless investigation and criticisn [sic]."

Source: FDR Library, Hyde Park, New York


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jul 9, 2021)

The first test bomb was detonated in July 1945. So indeed, there was no bomb in March 1945, but once they had a working model, there was no looking back. 1 month later the bombs were dropped on Japan. Most of the money spent on the project during the duration of the war was used to produce bomb grade material, they all knew a runaway reaction would release a lot of energy. The first nuclear reactor which proved the bomb would work was built in 1942 under a university stadium with a minimal amount of shielding. The problem was building the trigger, not the theory or procuring the fuel. In conditions where they were never under threat of attack and with all the money and all the people working on the project it was only a matter of time before they succeeded. Any time the Germans built anything like jets, drones, or missiles, that could change the outcome of the war, the allies blew it up. The Germans had to go to great lengths to build underground factories that were never completely immune from being blown up. Cut off from oil early in the war, the Germans got their petroleum products from synthetic fuel plants. It wasn't until early 1945 after a lot of bombing raids that the synthetic fuel plant output was cut to a fraction of what it was during the bulk of the war. While science can't do everything, if given enough time, it does seem capable of moving mountains.


----------



## JohnM (Jul 9, 2021)

Robert Zwilling said:


> The first test bomb was detonated in July 1945. So indeed, there was no bomb in March 1945, but once they had a working model, there was no looking back. 1 month later the bombs were dropped on Japan. Most of the money spent on the project during the duration of the war was used to produce bomb grade material, they all knew a runaway reaction would release a lot of energy. The first nuclear reactor which proved the bomb would work was built in 1942 under a university stadium with a minimal amount of shielding. The problem was building the trigger, not the theory or procuring the fuel. In conditions where they were never under threat of attack and with all the money and all the people working on the project it was only a matter of time before they succeeded. Any time the Germans built anything like jets, drones, or missiles, that could change the outcome of the war, the allies blew it up. The Germans had to go to great lengths to build underground factories that were never completely immune from being blown up. Cut off from oil early in the war, the Germans got their petroleum products from synthetic fuel plants. It wasn't until early 1945 after a lot of bombing raids that the synthetic fuel plant output was cut to a fraction of what it was during the bulk of the war. While science can't do everything, if given enough time, it does seem capable of moving mountains.




This is highly incomplete. Shortly before the end of the war, the United States was already planning for the next one. German underground installations were bomb-proof. The U.S. had a great interest in duplicating these. The world's first jet fighter was produced in greater quantity than usually thought. The world's first jet bomber began with two engines and was later fielded with four. It could outrun any aircraft the Allies had. The German Jagdtiger was able to destroy an Allied tank at 4,000 meters. In a privately published book, an American G.I. recounts his encounters with these. The factory producing them had been bombed and listed as destroyed. This was not the case. A newspaper account published during the war quotes an American bomber crew encountering 'flak rockets' along with the usual antiaircraft artillery. This was not their first encounter.

Most people do not know the full extent of German synthetic oil and synthetic lubricant production during the war.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 10, 2021)

The Germans had a couple of opportunities to win WW2. The first was to eliminate Britain from the war, by either winning the Battle of the Atlantic , thereby cutting them off from food and supplies, or to win the Battle of Britain, which would then lead to Sealion. With Britain out of the war, the US would find it virtually impossible to perform a land invasion of Europe or to carry out air attacks on Germany. 

The alternative was a swift victory over Russia, and then they could reinforce Italy, North Africa and France to prevent an attack from those directions.

By early 1943, with the defeat at Stalingrad, and with the loss of enormous amounts of men and machinery, and with the breaking of the wolfpacks and the amount of men and munitions moving from overseas to Britain the writing was on the wall for Germany.  The manufacturing power of the US and Russia, churning out tanks and planes in their thousands meant that regardless of the quality of German armaments, they couldn't be supplied in in enough numbers to make a difference. I think it was Stalin who said that quantity has a quality all of it's own; this was certainly true in WW2.

If the Germans had managed to create an atom bomb and a method of delivery, that would have changed the course of the war. But other than that, I think that from mid 1943 onwards, it was simply a case of when and not if, and also a question of how Europe would look after WW2 finished.


----------



## JohnM (Jul 12, 2021)

The planning for the end of World War II was going on at various conferences at Cairo and Tehran. There was also the little reported presence of Chiang Kai-shek and his wife. The U.S. had been supplying aircraft to the Nationalist Chinese for a long time.


----------



## Tirellan (Jul 18, 2021)

JohnM said:


> This is highly incomplete. Shortly before the end of the war, the United States was already planning for the next one. German underground installations were bomb-proof. The U.S. had a great interest in duplicating these. The world's first jet fighter was produced in greater quantity than usually thought. The world's first jet bomber began with two engines and was later fielded with four.* It could outrun any aircraft the Allies had.* The German Jagdtiger was able to destroy an Allied tank at 4,000 meters. In a privately published book, an American G.I. recounts his encounters with these. The factory producing them had been bombed and listed as destroyed. This was not the case. A newspaper account published during the war quotes an American bomber crew encountering 'flak rockets' along with the usual antiaircraft artillery. This was not their first encounter.
> 
> Most people do not know the full extent of German synthetic oil and synthetic lubricant production during the war.


