No V2 during WW2

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:26:43 -0800, ZZyXX

Post by ZZyXX
what if instead of investing so much capitol into the V1,V2 and V3, the
Germans made solid fuel rockets of 5 to 10 inches (just guessing) with a
warhead of aprroximately 100 pounds. They would be cheaper and easier to
make, more transportable, wouldn't require large support crews. In
theory they could be made in massive quantities and fired at their
target (London?) constantly. I imagine these rockets could be dropped
from bombers for extended range

Just wondering - are you talking about long range rockets or something
smaller like the Katyusha?

I'm not convinced a 100 lb warhead would be enough to cause damage
even equivalent to WW1's Big Bertha while being too big to be an
effective anti-armor weapon.

Or are you thinking of something like an air to ground missile?
Certainly that (with the proper targetting electronics) could do
serious damage particularly if it were available in September 1940.

Scott M. Kozel

2018-02-23 12:06:59 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:26:43 -0800, ZZyXX

Just wondering - are you talking about long range rockets or something
smaller like the Katyusha?
I'm not convinced a 100 lb warhead would be enough to cause damage
even equivalent to WW1's Big Bertha while being too big to be an
effective anti-armor weapon.
Or are you thinking of something like an air to ground missile?
Certainly that (with the proper targetting electronics) could do
serious damage particularly if it were available in September 1940.

Also what kind of range would these little rockets have?

The V-2 was large enough and with enough range that if it had
accurate targeting electronics, that it could have been a very
effective and destructive weapon. It was so fast that there was
no way to shoot it down.

The Horny Goat

2018-02-23 16:57:46 UTC

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:06:59 -0800 (PST), "Scott M. Kozel"

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by The Horny Goat
Or are you thinking of something like an air to ground missile?
Certainly that (with the proper targetting electronics) could do
serious damage particularly if it were available in September 1940.

Also what kind of range would these little rockets have?
The V-2 was large enough and with enough range that if it had
accurate targeting electronics, that it could have been a very
effective and destructive weapon. It was so fast that there was
no way to shoot it down.

Well part of the 'targetting' was British counter-measures. They
figured out how the V-2 was being navigated and jammed the homing
beams to divert them away from London and other densely populated
areas.

Scott M. Kozel

2018-02-24 02:47:36 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:06:59 -0800 (PST), "Scott M. Kozel"

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Also what kind of range would these little rockets have?
The V-2 was large enough and with enough range that if it had
accurate targeting electronics, that it could have been a very
effective and destructive weapon. It was so fast that there was
no way to shoot it down.

Inertial internal guidance system, non-jammable.
Another alternative history element.

Don P

2018-02-25 00:53:02 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:06:59 -0800 (PST), "Scott M. Kozel"

Post by Scott M. Kozel
The V-2 was large enough and with enough range that if it had
accurate targeting electronics, that it could have been a very
effective and destructive weapon. It was so fast that there was
no way to shoot it down.

No, neither V1 nor V2 used homing methods. Both were ballistic
(inertial.) The contribution of British intelligence was to mix time
and place records of missile explosions, so as to mislead the Germans
about the mean point of impact.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ontario, Canada)

Rich Rostrom

2018-02-25 08:21:07 UTC

Post by Don P

Post by The Horny Goat
Well part of the 'targetting' was British counter-measures. They
figured out how the V-2 was being navigated and jammed the homing
beams to divert them away from London and other densely populated
areas.

Which was possible because the Germans relied
on the double agent GARBO to provide them with
impact data. GARBO had previously provided most
of the on-the-ground disinformation for Operation
BODYGUARD, i.e. details about FUSAG in SE England.

This disinformation included details about real
units notionally assigned to FUSAG for the Calais
invasion; when these units turned up in Normandy,
the Germans concluded they had been transferred
due to the "unexpected success" of the Normandy
"diversion". They commended GARBO for his excellent
work, awarded him the Iron Cross, and asked him to
start reporting V-weapon impacts.

The British discovered that by feeding the Germans
cooked data, they could "walk" the average impact
point of V-weapons out of central London. They
succeeded brilliantly, saving several thousand lives.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

ZZyXX

2018-02-23 19:27:28 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:26:43 -0800, ZZyXX

Just wondering - are you talking about long range rockets or something
smaller like the Katyusha?

