Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost WWII

[Bengalzona]

Quote:8 The right technology used incorrectly

The Germans were well in advance of the Allies when it came to Military Technology. Vastly superior tanks and jet airplanes, mass produced and employed should have given the Germans an edge in any battle. However the quest for ever heavier tanks in stead of concentrating on mass production left the Germans with a wide array of tanks requiring different spares.

Also the reliance on forced labor meant that quality control was a big issue, causing more frequent breakdowns which required more spares etc.

The statement that "The Germans were well in advance of the Allies when it came to Military Technology" is not exactly true.

A lot is made of the German "wonder weapons". Very few of their futuristic designs actually made it to the field. The notable exceptions were the Panther and Tiger tanks, the ME-262 jet fighter, the Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle, and the V-1 and V-2 rockets. German rocketry and jet propulsion technologies were certainly far more advanced than the allies.

However, the allies were no technological slouches. The U.S. brought nuclear technology to fruition, the ultimate gamechanger. Additionally, American attack aircraft and bombers were far more advanced than any other country. The B-29 was the penultimate strategic bomber of the war. The P-51 fighter was the best fighter of the war until the Germans fielded the 262. By 1943, American carrier-born aircraft were the most advanced in the world.

But the U.S. had bigger advantages than even these. Because they are not "weapons systems", people tend to ignore the two technologies which won the war for the U.S. and made the U.S. into the per-eminent superpower of the world: industrial technology and logistics. Our industrial tech and capacity isn't what it was during WWII. But at that time, there was no comparison between the U.S. and any other country. And logistics, in particular, is something that our armed forces have done better than any other country in the world for over a hundred years. Think about it. How many countries can you think of that can move a hundred thousand soldiers anywhere in the world within 6 to 8 weeks and keep them supplied there? The answer then, as it is now, is none. Just the U.S. We routinely moved this many troops through the Pacific and the Atlantic throughout the war. Our concentration on this began out of necessity during the Revolution when Washington assigned one of his best field generals, Nathaniel Greene, to be the Quartermaster for the Continental Army. That tradition has carried on since. We do the 'inglorious' background jobs that ultimately win conflicts better than anyone.

Britain also had military technologies they led during the war. Radar. Code-breaking. Espionage. It was Britain's aviation technology that made the P-51 the top fighter for as long as it was (Rolls Royce engine, bubble canopy, etc.).

Soviet military technology was vastly underrated. The reason the Germans developed the Panther and the Tiger tanks was because of the T-34, which was superior to any of the German tanks (Panzer III's and Mark IV's primarily) fielded at the onset of Barbarossa. And, unlike the French, the Soviets had a mobile warfare doctrine similar to the Germans to maximize the use of their tanks. Soviet tank development did not end with the T-34, either. From 1943 on, the Soviets would develop develop and field a range of tanks (T-43, KV-85, IS-2, IS -3 and IS-4) which could stand toe-to-toe with Panthers and Tigers and win (i.e. the Panthers and Tigers were only "the best" for a short period of time). During the Cold War, there were running jokes about the poor reliability of Soviet equipment. But during World War II, the opposite was true. The equipment they fielded was highly reliable, tough and generally able to serve in all weather conditions. This was a primary concern among the Red Army.

Generally in World War II, advances in individual weapon systems were short-lived as on-going development of new weapons by opposing nations rendered them out of date over time. It was a constant game of one-up-man ship. The new developments were driven by need and, in the case of the Germans, desperation. And no individual weapons system, outside of the atom bomb, was so dominant as to give a decisive edge for one side or the other, no matter how many they made. The lessons in World War II were more about strategies and combined arms rather than individual weapons.