The Gloster Meteor F3 was faster, though it is not recorded that they ever met in combat.


----------



## JohnM (Jul 18, 2021)

The Meteor was held back. Why?


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 18, 2021)

JohnM said:


> The Meteor was held back. Why?



It had some stability problems  in the air .


Tirellan said:


> The Gloster Meteor F3 was faster, though it is not recorded that they ever met in combat.



In the unlikely event that the war with Germany went past 1945. you might  have the Meteor going up against the ME 262.


----------



## JohnM (Jul 19, 2021)

Well, since that did not happen... The Me 262 was fielded in greater number than most know. Meanwhile, a handful of P-80s (technically, YP-80A's), were deployed to Europe in 1945.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 19, 2021)

JohnM said:


> Well, since that did not happen... The Me 262 was fielded in greater number than most know. Meanwhile, a handful of P-80s (technically, YP-80A's), were deployed to Europe in 1945.



I think that in battle of Jets, The Meteor would have come out on top. Technical issues aside , it was better overall plane then the 262 .


----------



## JohnM (Jul 19, 2021)

No, it wasn't.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 19, 2021)

JohnM said:


> No, it wasn't.



Actually , you're correct , im not.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jul 19, 2021)

I think the only combat the Meteor saw in WW2 was shooting down V1 flying bombs.
The P80 was the Lockheed Shooting Star, nice looking plane, America's first jet fighter.
Sadly after surviving the war in the Pacific flying a P38 Lockheed Lightning, air ace Richard Bong, credited with 40 kills died test flying a P80, it crashed in North Hollywood when it's fuel pump failed on takeoff.
If anyone sees the old classic SF film "This Island Earth", available on You Tube, the jet plane the hero flys at the beginning is a P80!
P.S. I read somewhere that the engines of a Me 262 had to be changed after only twenty-five hours use, it might have had the better airframe but the Meteor's Rolls-Royce engines were definitely superior.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 19, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> I think the only combat the Meteor saw in WW2 was shooting down V1 flying bombs.
> The P80 was the Lockheed Shooting Star, nice looking plane, America's first jet fighter.
> Sadly after surviving the war in the Pacific flying a P38 Lockheed Lightning, air ace Richard Bong, credited with 40 kills died test flying a P80, it crashed in North Hollywood when it's fuel pump failed on takeoff.
> If anyone sees the old classic SF film "This Island Earth", available on You Tube, the jet plane the hero flys at the beginning is a P80!
> P.S. I read somewhere that the engines of a Me 262 had to be changed after only twenty-five hours use, it might have had the better airframe but the Meteor's Rolls-Royce engines were definitely superior.



ME 262 Umo engines turbine blades didn't  hold up and would melt because it could stand up to the heat generated by the engines.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 19, 2021)

Quite a usual problem for Germany in WW2; great equipment,  but which often couldn't stand up to the rigours of combat and/or was intricate or costly enough that it could only be made in small numbers.

If it was a choice of a squadron of Spitfires vs a pair of Me 262 , I know who I would be backing. I understand that with the German jet fighter the tactic was usually to shoot it down when it was taking off or landing; which is again down to numbers and air superiority.

I think a problem for the Germans was also how the Me 262 was to be used ; as a bomber, a fighter or an interceptor. Are you attacking your enemies ground forces, or defending your own skies against attack? With some many opponents in the air, such a large front to fight over and so few aircraft, they were never enough. In te end it appears that the Luftwaffe shared this view and choice to make more 'inferior' but more numerous and reliable aircraft.

Also, it isn't just the specifications of an aircraft but how well it handled and how many hours of training it took to make a competent pilot. Just how many hours practice did German pilots get  in these aircraft before being sent into combat?


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 20, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> If it was a choice of a squadron of Spitfires vs a pair of Me 262


Something in a similar vein








						Sea Fury vs MiG-15 - the true story - Royal Aeronautical Society
					

Paul Beaver FRAeS sheds new light on a classic air combat encounter from the Korean War in 1952 - where Royal Navy Sea Fury piston-engine fighters, shot down a North Korean MiG-15 jet. But was the correct pilot credited for the kill?




					www.aerosociety.com


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jul 20, 2021)

The late German tanks, Panther, Tiger, Tiger 2 aka Kingtiger, all great tanks, all heavily armoured, all armed with great tank killing guns, the last two with the very fearsome 88mm and all over engineered, breaking down every five minutes, and very hard to fix especially on the battlefield!
Russian T34, easy and cheap to make (compared to a Tiger), easy to fix, very hard to kill and built in very, very large numbers and later on fitted with an even bigger gun!
The Germans had a tendency to overdo, over engineer things, to over design,  plus near the end of the war resources were hard to come by and all their big factories were being bombed to hell and back by the RAF and the USAAF!
P.S. One of the Tuskegee Airmen flying a North American P51C Mustang (not the better P51D) is also credited with taking down a Me262.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 20, 2021)

There was a series on TV a few years back about restoring WW2 tanks. One episode was on the Panther. It had a fabulous suspension system but it was also fabulously complicated and, therefore, difficult to manufacture.