Long Range

Post by The Horny Goat
I'm not convinced a 100 lb warhead would be enough to cause damage
even equivalent to WW1's Big Bertha while being too big to be an
effective anti-armor weapon.

Firing these rockets around the clock "might" cause considerable damage,
but most certainly would be quite disruptive

pyotr filipivich

2018-02-23 16:13:55 UTC

If the 3rd Reich had not gone with the Cult of Bigger Is Better,
V2s would be one of many things they didn't expend resources on.
OTOH, solid fuel rockets were a different direction than von
Braun's efforts.

I'm not sure that 7.5 inch (+/- 2.5 inch) rockets would have the
range to hit London. But then, I'm not a rocket scientist.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

Dean

2018-02-23 16:22:25 UTC

If the 3rd Reich had not gone with the Cult of Bigger Is Better,
V2s would be one of many things they didn't expend resources on.
OTOH, solid fuel rockets were a different direction than von
Braun's efforts.
I'm not sure that 7.5 inch (+/- 2.5 inch) rockets would have the
range to hit London. But then, I'm not a rocket scientist.
tschus
pyotr

The V-2 was the size it was because it took that much fuel to loft that big warhead to London. And it used liquid fuels because solid fuels at the time just were not developed to the point where they had enough power.

The Germans would have been better off dedicating those resources to jet fighters and their first antiaircraft missiles. They still would have lost the war but might have been able to stretch it into late 1045 or early 1946.

The Horny Goat

2018-02-23 16:59:39 UTC

Post by Dean
The V-2 was the size it was because it took that much fuel to loft that big warhead to London. And it used liquid fuels because solid fuels at the time just were not developed to the point where they had enough power.
The Germans would have been better off dedicating those resources to jet fighters and their first antiaircraft missiles. They still would have lost the war but might have been able to stretch it into late 1045 or early 1946.

If they "stretch out" the war past August 1945 then in all probability
the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far less better known in North
America.

And the K-Damm might still be glowing in the dark.

Dean

2018-02-23 18:22:56 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat

If they "stretch out" the war past August 1945 then in all probability
the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far less better known in North
America.
And the K-Damm might still be glowing in the dark.

That's almost a certainty that Berlin, Potsdam or another city would have taken the weapons used in Japan. WW2 was always defeat Germany first.

ZZyXX

2018-02-23 19:31:51 UTC

Post by Dean

Post by ZZyXX
what if instead of investing so much capitol into the V1,V2 and
V3, the Germans made solid fuel rockets of 5 to 10 inches (just
guessing) with a warhead of aprroximately 100 pounds. They would
be cheaper and easier to make, more transportable, wouldn't
require large support crews. In theory they could be made in
massive quantities and fired at their target (London?)
constantly. I imagine these rockets could be dropped from bombers
for extended range

If the 3rd Reich had not gone with the Cult of Bigger Is Better,
V2s would be one of many things they didn't expend resources on.
OTOH, solid fuel rockets were a different direction than von
Braun's efforts.
I'm not sure that 7.5 inch (+/- 2.5 inch) rockets would have the
range to hit London. But then, I'm not a rocket scientist.
tschus pyotr

the rocket I am proposing would be orders of magnitude smaller due to
the smaller payload which should make it possible to reach London.

I'm not sure where the size/cost benefits/production runs point to.

Post by Dean
The Germans would have been better off dedicating those resources to
jet fighters and their first antiaircraft missiles. They still would
have lost the war but might have been able to stretch it into late
1045 or early 1946.

The Old Man

2018-02-23 23:21:23 UTC

Post by ZZyXX

Post by Dean

Post by ZZyXX
what if instead of investing so much capitol into the V1,V2 and
V3, the Germans made solid fuel rockets of 5 to 10 inches (just
guessing) with a warhead of aprroximately 100 pounds. They would
be cheaper and easier to make, more transportable, wouldn't
require large support crews. In theory they could be made in
massive quantities and fired at their target (London?)
constantly. I imagine these rockets could be dropped from bombers
for extended range

If the 3rd Reich had not gone with the Cult of Bigger Is Better,
V2s would be one of many things they didn't expend resources on.
OTOH, solid fuel rockets were a different direction than von
Braun's efforts.
I'm not sure that 7.5 inch (+/- 2.5 inch) rockets would have the
range to hit London. But then, I'm not a rocket scientist.
tschus pyotr

the rocket I am proposing would be orders of magnitude smaller due to
the smaller payload which should make it possible to reach London.
I'm not sure where the size/cost benefits/production runs point to.

