How Hitler Should Have Conducted the War

Status
Not open for further replies.

Col.Gen.

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
People have many opinions on how Hitler should have conducted the war. Some of these opinions are intelligent others leave much to be desired. However I'd like to hear from you gentlemen because I believe you all to be of a high calibre when it comes to intelligence.
 
Last edited:

P.A.F

New Member
The was an interesting TV program on Hitlers tactics the other day on BBC1. Anyone watch it????
 

Col.Gen.

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Personally I think that Hitler should have advanced on Antwerp to take the B.E.F. and then prepare to invade England after having defeated the U.K. I believe that would have given the Italians more reason to fight. I would have convinced Japan to prolong the campaign in China and leave U.S. interests alone until a more suitable time. After England was forced to capitulate I would have devoted my primary resources to taking North Africa as a prerquisite to invading Russia. After North Africa was under my belt minimal German forces with substaintial Italian forces would have invaded Russia from the south, Germans from the North and Japanese from the East. My forces would haveadvanced until they met somewhere around Lake Baikal. By then Russia and England would have been crushed, allowing me to sit back for enough time to rebuild and eventually turn my combined strength on the Pacific and the U.S. Unfortunately the time it would take for the Axis to rebuild might have lent the Allies enough time to make the Pacific and U.S. not worth the fight. So I probably would have resigned myself to Africa, Asia and Europe.
 
Last edited:

Col.Gen.

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Unfortunately being in Job Corps I don't see much T.V.
P.A.F said:
The was an interesting TV program on Hitlers tactics the other day on BBC1. Anyone watch it????
 

Defcon 6

New Member
Well, if we are going to talk total tactics.

I would have done my blietzkrieg, through Poland and the neutral lands and taken France. Extended to the shores.

I would have focused on only certain secret weapons.
-V-1
-V-2
-Me-262
-He-162
-Ar-34 (Aranado jet bomber)
-Gustav Gun
-Tiger II
-Super Battleships (After england)

I never would have turned against Russia, because it was ultimately futile in every way. It was an impossible fight.

I would have held off in Africa until I had taken England. The Africa corps gained nothing of real use.

I would have used my jet technology to fight allied daylight bombing.

I would have created a defensive line using a mobile war. Not a defensive war except the siegfried line. Not to mention the Gothic Line.

I would have focused on building Tiger II and Panther Tanks to achieve an ultimate victory. And I would have devoted something to heavy bombing.

The concentration camps were idiotic. The Jews could have been used as soldiers, and been riled up to support the third reicht instead of being a major humanitarian reason against it.

With Russian forces China would have been wiped clean and a joint invasion of England could have taken place.
 

asadmak22

New Member
The Gustav gun? Isn't that the gun with the 200 mm shell? by 1944 Russia had a total outnumbered the German by 9 tanks to 1! Germany should have made a separate peace with Russia by 1943 since it already held large area of Mother Russia, the Russian would have made a peace since they were still in danger of being knocked out! Then Germany should have concentrated all its resources on the West Allies.!
 

Col.Gen.

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
I like most of your plan Defcon but I don't believe with a U.S. buildup that America would have stood by and watched the Pacific fall under Germany and Japan. I think that would have caused America to enter the war and Russia to join in if just to try to wrest control of the Pacific to Russia.
 

turin

New Member
@Defcon6

Your part about the jews ignores political issues. You just cant draw out military tactics alone without respect to the social and political circumstances in which the 3rd Reich was established in the first place. The jews were the scapegoat of the Nazis, it greatly helped them to establish their regime and legitimate political and economical reform. You are basically talking of a completely different german nation and leadership that doesnt fit in with reality.