----------



## JohnM (Jul 20, 2021)

Speculation without sources? I expected better. The Jumo engines on the Me 262 were good for a maximum of 22 hours before replacement. But more engines were made than airframes. Since certain high-temperature metals were in short supply, substitutes had to be used and a new method of forging turbine blades developed. A Tuskegee Airmen shot down an Me 262 and that's it? A year after the war, the USAAF published a study outlining the great threat and effectiveness of the Me 262. People should look up the shell it fired.

German efficiency and innovation won the day. I say won in the sense of as opposed to doing nothing they did something with what they had. Again, under almost constant bombardment. I decry the obvious bias here which is based on very surface information. Any in-depth study would prove the isolated claims here as isolated. Without context, balanced, factual information is replaced by flag waving. Again, I expected better.

The later German tanks were built under difficult conditions and factories faced constant bombardment, so some production was moved underground. Russian tank factories were located far behind the lines and were sometimes bombed. I have seen a spectacular photo of one such factory where the boiler was destroyed. Imagine molten steel cooling inside the factory/foundry. Do not forget that the Russians were being supplied American produced tanks and aircraft. Yes, the T-34 was a fine tank but it was quantity that won, not just quality. I have also seen many unpublished period photos of Russian tanks that were captured by the Germans and used against their former owners. Again, balanced reporting as opposed to flag waving.

Toward the end of the war, the German Panther was fitted with an infrared spotlight and scope, making fighting Russian tanks in total darkness possible. But don't believe me. At least one museum has a Panther with such fitment among its collection.


----------



## HareBrain (Jul 20, 2021)

JohnM said:


> I expected better.


Given your near-constant refrain that we don't know what we're talking about, I find this difficult to believe.


----------



## JohnM (Jul 20, 2021)

HareBrain said:


> Given your near-constant refrain that we're all ignorant morons, I find this difficult to believe.




"we're all ignorant morons..." Where did I write that? Since we are on the "information super-highway," why am I seeing so much speculation? So many one-sided comments?

Don't take anything I write personally. Anyone can rebut anything I write with facts. No one can know everything but I do write about what I do know. A real, civil discussion is possible. Counter-arguments are possible and welcome. Not emotion-based, 'you rubbed me the wrong way' comments.

In a perfect world, or discussion forum, does everyone expect to hear only what they want to hear? Is civil rebuttal too hard? Too much work?


----------



## Pyan (Jul 20, 2021)

Calm down, people. _Reasoned discussion_ are the watchwords. 
If anyone feels personally attacked, best thing to do is report it, using the button at the bottom of every post, not reply in the thread.


----------



## The Ace (Jul 20, 2021)

JohnM said:


> Speculation without sources? I expected better. The Jumo engines on the Me 262 were good for a maximum of 22 hours before replacement. But more engines were made than airframes. Since certain high-temperature metals were in short supply, substitutes had to be used and a new method of forging turbine blades developed. A Tuskegee Airmen shot down an Me 262 and that's it? A year after the war, the USAAF published a study outlining the great threat and effectiveness of the Me 262. People should look up the shell it fired.
> 
> German efficiency and innovation won the day. I say won in the sense of as opposed to doing nothing they did something with what they had. Again, under almost constant bombardment. I decry the obvious bias here which is based on very surface information. Any in-depth study would prove the isolated claims here as isolated. Without context, balanced, factual information is replaced by flag waving. Again, I expected better.
> 
> ...


Not this again !  

The Me 262  was a far better aircraft than the Gloster Meteor - which it vastly outnumbered in any case.  A single squadron of Meteors was deployed to Belgium in early '45, but there was little for them to do by that time, and people were nervous about *someone *getting hold of one.

While a stunning aircraft, you're right about some of the 262s flaws, the Jumo engines, the nosegear, which had a tendency to collapse, and the Mk103 cannon, which had a short range, and jammed at the most inopportune moments.  While it's true that it was a one-shot killer against fighters, and three hits could bring down a bomber, the Me 262 was far from invulnerable.  In addition to the P-47 Thunderbolt, P-51 Mustang, and Hawker Tempest (all with multiple Me 262 kills, 16 in the case of the Tempest), a 262 pilot lost his life when he got too close to a pair of Avro Lancasters - the crossfire from their tail turrets literally tore his aircraft to shreds.

Adolf Galland - who flew the Me 262 in Germany, and the Gloster Meteor in Egypt post-war - said that the best fighter of WW2 would've  been the 262 with the Meteor's  engines.