Check out the A-5 test rocket for one about the size that you are describing. I don't think that such a vehicle would have the legs to make it to England. They MIGHT have been better off with barrages of V-1s or V-1 types (other designs). Those designs go back to the late 1930s, with the Argus "Fernfeuer". These analogues could be air launched via stand-off He.111 bombers (or others, even transports).

Regards,
John Braungart

a425couple

2018-02-25 04:42:32 UTC

Post by Dean

If the 3rd Reich had not gone with the Cult of Bigger Is Better,
V2s would be one of many things they didn't expend resources on.
OTOH, solid fuel rockets were a different direction than von
Braun's efforts.
I'm not sure that 7.5 inch (+/- 2.5 inch) rockets would have the
range to hit London. But then, I'm not a rocket scientist.
tschus
pyotr

The Germans would have been better off dedicating those resources

to jet fighters and their first antiaircraft missiles.
They still would have lost the war ----

Yes. Interesting supporting read from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket

"Assessment
The German V-weapons (V-1 and V-2) cost the equivalent of around USD $40
billion (2015 dollars), which was 50 percent more than the Manhattan
Project that produced the atomic bomb.[12]:178 6,048 V-2s were built, at
a cost of approximately 100,000 Reichsmarks (GB£2,370,000 (2011)) each;
3,225 were launched. ---
The V-2 consumed a third of Germany's fuel alcohol production and major
portions of other critical technologies:[61] to distil the fuel alcohol
for one V-2 launch required 30 tonnes of potatoes at a time when food
was becoming scarce.[62] Due to a lack of explosives,

"… those of us who were seriously engaged in the war were very grateful
to Wernher von Braun. We knew that each V-2 cost as much to produce as a
high-performance fighter airplane. We knew that German forces on the
fighting fronts were in desperate need of airplanes, and that the V-2
rockets were doing us no military damage. From our point of view, the
V-2 program was almost as good as if Hitler had adopted a policy of
unilateral disarmament." (Freeman Dyson)[60]

SolomonW

2018-02-24 09:29:51 UTC

Post by ZZyXX
what if instead of investing so much capitol into the V1,V2 and V3, the
Germans made solid fuel rockets of 5 to 10 inches (just guessing) with a
warhead of aprroximately 100 pounds.

Although the V2 had been a questionable economic for NAZI Germany, the V1s
were possibly the most cost/effective weapon of ww2. The problem for the
Nazis where they came too late.

Instead of V2, probably a better weapon would be air to air missiles and
ground to air missiles. This would have had a major impact on the air war
over Germany in 1944.

Post by ZZyXX
They would be cheaper and easier to
make, more transportable, wouldn't require large support crews. In
theory they could be made in massive quantities and fired at their
target (London?) constantly. I imagine these rockets could be dropped
from bombers for extended range

V1s were frequently fired by planes. A better use is as air to air
missiles.

a425couple

2018-02-24 19:27:43 UTC

what if instead of investing so much capitol into the V1, ---

I do not have the full answer and details handy,
but I have clearly seen that Germany's use of
the V1 (because it caused public fear, and could
be defended against) was much less expensive
than the countermeasures that the UK had to
pay for to counter.