Also , you obviously have an affinity for the charme of superweapons. These super battleships would have been just one gigantic waste of time and ressources, valued against their operational use. Especially since Germany at that time had no advantage whatsoever in the relevant technology over its opponents, most notably the US, and the shipbuilding capacities of Germany would have been blocked to great extent for other procurements. For example a credible amphibious force would have been necessary in order to invade Britain in the first place.
So, although a surface fleet is necessary to some extent, the submarine arm would have offered some significant advantages for the Kriegsmarine. If (and thats a big "if" already) the planning and building of more advanced submarines, most notably the XXI-type would have started only one year earlier, the outcome of the Battle in the Atlantic would have been quite different. But the Kriegsmarine and Hitler decided on accelerating submarine construction only after the heavy surface vessels, which were few at the time, proved to be without any further operational use. Especially since all the time the atlantic bases were under direct attack of the RAF.

Wether to attack Russia or not is quite a matter of perspective. I would not have done so. There was no significant need to do that except for Hitlers dream of the "Lebensraum im Osten" (living space in the east). Still the conquer of at least the european part of Russia was nowhere near impossibility. The russians may have posed a significiant threat in the future (although I dont believe in some people claiming Russia has planned an invasion itself). Yet many mistakes have been made in the operational planning and during the campaign, so things could only go awry as they did.

To give some hard points of my own to the discussion:

With the navy I would have given priority to the submarine arm, based on useful designs like the XXI and XXIII, since it was the one and best chance to isolate the UK and deter any US-engagement. A surface fleet would have had the task of binding enemy forces and assisting in warfare against supply ships. Also of course one needs escort vessels for sea-lift-operations. The construction of mid- to large-sized carriers might have been desirable in the further course of the war, especially to enhance german control of the North Atlantic, one the British were defeated.

With the Luftwaffe I would have promoted the development of long range escort fighters in order to give my bomber-campaigns against the UK some credible protection. For that I would have used further versions of AC like the FW190/Ta152, proven and technologically safe designs. The development of strategic bomber forces might have been desirable. However the german forces had no prior experience whatsoever with this kind of strategy. The development of useful jet fighters would have been the necessary next step in the evolution of fighter warfare. A high-low-development, for example with the Me-262 and another light one-engine-fighter might have been the way.

With the army the Panther clearly was the best german tank in overall performance, so it would have had priority over the expensive and heavy Tiger II. The latter might have seen limited production for defense-operations, perhaps to strengthen defense lines in the east.

As for the real operations, well the escape of the B.E.F. was obviously one of the biggest mistakes of german planning.
The activities in North Africa are not so much a problem for me. In the long-term it might have meant securing important ressources in the middle-east through defeating the british forces there. Also the battle was only really lost, when Hitler changed priorities and gave a go to the russian invasion which made further reinforcements for the african theater impossible. Of course it would have been necessary to deal with the RN in the Mediterranean. The activities of the Italian navy were more than disappointing in this respect.
 
Last edited:

Col.Gen.

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
The Gustav Gun was also a waste though not on as grand a scale but simply because of the resources that would have been needed to utilize it. Those resources could be spent in better ways. And though I never considered not invading Russia I guess that I have to admit besides the oil fields and extra areas to grow food there would have been no point but to say she was impossible to defeat I have to wonder about.
 

General_Conway

New Member
Hitler's Big Mistake:
Great Britain had very little real strength past her coasts. Hitler should have saved alot of the force he sent to Africa and went on with the invasion of England. Once he finished off the only other threat in Europe, he could turn his full attention to Asia, forget Africa for the time being.
However, even with England out of the picture, I still dont think Germany could have won in Russia.
 

corzair

New Member
Oh My GOD

hitler! seriously your discssing this
the guy worked for the world order
there still at war with us
 

General_Conway

New Member
corzair said:
Oh My GOD

hitler! seriously your discssing this
the guy worked for the world order
there still at war with us
I dont see what the problem is... What is wrong with some people playing out historical what ifs?
 

Berserk Fury

New Member
nothing wrong with that.
we can't change history so there's no problem discussing it.
Yea, hitler shouldna invaded Africa. I think the Britain plan is pretty good though defending it from allied forces would be a serious pain in the butt.
 