As to the Panther, like the King Tiger it was underpowered, over-engineered, and the factories and personnel needed to produce enough of them were never available - you can couple that with a critical fuel shortage as well.

Your infra-red system is real enough (as was the Vampyr IR sight for the StG 44), but you'd be lucky if a couple of dozen were even made - far less found their way into the hands of troops who could use them.

Two P-80 Shooting Stars (powered by a licence-built British engine) toured the European Theatre, and two more went to the Pacific, but there was no way the thing could be produced in useful numbers before the war ended.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 20, 2021)

The thing with many of the German weapons is that they were ahead of their time. But partly the reason for that is that they were put into manufacture too early. Having said that , at some stage you have to take the plans off the drawing board and make them into a reality, as otherwise the war is lost before you can use them. And there's always the race to get_ your _new weapons out there before your enemy gets the chance to unleash theirs.

And it is almost impossible to cater for all eventualities. Much of the German weaponry would have been designed months/years in advance of it's deployment. Likely it wasn't envisioned that the damage/cold and other extremities would have to be endured by it. And if they had been made in sufficient quantity, and with back-ups like air and artillery, their deficiencies probably wouldn't have been so noticeable.

It's curious to note that with all the devastation wrought on German cities and industry, they were producing vast amounts more ordnance in 1944  than they had been in any year prior to that. In 1943 Goebbels had been calling for a 'total war', but it was only a year later that Hitler moved the country on to a total war footing; another major mistake. If he'd done it a year or two earlier, who knows how things might have turned out.

But I think the other thing we have to look at is Hitler himself, who declared that his 'wonder weapons' would change the course of the war. The developers of the latest tanks and jet aircraft must have been under immense pressure to deliver, and perhaps they rushed their 'wonder weapons' in to production too soon to appease their leader, when they could have been manufacturing greater quantities of older, more reliable armaments.


----------



## JohnM (Jul 20, 2021)

I didn't say anything about the nose gear on the Me 262. In a four volume set about the Me 262, an original document was translated. Regarding the nose gear: "Do not turn more that 5 degrees." I never wrote that the Me 262 was invulnerable. The jet pilots did what they could against the "terror bombers." While the airfields were bombed, Me 262s were hidden near the autobahn and took off and landed there. They were most vulnerable to attack as they decreased speed to land. To defend them, top cover was provided by Fw 190 D-9s.

Adolf Galland was quoted in the same book series about his first flight with the Me 262: "It felt like angels were pushing me." What is your source for your Galland quote?

Never use the word never if something was fielded. The Panther, Tiger and King Tiger along with the JagdPanther and JagdTiger. Overengineered is an assumption. What is it based on? As I wrote earlier, an American G.I. published a book that highlighted his encounters with the JagdTiger. Fuel was rationed, yes. But these tanks appeared on the battlefield.

Regarding the infrared system used on the Panther, it was also used on German lightly armored vehicles with mounted machine-guns, as well as the rifle version. Photos exist, but photos from that late in the war end up in specialist publications instead of widely marketed books.


----------



## JohnM (Jul 20, 2021)

Here is an example of the type of specialist publication I refer to. No links will be provided since I do not want to spam the site.

Blitz Bombers by Creek and Forsyth.

"This is the first time that the story of the Arado Ar 234 as the world’s first dedicated jet-bomber has been told in such detail in the English language.

"In late December 1944 the Luftwaffe surprised the Allies when it unexpectedly introduced a new, high-speed bomber to its inventory. Though deployed in small numbers, the Arado Ar 234 B-2 jet-bomber proved itself an effective day and night strike aircraft over the Western Front and a tough challenge for Allied fighter pilots who tried to counter it.

"Powered by the same Jumo 004 turbojets as the Me 262, the Ar 234 could attack pinpoint targets such as transport hubs or enemy vehicle columns and troop assemblies in ‘glide attacks’ with a high degree of impunity. The jets were flown by experienced and often highly decorated Luftwaffe bomber pilots who worked hard to master the new aircraft in a short time and amidst the chaotic conditions of a Third Reich in decline.
‘Blitz Bombers’ tells the story of KG 76’s operations when equipped with what was the world’s first jet bomber, the Arado Ar 234 B-2. The book is founded on original unit diaries, reports and other records, as well as various German and Allied material drawn from archives and private collections gathered over many years. It traces KG 76’s period working up on the aircraft and its subsequent combat operations over the Western Front from December 1944 through to the end of the war.

"The Geschwader’s jets took part in operations over the Ardennes, in the ill-fated Bodenplatte attack of New Year’s Day 1945, in missions against the Allied armies driving into the Reich in early 1945, and in a series of intensive strikes against the Ludendorff bridge at Remagen and the bridgehead established there by the Allies in March 1945.