ZZyXX

2018-02-24 19:50:35 UTC

Post by a425couple

what if instead of investing so much capitol into the V1, ---

the only problem I have with ramping up V1 production is that while a
rocket is virtually indefensible, the V1 wasn't

a425couple

2018-02-25 04:27:19 UTC

Post by ZZyXX

Post by a425couple

what if instead of investing so much capitol into the V1, ---

the only problem I have with ramping up V1 production is that while a
rocket is virtually indefensible, the V1 wasn't

Exactly. And that is the point. The V1 COULD be
defended against. And so the UK HAD to do many
things to work on defending against it and countering
it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Countermeasures
A lot of manpower and equipment was tied up on
Royal Observer Corps
Anti-aircraft guns
Barrage balloons
Interceptors
-- The Tempest fleet was built up to over 100 aircraft by September.
-- Specially modified P-47M Thunderbolts
-- In addition, North American P-51 Mustangs and Griffon-engined
Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIVs were tuned to make them fast enough,
- Attacking a V-1 was dangerous

"Assessment
Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as
it forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25 per cent of Combined Bomber
Offensive's bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon
sites, often ineffectively.[13] In early December 1944, American General
Clayton Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1
when compared with conventional bombers.[44]

The following is a table he produced:
(You probably want to go to the site to properly read chart!)
Blitz (12 months) vs V-1 flying bombs (2¾ months)
Blitz V-1
1. Cost to Germany
Sorties 90,000 8,025
Weight of bombs tons 61,149 14,600
Fuel consumed tons 71,700 4,681
Aircraft lost 3,075 0
Personnel lost 7,690 0
2. Results
Structures damaged/destroyed 1,150,000 1,127,000
Casualties 92,566 22,892
Rate casualties/bombs tons 1.6 1.6
3. Allied air effort
Sorties 86,800 44,770
Aircraft lost 1,260 351
Personnel lost 2,233 805"

SolomonW

2018-02-25 07:10:07 UTC

Post by a425couple
Personnel lost 7,690 0

Actually many NAZI slaves died building those V1.

ZZyXX

2018-02-25 20:06:10 UTC

what if instead of investing so much capitol into the V1, ---

the only problem I have with ramping up V1 production is that while a
rocket is virtually indefensible, the V1 wasn't

Exactly. And that is the point. The V1 COULD be
defended against. And so the UK HAD to do many
things to work on defending against it and countering
it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Countermeasures
A lot of manpower and equipment was tied up on
Royal Observer Corps
Anti-aircraft guns
Barrage balloons
Interceptors
-- The Tempest fleet was built up to over 100 aircraft by September.
-- Specially modified P-47M Thunderbolts
-- In addition, North American P-51 Mustangs and Griffon-engined
Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIVs were tuned to make them fast enough,
- Attacking a V-1 was dangerous
"Assessment
Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as
it forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25 per cent of Combined Bomber
Offensive's bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon
sites, often ineffectively.[13] In early December 1944, American General
Clayton Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1
when compared with conventional bombers.[44]
(You probably want to go to the site to properly read chart!)
Blitz (12 months) vs V-1 flying bombs (2¾ months)
Blitz V-1
1. Cost to Germany
Sorties 90,000 8,025
Weight of bombs tons 61,149 14,600
Fuel consumed tons 71,700 4,681
Aircraft lost 3,075 0
Personnel lost 7,690 0
2. Results
Structures damaged/destroyed 1,150,000 1,127,000
Casualties 92,566 22,892
Rate casualties/bombs tons 1.6 1.6
3. Allied air effort
Sorties 86,800 44,770
Aircraft lost 1,260 351
Personnel lost 2,233 805"

seems to me that if the German rational was that it could tie up lots of
Allied resources the missles I proposed would do as much if not more
damage for far less cost and allow the Germans to use the resources for
other purposes

Dimensional Traveler

2018-02-26 01:09:06 UTC

Post by ZZyXX

Post by a425couple

what if instead of investing so much capitol into the V1, ---

the only problem I have with ramping up V1 production is that while a
rocket is virtually indefensible, the V1 wasn't

