If the Soviet union had collapsed because germany used nothing but Panzer fours would of mounting bigger cannons on left over KV hulls solved the issue of germany lacking a heavy tank?
What if germany won the war thread
If the Soviet union had collapsed because germany used nothing but Panzer fours would of mounting bigger cannons on left over KV hulls solved the issue of germany lacking a heavy tank?
what the frick are you trying to say
Hang on, I can translate schizo.
Suppose that Germany had used nothing but Panzer IV tanks (so no Pz. III, Tiger, Panther) etc., and suppose that this would cause the Soviet Union to collapse: would mounting bigger cannons on leftover KV hulls give them suitable heavy tanks?
Of course this question is stupid, because the exact kind of leadership that got them into the war in the way it did, caused the existence of the big cats. Also, only building one kind of tank would not have solved the majority of issues that Germany had: they would still have lost.
To answer the question: no. Heavy tanks rely on armor as per most everyone's definition, and the KV's armor was lacking at the point in time where the Soviets would have collapsed. Attempts to upgun the stock KV chassis proved problematic, meaning the Soviets went to the IS series which could receive bigger guns (although they're roughly based on the KV). Biggest you could probably get in there was an 88, and then you're stuck with a Soviet scrapbox carrying an 88, strategically speaking it'd be more of a hindrance than a long barrel Pz. IV.
Read an actual book on Nazi Germany's economy then post a thread again
>alt history
KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS KYS
Listen up butthole
1) We LOST the war
2) There was a snowball's chance in hell we could win before we declared war on America. Afterwards it was just a matter of time
3) Our entire procurement system was fricked up beyond recognition. A nation that small should have used ONE medium tank,ONE heavy, ONE tank destroyer/assault gun and perhaps ONE recovery tank - not a fricking mix of six gorillion variants!
- Even if we somehow had managed to win the war by forcing the USSR into waving the white flag without bong and burger bombers wrecking our shit at home, we would have lost in the long run. Don't believe me? Go read Mein Kampf. There aint no plan for peace just ongoing war. Nobody wants to be at war for decades.
>3) Our entire procurement system was fricked up beyond recognition. A nation that small should have used ONE medium tank,ONE heavy, ONE tank destroyer/assault gun and perhaps ONE recovery tank - not a fricking mix of six gorillion variants!
they literally couldn't, which is why they did what they did (bolt soviet field guns onto french armored tractors and call it good, or continue to produce Panzer IIs because they didn't have time to retool the line, or it wasn't suitable to the production of heavier shit anyway, or reuse just about any tanks they could capture, including the bizarre french ones.
>Nobody wants to be at war for decades
The Irish paramilitaries like it
The 1977 edition of the Green Book, an induction and training manual used by the IRA, describes the strategy of the "Long War" in these terms:
A war of attrition against enemy personnel [British Army] which is aimed at causing as many casualties and deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their [the British] people at home for their withdrawal.
A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interests in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long-term investment in our country.
To make the Six Counties ... ungovernable except by colonial military rule.
To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns.
By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers.
The IRA was not a formal military with an existing base of operations and industry. Germany is a nation, she cannot exert her influence without having a body politic that gives her life, or an economy that feeds it the materiel it needs to conduct warfare. Germany didn't have the means to continue war for decades. Understand that until Barbarossa and even sometime afterwards, absolutely everything that could have gone well for Germany did. What we saw was the best-case scenario, If a few things zigged instead of zagged they would have been bogged down in Poland or France and that would have been the end of it.
Not directed at you, but the consistent "What if..." threads where we discuss means by which Nazi Germany could have survived border on the obscene. The fact of the matter is that Germany is one nation, and her allies were not in a situation where they could realistically defeat the Allies in any scenario. Once war was on it was a matter of time. The only way in which Nazi Germany could have continued to exist is if Hitler were to leave Poland alone and forget the lebensraum.
>3) Our entire procurement system was fricked up beyond recognition. A nation that small should have used ONE medium tank,ONE heavy, ONE tank destroyer/assault gun and perhaps ONE recovery tank - not a fricking mix of six gorillion variants!
That was the plan with Panzer III and IV, problem was the designers were not clairvoyants who could predict just how fast technology would advance.
Then there's stuff like the Pz38t/Marder/Hetzer that Germany just had to use because they were the only things the Czechs could build. And the beutepanzers, which was just pure expedience to get any kind of armour into the field.
The problem in German procurement wasn't really the number number of models (the Panther was cheaper than the Pz.IV by the end), but the failure to implement mass production techniques inside the factories themselves.
They also had problems on the back end. It doesn’t matter if you build one hundred thousand tanks if you don’t have fuel to run them, don’t have crews to man them, and what crews you do have are teenagers that have approximately five minutes of training. Oh, and the train full of spare parts just got blown up by a P-47 halfway.
Germany was working on heavy tanks since 1938, the Heer was tossing around ideas for what would become the Panzer VI specifically in 1940 and asked for design suggestions from Henschel and Porsche about a month before Barbarossa kicked off. The Tiger would have been built no matter how quickly the USSR folded.
I hate alt history threads so god damn much its unreal
Yes. Because for Germany to have won the war they would have had to attack the Russians first, not France. Create a free Poland (from Russia)
Give Britain it's fleet.
Ally with usa join against Japan.
Pay France through to build railways from Europe across Russia.
World be a far far better place today
Delusional.
- Britain isn't interested in a continental hegemon, wether it has a fleet or not.
- France ABSOFRICKINGLUTELY ain't interested in Germany dominating all of eastenr Europe and the USSR.
- Uncle Sam ain't interested in allying the Germans, who can't do jack shit to help with the Japanese anyway.
- And Poland had fricking negative interest in letting Germans troops march across their country to fight the Soviets. Let them in and the frickers will never leave.
Fundamentally, you need the US to not enter WW2 in order for Germany to win.
having "better tanks" wont automatically mean germany would win the war. They were doomed from the moment Barbarossa began. The third reich lacked the heavy industry nor the resources (such as oil) neccesary to sustain a prolonged war on two fronts, not to mention the logistical nightmares of moving troops, fuel, ammo and equipment on the eastern front. Only 10-15% of the werhmacht was motorized, they used mostly horses for moving supplies around>
Panther was the right choice and cheaper/faster to produce than a panzer IV in the end/as cheap/fast in most of the production.
Tigers had an average 12 to 1 kill count on average if we go by verified kill numbers based on readiness reports.
The KV was only an issue the first couple of times it was encountered since Germans had to learn to deal with heavy tanks, afterwards it was a worse t34 in most ways.
So the answer is no.
>Tigers had an average 12 to 1 kill count on average if we go by verified kill numbers based on readiness reports.
*one heavy tank division is ignored I'm the statistic since:
A the kill count couldn't be verified
B the 50 to 1 K/D rate seems difficult to believe.
The KV-1 hull is "just okay"
The problem with Germany was they:
>Didn't have enough Soldiers
>Didn't have enough fuel
>Didn't have enough equipment
>Didn't have enough of everything else
WW2 was a fundamental mistake and Lend-Lease from the US to the Soviets ensured that the Soviet Union could not fall.
The Pz1-2 and Pz38 were too small. Pz3 were fine, Pz4 was also okay. Tiger wasn't that bad, Tiger 2 was overweight. Panther was almost fixed into an excellent tank by war's end. The german reliability problem was in part because they were constantly building new models and didn't standardize their spare parts. Also German automobiles are actual trash maintenance nightmares.
Panzer IVs were actually harder to make than Panthers and probably would have made Germany lose faster
kys homosexual