"Following many years research, the book includes nearly 300 illustrations, comprised of rare photographs of KG 76’s aircraft, personnel and equipment, as well as the Allied aircraft and pilots who encountered the Arados in combat, plus key documents taken from the unit’s records. These are supplemented by specially commissioned and highly detailed colour artwork depicting the unit’s aircraft."


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 21, 2021)

Foxbat said:


> There was a series on TV a few years back about restoring WW2 tanks. One episode was on the Panther. It had a fabulous suspension system but it was also fabulously complicated and, therefore, difficult to manufacture.



Difficult to service on the battlefield.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 21, 2021)

JohnM said:


> "we're all ignorant morons..." Where did I write that? Since we are on the "information super-highway," why am I seeing so much speculation? So many one-sided comments?
> 
> Don't take anything I write personally. Anyone can rebut anything I write with facts. No one can know everything but I do write about what I do know. A real, civil discussion is possible. Counter-arguments are possible and welcome. Not emotion-based, 'you rubbed me the wrong way' comments.
> 
> In a perfect world, or discussion forum, does everyone expect to hear only what they want to hear? Is civil rebuttal too hard? Too much work?



John , no worries ,  we don't take any of it personal. It very obvious  that  know a great about subject of German weapons systems of WW II>


----------



## The Ace (Jul 21, 2021)

My Galland quote was from, "The First and the Last."

You only have to look at them - let alone watch excellent Youtube videos from, "The Chieftain," or Bovington tank museum to see what a maintenance nightmare these vehicles were - thus, over engineered.

The 200 series Maybach engine which powered these vehicles was a good engine which had reached its design limits, but there was no replacement (be very glad the Germans were never able to develop an equivalent to the Rolls-Royce Meteor), so the same engine had to shoulder the burden of ever bigger and heavier.

When they worked, late-war German tanks and assault guns were terrifying and effective, but there were never enough of them.  Breakdowns were frequent, and recovery and repair ranged from difficult to impossible, due to a lack of spares, and that's before many were simply scuttled or abandoned by their crews after running out of fuel.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 22, 2021)

The Ace said:


> My Galland quote was from, "The First and the Last."
> 
> You only have to look at them - let alone watch excellent Youtube videos from, "The Chieftain," or Bovington tank museum to see what a maintenance nightmare these vehicles were - thus, over engineered.
> 
> ...



The German tanks kept getting heavier and slower with the added armor .  The Panther weighed  44 tones   The Tiger I  54 tons  and the King tiger topped out at 68 tons .


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 22, 2021)

The Maus was ridiculously heavy








						Panzer VIII Maus
					

Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus (Mouse) was a German World War II super-heavy tank completed in late 1944. It is the heaviest fully enclosed armoured fighting vehicle ever built. Only two hulls and one turret were completed before the testing grounds were captured by the advancing Soviet forces. An...




					military.wikia.org


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 22, 2021)

Foxbat said:


> The Maus was ridiculously heavy
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  And really scary part is they had  even bigger tanks on the drawing  board with multiple turrets.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jul 22, 2021)

The Russians had one with one large main turret with the big gun, then four mini-turrets, one in each of the four corners, two with a smaller gun and two with machine guns, one of each at the front and the opposite at the back, by this I mean that the small guns and Mgs were diagonally opposite each other.
Pretty sure it didn't go to war but they did build one or two prototypes!
The British had one with same layout, got a photo of it in my tank encyclopedia, but only one was built and during the war was used as an army camp gate guard!
The trouble with the Panther and Tigers, they were both so heavy few bridges could support their weight, when this was the case they had to be fitted with snorkels to allow the engine to breath during river crossings.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 24, 2021)

I'm not sure how much of an advantage multiple turrets would be. You only have limited shells which would be quickly depleted , and surrounded by friendlies, you are more likely to end up firing on your own side if you have three or four gunners firing in all directions. It would be incredibly difficult for a tank commander to co-ordinate such an attack..


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jul 24, 2021)

If you think the commander of such a tank would be as busy as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest, watch Lindybeige's You Tube film where he compared the one man turrets of the French tanks to the normal turret layout of three men.
Most tanks of the time had three man turrets, gunner, loader (who might double as radio operator  depending on the tank, some times this was the hull machine gunners job) and commander, the poor French crew man had to do all three jobs at once.
Pop out of turret to acquire target, pop back in and load gun, aim gun and fire, unload (not forgetting to put on leather gauntlets as the empty shell case is hot) then reload gun, pop back out to require target, the view from the guns aiming viewfinder at this time was pretty limited, re-aim gun ect, all the while telling his driver where to go and now and then communicating with other tanks of his platoon, if he is the leader (no radios in French tanks) by popping half out of his turret again and waving flags at them, a near impossible job to do all of this made even harder as the hatch was at the back of the turret and not the top!