Exactly. And that is the point. The V1 COULD be
defended against. And so the UK HAD to do many
things to work on defending against it and countering
it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Countermeasures
A lot of manpower and equipment was tied up on
Royal Observer Corps
Anti-aircraft guns
Barrage balloons
Interceptors
-- The Tempest fleet was built up to over 100 aircraft by September.
-- Specially modified P-47M Thunderbolts
-- In addition, North American P-51 Mustangs and Griffon-engined
Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIVs were tuned to make them fast enough,
- Attacking a V-1 was dangerous
"Assessment
Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as
it forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25 per cent of Combined Bomber
Offensive's bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon
sites, often ineffectively.[13] In early December 1944, American General
Clayton Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1
when compared with conventional bombers.[44]
    (You probably want to go to the site to properly read chart!)
Blitz (12 months) vs V-1 flying bombs (2¾ months)
Blitz    V-1
1. Cost to Germany
Sorties    90,000    8,025
Weight of bombs tons    61,149    14,600
Fuel consumed tons    71,700    4,681
Aircraft lost    3,075    0
Personnel lost    7,690    0
2. Results
Structures damaged/destroyed    1,150,000    1,127,000
Casualties    92,566    22,892
Rate casualties/bombs tons    1.6    1.6
3. Allied air effort
Sorties    86,800    44,770
Aircraft lost    1,260    351
Personnel lost    2,233    805"

But would lack the propaganda value of saying you were hitting the
enemy's capital with a massive wonder weapon.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

Don P

2018-02-28 18:41:06 UTC

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by ZZyXX
seems to me that if the German rational was that it could tie up lots
of Allied resources the missles I proposed would do as much if not
more damage for far less cost and allow the Germans to use the
resources for other purposes

But would lack the propaganda value of saying you were hitting the
enemy's capital with a massive wonder weapon.

By July 1944 "propaganda" could not do anything practical for either
Allied belligerents or German belligerents or undecided neutrals. The
most notable effort of this type was the German offer to exchange Jewish
deportees for US trucks for use only against the USSR: and that
proposal collapsed fast.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ontario, Canada)

Rich Rostrom

2018-03-01 05:39:43 UTC

Post by Don P

Post by Dimensional Traveler
But would lack the propaganda value of saying you
were hitting the enemy's capital with a massive
wonder weapon.

By July 1944 "propaganda" could not do anything
practical for either Allied belligerents or German
belligerents or undecided neutrals.

Claims about the effects of V-weapons were useful to
sustain German morale in the face of Allied bombing.
"We're hitting them even harder" helps to offset the
damage.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

SolomonW

2018-02-26 13:11:57 UTC

what if instead of investing so much capitol into the V1, ---

the only problem I have with ramping up V1 production is that while a
rocket is virtually indefensible, the V1 wasn't

Exactly. And that is the point. The V1 COULD be
defended against. And so the UK HAD to do many
things to work on defending against it and countering
it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Countermeasures
A lot of manpower and equipment was tied up on
Royal Observer Corps
Anti-aircraft guns
Barrage balloons
Interceptors
-- The Tempest fleet was built up to over 100 aircraft by September.
-- Specially modified P-47M Thunderbolts
-- In addition, North American P-51 Mustangs and Griffon-engined
Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIVs were tuned to make them fast enough,
- Attacking a V-1 was dangerous
"Assessment
Unlike the V-2, the V-1 was a cost-effective weapon for the Germans as
it forced the Allies to spend heavily on defensive measures and divert
bombers from other targets. More than 25 per cent of Combined Bomber
Offensive's bombs in July and August 1944 were used against V-weapon
sites, often ineffectively.[13] In early December 1944, American General
Clayton Bissell wrote a paper that argued strongly in favour of the V-1
when compared with conventional bombers.[44]
(You probably want to go to the site to properly read chart!)
Blitz (12 months) vs V-1 flying bombs (2¾ months)
Blitz V-1
1. Cost to Germany
Sorties 90,000 8,025
Weight of bombs tons 61,149 14,600
Fuel consumed tons 71,700 4,681
Aircraft lost 3,075 0
Personnel lost 7,690 0
2. Results
Structures damaged/destroyed 1,150,000 1,127,000
Casualties 92,566 22,892
Rate casualties/bombs tons 1.6 1.6
3. Allied air effort
Sorties 86,800 44,770
Aircraft lost 1,260 351
Personnel lost 2,233 805"

What weapons system could on cost/benefit have done more for Germany then
V1s particularly in 1944?

pyotr filipivich

2018-02-26 16:33:06 UTC

Post by ZZyXX
seems to me that if the German rational was that it could tie up lots of
Allied resources the missles I proposed would do as much if not more
damage for far less cost and allow the Germans to use the resources for
other purposes

What weapons system could on cost/benefit have done more for Germany then
V1s particularly in 1944?