General_Conway

New Member
Berserk Fury said:
nothing wrong with that.
we can't change history so there's no problem discussing it.
Yea, hitler shouldna invaded Africa. I think the Britain plan is pretty good though defending it from allied forces would be a serious pain in the butt.
I agree, although, defending that much territory would be hard any way.
 

Berserk Fury

New Member
Though if the Germans decided to share there sub tech with the Japanese, it might have significantly delayed the defeat of Japan.
 

nz enthusiast

New Member
Thing is you guys are looking at Hitlers tactics after the war so you know what went wrong. Hitler when was doing thing did not know what you guys now know.
There were three things which screwed Hitler: Mussolini's stupidity in Greece. Hitler forced to go help him, attack on the Soviet Union comes late in the fighting season ie summer. The Russian winter was earlier than normal and the Germans fuel froze.
A Russian double agent who managed to convince Stalin that Japan would not attack. Stalin then took his experienced snow troops from the east and threw them in front of Mosocw.
There was nothing wrong with Hitlers tactics really, he was just an 'evil genious'. He ran out of people and then fussed to send the women into the work force, thats what screwed him up.
 

turin

New Member
They were too late in sharing the U-boat tech as half the war was almost over.
No point in that since the Germans managed to field their newer and superior designs themselves only when half of the war was over and the battle for the Atlantic was lost. Also at least in some regards the japanese sub technology was not that much inferior, for example it was a japanese sub that managed to reach the highest submerged top speed during the war.
The japanese navy did not emphasize submarine warfare as much as the Germans did due to different doctrines. Even the Kriegsmarine only managed to shift its ressources fully on submarine warfare when it was already too late.

A Russian double agent who managed to convince Stalin that Japan would not attack.
It would not have needed such an agent since the Japanese had very clearly no intention to march against the Russians at all. This is mainly due to experience in fighting russian troops prior to WWII. My guess is that Stalin would have seen that himself quite soon.

There was nothing wrong with Hitlers tactics really, he was just an 'evil genious'.
I fail to see to this very day the reason for the view of Hitler as some kind of genius, especially in the military sense of the word. A view that seems to be very persistent outside Germany, yet not so much within. Hitler was to some degree a gifted character concerning politics and especially rhetorics. Also he mostly shared the view of his time and the german people concering some major social issues. However he had no special military gifts whatsoever.

That shows up very clearly in several of his decisions concering vital tactical and strategic planning:
The halt in development of rocket technology after the invasion of Poland. Not foreseeing Britains entry to the war after the invasion of Poland (he expected the french decision for war though and was not worried about that). His approval of using the Luftwaffe in striking against the BEF in place of the army. His decision of further development the Me-262, the most promising jet fighter of its time, as a bomber, therefore delaying fielding of the fighter for one whole year, allowing the allied strategic bomber offensive to continue. Not to mention his multiple mistakes in planning the military actions against Russia after he took over most of the planning from his generals himself.
Hitler in the beginning had the luck of having the right people in the right places. However after he took more direct decisions in the war and when allegiance to his person grew more important than military skill and knowledge, things went rapidly awry.

He ran out of people and then fussed to send the women into the work force, thats what screwed him up.
He would not have ran out of people if he would not have screwed up with some of his major decisions concering warfare, just ask the 6th army!
Also there was nothing wrong with the women. In fact they formed large parts of the industrial workforce and even homeland defence, thus contributing to the war.
It was however a major mistake to shift german industrial production to military needs and war time standards as late as they did. Mind you, german economy ran on peace time standards for the better part of three years into the war! Only when Albert Speer took over the planning of the industrial production in 1943, the german economy managed to perform incredibly, putting out equipment in sheer masses and all this at a time when ressources were already spread thin and despite allied bombing raids.
 
Last edited:

Berserk Fury

New Member
A Russian double agent?
Didn't know about that.
Regarding the Me-262, I think it might have been promising but it's fuel consumption rates are sky high and with fuel shortages fielding the Me-262 as a primary fighter wouldn't be a good idea... at least I think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top