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 1, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> If you think the commander of such a tank would be as busy as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest, watch Lindybeige's You Tube film where he compared the one man turrets of the French tanks to the normal turret layout of three men.
> Most tanks of the time had three man turrets, gunner, loader (who might double as radio operator  depending on the tank, some times this was the hull machine gunners job) and commander, the poor French crew man had to do all three jobs at once.
> Pop out of turret to acquire target, pop back in and load gun, aim gun and fire, unload (not forgetting to put on leather gauntlets as the empty shell case is hot) then reload gun, pop back out to require target, the view from the guns aiming viewfinder at this time was pretty limited, re-aim gun ect, all the while telling his driver where to go and now and then communicating with other tanks of his platoon, if he is the leader (no radios in French tanks) by popping half out of his turret again and waving flags at them, a near impossible job to do all of this made even harder as the hatch was at the back of the turret and not the top!



The French and British tanks had were good enough that they hold  their own  against German tanks  of that time  if , they were utilized in the correct strategic manner . Had the allies tanks  been  equipped with radios , that alone might have made  a  huge difference against Germans . France and Britain  would have been able to  able to coordinate their armor far better  and , that  alone might have been enough  to not only blunt the German Blitzkrieg but, changed the whole course of World War II  in the allies favor, far earlier.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 1, 2021)

I think one of the biggest problems with early British tanks of WW2 was that they tended to be undergunned and unreliable. The Matilda being a perfect example. One of the best armoured of its time but slow (6 mph) and with a feeble 40mm gun. 

I don’t think radios would have made a great deal of difference because the lack of coordination lay within military doctrine rather than in practical useage. The Germans had perfected mass armour formations and breakouts whilst the British and French still saw the tank as primarily an infantry support weapon that could be used individually and therefore did not require the speed or manoeuvrability of their German counterparts.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Aug 1, 2021)

On land , I think that the British were a little behind the times, as (being a maritime nation) they tended to reply mainly on their navy, but were also developing their air force. As an island, the use of ground fortifications and heavily armoured combat vehicles simply wasn't needed. What they were good at though, due to almost a 1000 years of uninterrupted war, was the ability to quickly react to new challenges. 

The Germans had a definite advantage early on in the war, but I think this came more from superior tactics than vastly superior equipment (although no doubt the Panzers were much more suited to the task than Allied tanks). Much of the German army was still using the horse as it's main method of transportation.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 1, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> On land , I think that the British were a little behind the times, as (being a maritime nation) they tended to reply mainly on their navy, but were also developing their air force. As an island, the use of ground fortifications and heavily armoured combat vehicles simply wasn't needed. What they were good at though, due to almost a 1000 years of uninterrupted war, was the ability to quickly react to new challenges.
> 
> The Germans had a definite advantage early on in the war, but I think this came more from superior tactics than vastly superior equipment (although no doubt the Panzers were much more suited to the task than Allied tanks). Much of the German army was still using the horse as it's main method of transportation.



Initially,  Blitzkrieg warfare itself  was a  shock for everyone.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Aug 1, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Initially,  Blitzkrieg warfare itself  was shock for everyone.




Which I think is why it was so successful and why the tactics of Germany at  that time were far superior to the Allies, who expected another slow attritional campaign such as in WW1.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 1, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Which I think is why it was so successful and why the tactics of Germany at  that time were far superior to the Allies, who expected another slow attritional campaign such as in WW1.



That kind thinking was the main reason why France lost the war, The Maginot Line from a mistral  standpoint was bad idea and impractical in the face of Blitzkrieg. The French military would have better off  investing in new weapons systems and tactics  but leadership of the French military  was in hands  of generals who couldn't see past their own war experiences  in WWI. Britain a similar problem in that regard but, some their generals could see past WW I and see that the next War would be quite different from last war.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 1, 2021)

Interestingly (at least I think so) Heinz Guderian - generally accepted to be one of the fathers of Blitzkreig - had British General Percy Hobart’s articles on his ideas on tank warfare translated into German and utilised those ideas in developing Blitzkreig. Meanwhile General Archibald Wavell dismissed Hobart in 1940 because of his unconventional ideas on armoured warfare.

Churchill eventually had Hobart brought back into service and went on to a successful command of the 79th Armoured Division, and was also instrumental in developing many of the specialised armoured vehicles used in Normandy.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 2, 2021)

Okay at Dunkirk. Hitler held back his Panzer and troops  enabling the British to evacuate the  BEF and remnants of the French Army, Other remnant od the French Amy stayed behind and  fought a further  delaying action to buy them more time to escape .  What if Hitler had instead  decided press home his advantage  and send in the Panzers and troop and finish off the British expeditionary force?  How would  loss of the all those men have effected the outcome of the war?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Aug 2, 2021)

Churchill said that the forces at Dunkirk were 'the whole root and core and brain of the British Army'. Lose that, and you not only lose any notion of defending your islands in the case of a successful invasion, you also lose the ability to attack the enemy. 

Would the successful campaign in North Africa against the Afrika Korps been possible? Doubtful. And if Hitler secures North Africa, does he split his forces in Russia to capture the Southern oilfields?