How about a Panzer version of the T-34?

I recently read Hansen's "The Second World Wars" - one of his
points is that often, the Wehrmacht went to into battle with a
hodgepodge of equipment, some of which had been captured on the battle
field, others from production lines still cranking out non-German
designs.
And to counter unexpected things, they attempted to make a Bigger
one. E.G., to counter the T34, rather than mount 88s on existing
chassis, they designed a tank killer which was less flexible, less
maneuverable, and worst of all - late to the battle field.

By 1944, there really wasn't a lot the 3rd Reich could have done
to stave off the end.

We're back too asking the question "If you woke up as Hitler in
the 1930s, what would you do differently?" assuming you still wanted
to expand Germany to the east.

--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

SolomonW

2018-02-27 10:30:08 UTC

Post by ZZyXX
seems to me that if the German rational was that it could tie up lots of
Allied resources the missles I proposed would do as much if not more
damage for far less cost and allow the Germans to use the resources for
other purposes

What weapons system could on cost/benefit have done more for Germany then
V1s particularly in 1944?

How about a Panzer version of the T-34?
I recently read Hansen's "The Second World Wars" - one of his
points is that often, the Wehrmacht went to into battle with a
hodgepodge of equipment, some of which had been captured on the battle
field, others from production lines still cranking out non-German
designs.
And to counter unexpected things, they attempted to make a Bigger
one. E.G., to counter the T34, rather than mount 88s on existing
chassis, they designed a tank killer which was less flexible, less
maneuverable, and worst of all - late to the battle field.
By 1944, there really wasn't a lot the 3rd Reich could have done
to stave off the end.

Germany in 1944, did not have enough fuel to power many more tanks.

Post by pyotr filipivich
We're back too asking the question "If you woke up as Hitler in
the 1930s, what would you do differently?" assuming you still wanted
to expand Germany to the east.

If you want to change the result of WW2, what you need to do is make
significant changes in the 1930s.

pyotr filipivich

2018-02-27 16:41:00 UTC

Post by ZZyXX
seems to me that if the German rational was that it could tie up lots of
Allied resources the missles I proposed would do as much if not more
damage for far less cost and allow the Germans to use the resources for
other purposes

What weapons system could on cost/benefit have done more for Germany then
V1s particularly in 1944?

How about a Panzer version of the T-34?
I recently read Hansen's "The Second World Wars" - one of his
points is that often, the Wehrmacht went to into battle with a
hodgepodge of equipment, some of which had been captured on the battle
field, others from production lines still cranking out non-German
designs.
And to counter unexpected things, they attempted to make a Bigger
one. E.G., to counter the T34, rather than mount 88s on existing
chassis, they designed a tank killer which was less flexible, less
maneuverable, and worst of all - late to the battle field.
By 1944, there really wasn't a lot the 3rd Reich could have done
to stave off the end.

Germany in 1944, did not have enough fuel to power many more tanks.

Post by pyotr filipivich
We're back too asking the question "If you woke up as Hitler in
the 1930s, what would you do differently?" assuming you still wanted
to expand Germany to the east.

If you want to change the result of WW2, what you need to do is make
significant changes in the 1930s.

Ayup. Which is a different threat/thread. Not sure how to make
it work out, though.

There was a story "The Foresight war" which had a historian
dropped back to 1934 England, with his laptop. A few years later,
British Intel is not finding any evidence of the pocket battleships.
"Oh chit - _they_ have someone with a laptop."

--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

pyotr filipivich

2018-02-27 16:56:22 UTC

Post by pyotr filipivich
We're back too asking the question "If you woke up as Hitler in
the 1930s, what would you do differently?" assuming you still wanted
to expand Germany to the east.

If you want to change the result of WW2, what you need to do is make
significant changes in the 1930s.

Been pondering this a bit: how much of the "hassles" which became
obvious were "baked in" by the very nature of the 3rd Reich's
government and ruling party?
That is, to correct the shortages of 1944 would require a change
in how things were done in the 1930's, which would require some
serious changes in the mind set (and personnel) of the Party.
Could you have "The Nazi party" without the grandiose schemes /
showmanship of the Nuremberg rallies and the 1936 Olympics? (I'm using
those as examples of the mentality of "Bigger! Grander! Stupendous!"
which pervaded the thinking at the top.)

Zo - could Herr Hitler have rammed through all of the
institutional and industrial reforms necessary for victory in the
east? Without becoming a victim of his own "night of the long
knives?" and being replaced by someone "sensible."? I dun no.

Which is what makes history interesting.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

Dimensional Traveler

2018-02-27 21:05:49 UTC

Post by pyotr filipivich
We're back too asking the question "If you woke up as Hitler in
the 1930s, what would you do differently?" assuming you still wanted
to expand Germany to the east.

If you want to change the result of WW2, what you need to do is make
significant changes in the 1930s.

Been pondering this a bit: how much of the "hassles" which became
obvious were "baked in" by the very nature of the 3rd Reich's
government and ruling party?
That is, to correct the shortages of 1944 would require a change
in how things were done in the 1930's, which would require some
serious changes in the mind set (and personnel) of the Party.
Could you have "The Nazi party" without the grandiose schemes /
showmanship of the Nuremberg rallies and the 1936 Olympics? (I'm using
those as examples of the mentality of "Bigger! Grander! Stupendous!"
which pervaded the thinking at the top.)
Zo - could Herr Hitler have rammed through all of the
institutional and industrial reforms necessary for victory in the
east? Without becoming a victim of his own "night of the long
knives?" and being replaced by someone "sensible."? I dun no.
Which is what makes history interesting.

I believe another fundamental flaw with the Nazi party was that Hitler
not only did not give specific orders, he apparently _liked_ having
subordinates competing with each other to impress him. (One parallel
I've heard is organized crime.) So you had a lot of resources wasted on
multiple projects all trying to do the same thing. An extreme example
I've read is that even the German Post Office had an atomic bomb
development project.

Changing that gets into "What if Hitler wasn't Hitler?" territory IMO.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

pyotr filipivich

2018-02-28 02:55:30 UTC

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by pyotr filipivich
We're back too asking the question "If you woke up as Hitler in
the 1930s, what would you do differently?" assuming you still wanted
to expand Germany to the east.

If you want to change the result of WW2, what you need to do is make
significant changes in the 1930s.

Been pondering this a bit: how much of the "hassles" which became
obvious were "baked in" by the very nature of the 3rd Reich's
government and ruling party?
That is, to correct the shortages of 1944 would require a change
in how things were done in the 1930's, which would require some
serious changes in the mind set (and personnel) of the Party.
Could you have "The Nazi party" without the grandiose schemes /
showmanship of the Nuremberg rallies and the 1936 Olympics? (I'm using
those as examples of the mentality of "Bigger! Grander! Stupendous!"
which pervaded the thinking at the top.)
Zo - could Herr Hitler have rammed through all of the
institutional and industrial reforms necessary for victory in the
east? Without becoming a victim of his own "night of the long
knives?" and being replaced by someone "sensible."? I dun no.
Which is what makes history interesting.

As I understand it - a comparison is to the US Army, which would
issue a Specification, and the dinning make/model became (e.g.,)
Truck, 2T, one each - and _everybody_ made that truck. So you had one
set of parts to stock. Whereas the German Army never got that kind of
"cooperation", so it had Mercedes Trucks, BMW Trucks, AutoUnon Trucks,
and then added Czech & French trucks, captured British Trucks,
captured American Trucks.
Etc.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Changing that gets into "What if Hitler wasn't Hitler?" territory IMO.

That too.

--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

Robert Woodward

2018-02-27 17:43:30 UTC

Post by ZZyXX
seems to me that if the German rational was that it could tie up lots of
Allied resources the missles I proposed would do as much if not more
damage for far less cost and allow the Germans to use the resources for
other purposes

What weapons system could on cost/benefit have done more for Germany then
V1s particularly in 1944?

How about a Panzer version of the T-34?
I recently read Hansen's "The Second World Wars" - one of his
points is that often, the Wehrmacht went to into battle with a
hodgepodge of equipment, some of which had been captured on the battle
field, others from production lines still cranking out non-German
designs.
And to counter unexpected things, they attempted to make a Bigger
one. E.G., to counter the T34, rather than mount 88s on existing
chassis, they designed a tank killer which was less flexible, less
maneuverable, and worst of all - late to the battle field.
By 1944, there really wasn't a lot the 3rd Reich could have done
to stave off the end.