And it would lead to an interesting situation in Britain. The loss of the core of the army, and the loss of morale would lead for pressure for Churchill to seek peace terms from Hitler. This happened even with the successful evacuation of Dunkirk; how much greater would it have been with the defeat of the BEF? Now there was no way that Churchill was ever going to do this, but he was only the leader and could have been replaced. In such an eventuality would Churchill have organised a coup and left England with an - albeit temporary -   military dictatorship?

But Churchill's main objective was to get the US into the war before the fall of Britain. This was more likely to happen if the US could see some kind of fightback, some military successes from the British - none of this would have been possible with the loss of those men at Dunkirk  

It's easy to say with hindsight that it was a poor choice for the Germans not to finish the attack. But the main objectives of the Germans at this time - the capture of France, Belgium and the Netherlands - were virtually completed. Britain was always going to come later due to the English Channel. The German attack had worked so well, but to some extent too well, and the lines and their supplies were not ideal. What the Germans didn't want was for a breakout by the Allied forces around Dunkirk. As soon as they - and other French forces around the country - realised that their situation wasn't anywhere as dire as what it appeared to be - the Germans could find themselves on the back foot, or at least have a much greater fight on their hands. So soften the forces up with constant attacks from the Luftwaffe, beef up the cordon surrounding them, bring up reinforcements and resupplies, and then force their surrender. If a few thousand made it back across the English Channel then that was of little consequence. But the most important thing was to prevent any form of counter-attack to stiffen the French resistance and resolve.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 2, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Churchill said that the forces at Dunkirk were 'the whole root and core and brain of the British Army'. Lose that, and you not only lose any notion of defending your islands in the case of a successful invasion, you also lose the ability to attack the enemy.
> 
> Would the successful campaign in North Africa against the Afrika Korps been possible? Doubtful. And if Hitler secures North Africa, does he split his forces in Russia to capture the Southern oilfields?
> 
> ...



Lord Halifax would have  likely taken over negotiated a peace with Germany .  For Churchill, it would have at the very least, end his political career . North Africa would have fallen to Nazi Germany and I suspect they'd  eventually  reach  Irag and Iran and that would given  them nearly unlimited oil  and it would have put them right next to Russia's oil fields.   An absolute nightmare scenario 

In the US the Isolationists sentiment would have prevailed and FDR would've been unable do anything .


----------



## paranoid marvin (Aug 3, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Lord Halifax would have  likely taken over negotiated a peace with Germany .  For Churchill, it would have at the very least, end his political career . North Africa would have fallen to Nazi Germany and I suspect they'd  eventually  reach  Irag and Iran and that would given  them nearly unlimited oil  and it would have put them right next to Russia's oil fields.   An absolute nightmare scenario
> 
> In the US the Isolationists sentiment would have prevailed and FDR would've been unable do anything .




Churchill would have had two choices if he was forced to resign: attempt a military dictatorship and continue the war, or go to Canada with the Royal family and take the bulk of the RAF and Royal Navy with him. 

With Britain out of the war, the US would have focused solely on Japan.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 3, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Churchill would have had two choices if he was forced to resign: attempt a military dictatorship and continue the war, or go to Canada with the Royal family and take the bulk of the RAF and Royal Navy with him.
> 
> With Britain out of the war, the US would have focused solely on Japan.





The first  scenario is  the least likely , I can't see Churchill  going the Dictatorship route given his opposition  to Fascism.  If he goes the second route,  Canada gains the world latest  and most powerful navy and an  even bigger and more powerful Air force  and instantly becomes a major world power.  Unfortunately, in  that scenario,  the Royal Navy doesn't  get the chance to take out  Frances  fleet at Mers el Kebir and,  Germany secures it  and they gain a significant surface fleet . Combine this with Italy's navy and , the possibility that  Germany might also  take steps to secure Gibraltar,  Germany owns the Mediterranean  lock, stock and barrel.  They would likely  build more  surface ships and U-boats to be used in the Atlantis  theater .  The US  responds by fortifying  Greenland  and, with the Royal Navy's  help, Iceland is  secured , denying it to Axis as a base.   I think that the combined  US Atlantis Fleet and Royal Navy would be more than enough to blunt the Axis in the Atlantic in for the time being . The US still wouldn't be able to focus solely on Japan.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Aug 4, 2021)

A very interesting scenario where Churchill moves England's military might to Canada. I think a good deal of the population would also have gone along to Canada. The u-boat threat was real, but in the end, it was sheer production numbers that filled the Atlantic shipping routes and supplied the North Atlantic fleet with a spectacularly effective anti submarine naval and air force.  That probably would have seen Canada, England, and the US merge into 1 super power. With all the resources at hand there was nothing that couldn't have been built. With the Pacific and Atlantic oceans as buffers, they would remain relatively secure. Mexico might have been dragged in as well, to keep the Panama Canal secure.