Germany in 1944, did not have enough fuel to power many more tanks.

It is my understanding is that the extreme shortage was for gasoline.
The plants that converted coal to liquid fuel had come online, but they
were producing diesel fuel and kerosene instead which were thus
relatively plentiful (not to USA standards of course).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com

SolomonW

2018-02-28 02:11:36 UTC

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by ZZyXX
seems to me that if the German rational was that it could tie up lots of
Allied resources the missles I proposed would do as much if not more
damage for far less cost and allow the Germans to use the resources for
other purposes

What weapons system could on cost/benefit have done more for Germany then
V1s particularly in 1944?

How about a Panzer version of the T-34?
I recently read Hansen's "The Second World Wars" - one of his
points is that often, the Wehrmacht went to into battle with a
hodgepodge of equipment, some of which had been captured on the battle
field, others from production lines still cranking out non-German
designs.
And to counter unexpected things, they attempted to make a Bigger
one. E.G., to counter the T34, rather than mount 88s on existing
chassis, they designed a tank killer which was less flexible, less
maneuverable, and worst of all - late to the battle field.
By 1944, there really wasn't a lot the 3rd Reich could have done
to stave off the end.

Germany in 1944, did not have enough fuel to power many more tanks.

Joseph Stalin said: “The war was decided by engines and octane.”

Towards the end of the war, shortages in oil meant that tanks were unsed.
The last major fuel reserves were used in the Battle of the Bulge when
German tanks ran out of gas and so the German army had to advance on foot.

Rich Rostrom

2018-03-01 05:36:36 UTC

Post by pyotr filipivich
How about a Panzer version of the T-34?

The Pz IV models with 75mm/43 or 75mm/48 guns
(F2 to J) were basically equivalent to the T-34/76.
The T-34/85 was somewhat better armed, but did not
appear until mid-1944.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

pyotr filipivich

2018-03-03 16:58:04 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by pyotr filipivich
How about a Panzer version of the T-34?

The Pz IV models with 75mm/43 or 75mm/48 guns
(F2 to J) were basically equivalent to the T-34/76.
The T-34/85 was somewhat better armed, but did not
appear until mid-1944.

It is one of those "if we knew then what we know now" - what were
the primary elements which made the T-34 "better" than the Panzers in
1941, and how would you design a 'new model' Panzer in order to have
those components when the war started.

The same, "of course" goes for all the other elements of a Modern
Army, tanks, trucks, field cars, mobile kitchens, "Receptacle, square,
metal, trash." etc.

I am of the opinion that much of what cost the 3rd Reich victory
in the East were the same reasons which caused it to go East in the
first place.

--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

Rich Rostrom

2018-03-03 20:09:44 UTC

Post by pyotr filipivich
It is one of those "if we knew then what we know
now" - what were the primary elements which made the
T-34 "better" than the Panzers in 1941...

Its relatively heavy armor and powerful gun. Nearly all
of the German tank force in 1941 were older designs:
Pz 38(t) with 37mm gun, Pz III with 37mm gun or short
barrel 50mm gun, Pz IV with short barrel 75mm (intended
as HE-firing infantry support tank).

When the Pz IV was upgunned to the 75/43, it became a
peer of the T-34. The later Pz III, with a long barrel
50mm, was also able to fight T-34s, barely.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

pyotr filipivich

2018-03-15 14:32:31 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by pyotr filipivich
It is one of those "if we knew then what we know
now" - what were the primary elements which made the
T-34 "better" than the Panzers in 1941...

Its relatively heavy armor and powerful gun. Nearly all
Pz 38(t) with 37mm gun, Pz III with 37mm gun or short
barrel 50mm gun, Pz IV with short barrel 75mm (intended
as HE-firing infantry support tank).
When the Pz IV was upgunned to the 75/43, it became a
peer of the T-34. The later Pz III, with a long barrel
50mm, was also able to fight T-34s, barely.

Thanks.

--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

e***@gmail.com

2018-03-17 12:44:47 UTC