The Russians kept the pressure up so that Germany was never able to focus everything on one location. The US sent Russia 400, 000 trucks and jeeps. Plus tanks, airplanes, blankets, boots, all kinds of supplies. The Japanese enjoyed great success militarily, capturing a tremendous amount of territory, but they also could not focus all their attention in one place because of the immense areas involved and long supply lines. This allowed the Allies to pick and choose where they struck back in the Pacific front.  

The invasion of North Africa would probably have been different if England was not available as a staging point. Africa probably would have worked as a staging point if England had fallen. It just would have taken longer. Not everything the US supplied for the North African invasion was shipped directly from the US to North Africa. 60,000 of the roughly 110,000 American troops came directly from the US. The other 50,000 came from American troops and equipment already in England.  The UK forces, over 100,000, were already fighting the Italians and Germans in North Africa. 

Even though the axis powers (Germany, Italy and Vichy) had numerical superiority in ships and planes in the Mediterranean, in the end, it was only what the Germans operated that actually counted. With no naval control in the Mediterranean, the Germans had to reinforce their forces by flying them in from Italy. This decreased their ability to adequately keep the German forces supplied. This was another battle zone where sheer numbers eventually outweighed quality. North Africa was a testing ground for future invasions. After the landings American forces failed to understand that holding the high ground first afforded great potential for not getting wiped out, allowing the Germans to beat the Americans by continually taking the high ground first. When the Americans got to Italy, they were well versed in mechanized warfare, but the Germans still had the upper hand in taking the best land positions even though they were constantly retreating.



paranoid marvin said:


> The developers of the latest tanks and jet aircraft must have been under immense pressure to deliver,


Unlike before the war, during the war, the Germans did not work together, but in small groups, and they were not sharing information with each other. This was due to personal survival strategy. It resulted in a very large number of inventions all going from the drawing board to the battlefield in parallel efforts, most of which worked. Failure was not an option. Once a program got going, it grew large very fast.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 8, 2021)

History doesn't follow a script . A wrong turn here , a bad bit of luck there combined with   a decision made or not made at a crucial time . There are quite a number of things that could caused history to go down a different and darker path.


----------



## The Ace (Aug 8, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> The Russians had one with one large main turret with the big gun, then four mini-turrets, one in each of the four corners, two with a smaller gun and two with machine guns, one of each at the front and the opposite at the back, by this I mean that the small guns and Mgs were diagonally opposite each other.
> Pretty sure it didn't go to war but they did build one or two prototypes!
> The British had one with same layout, got a photo of it in my tank encyclopedia, but only one was built and during the war was used as an army camp gate guard!
> The trouble with the Panther and Tigers, they were both so heavy few bridges could support their weight, when this was the case they had to be fitted with snorkels to allow the engine to breath during river crossings.


  The T-35 main 76.2mm 2x 37, or 45mm AT guns and 5x 7.62 mgs distributed over 5 turrets.  Looked _very _impressive on Mayday parades.  Around 30 were built but fire control was a nightmare, and the only service they saw was when a handful were thrown into the defence of Moscow (One was actually captured by the Germans, and used as a static defence in Berlin in 1945)

The Vickers A1 Independent never left the drawing-board, but the A11 cruiser (France 1940 and home defence until replaced by better models) had a 2-pounder (40mm) AT gun in the main turret and 2 forward mg turrets - armour was lousy, and performance mediocre.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2021)

The Ace said:


> The T-35 main 76.2mm 2x 37, or 45mm AT guns and 5x 7.62 mgs distributed over 5 turrets.  Looked _very _impressive on Mayday parades.  Around 30 were built but fire control was a nightmare, and the only service they saw was when a handful were thrown into the defence of Moscow (One was actually captured by the Germans, and used as a static defence in Berlin in 1945)
> 
> The Vickers A1 Independent never left the drawing-board, but the A11 cruiser (France 1940 and home defence until replaced by better models) had a 2-pounder (40mm) AT gun in the main turret and 2 forward mg turrets - armour was lousy, and performance mediocre.



Ive seen  picture of a Russian  Tank vehicle called the KV VI.  It looks like a plumbers nightmare.


----------



## The Ace (Aug 9, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Ive seen  picture of a Russian  Tank vehicle called the KV VI.  It looks like a plumbers nightmare.


The KV-VI was a fantasy model built in the '90s, using bits of various plastic kits.  It was an entry in a special competition, where contestants not only had to produce something outlandish, but to write a, "What if," history.

This kind of thing goes on all the time among more extreme modelmakers, and nobody bats an eyelid, but somebody stuck it on the internet to see what would happen, and you can guess the rest.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2021)

The Ace said:


> The KV-VI was a fantasy model built in the '90s, using bits of various plastic kits.  It was an entry in a special competition, where contestants not only had to produce something outlandish, but to write a, "What if," history.
> 
> This kind of thing goes on all the time among more extreme modelmakers, and nobody bats an eyelid, but somebody stuck it on the internet to see what would happen, and you can guess the rest.



It look like something out of the Warhammer 40 K Universe.


----------

