Wow, if you have any interest in tanks in general or this monster in particular here is a treasure trove of documents on the "Maus"

https://www.facebook.com/stephen.tegner/media_set?set=a.2639718119443361&type=3

Very nice find.

Indeed quite interesting

After reading that, i'm amazed that nobody stood up and said "guys, this is not going to work".

The uploader's folders on suspension and wartime colour images are worth a look as well.

Just think how many Panzer IV's and StuG's the Germans could have built instead using the materials wasted on that "Maus". It's a good thing that German wartime armaments production and logistical strategy was idiotic.

The 100 of 1000s of weapons that never reached their front line troops because they were marked as defective due to minor cosmetic blemishes and then destroyed.

True enough, except that the even bigger late-war problem was to man the produced/available equipment with qualified/skilled soldiers, be it tanks, planes, ...

What ?

Saw it in this documentary series. With the war continuing and Nazi Germany fighting on several fronts and not having enough material for all their armies even though their factories were mass producing weapons at a record rate.

The cause was most of their weapons were still made by hand instead of like the USA using the assembly lines that were used for cars. Took forever to build a shipment of machine guns or a fighter or a tank unlike mass production in the USA that were producing them in record numbers daily.

Also the documentary said Hitler didn't allow mass production assembly lines like the USA because he thought that was something that was forced on America by their industry leader who Hitler saw as being all Jews.

Then every item had to be inspected for perfection and in the documentaries they makers of it, dug up production records of Nazi Germany's war factories showing X number of so and so weapon produced in so and so week and only a % of those were shipped, the rest were recorded as destroyed because they were marked as defective when it was just cosmetic stuff like the finish on a gun or the color of the wood of the stock on a shipment of rifles did not all match.

There was like 60,000 MP40 that were mostly destroyed and only a few thousand of them actually reached the front line troops.

It wasn't just just small arms. It was also airplanes and tanks and vehicles and other military material.

It was German engineering still want to be German perfection even when there is a war raging and their troops are in need of every item they can get.

It was also a waste of material, man hours, raw material.

https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/shows/war-factories/

Hitler was pretty stupid. He made the ME-262 into a bomber, which delayed introduction by over a year. It could have been shooting down B-17's with impunity. He abandoned the attack on Moscow to go after the Ukraine (as a communist state, everything was centralized in Moscow, taking it out would have really damaged soviet C&C). He went halfsies on both Von Rundsted and Rommel's counter invasion plans, rather than picking one (both of which may have worked, and neither would work as a half measure). He ditched Sealion after he decided to invade Russia instead, instead of dealing with them in sequence. Dude made a sh!tton of mistakes. The world is grateful he was an idiot.

He made a ton of mistakes but in my opinion the two colossal mistakes that cost Germany the war and eventual total defeat was the decision to invade the USSR and the declaration of war on the US. Once Germany was at war with the British Empire, USSR AND the USA it stood absolutely zero chance of winning the war due to the overwhelming combined economic might it was up against.

He was only 29 KM from Moscow and diverted Army Group Center to go South to go to Ukraine to take the oil fields there which l believe is what led to the Battle of Stalingrad.

Hitler was also the reason why he lost the Battle of Britain when he decided to bomb London without destroying the RAF and its airfield. He went into North Africa and Greece and wasted manpower and material there because he allied with Italy who were useless Military anyway. So it was like a big brother constantly getting a little brother out of trouble.

But don't forger, every time he went against his Generals, he reminded of his great military service as enlisted man who won medals and the Iron Cross l in World War 1 and how he knew more about strategy then they did.

Like has been said earlier, without well-trained pilots it wouldn't have mattered a lot


But what if Kiev hadn't fallen? With that encirclement, they took out over 700,000 enemies (40+ divisions). By keeping focus towards Moscow, they would have had a massive knife in their flank on which the Soviets would be certain to have even further built upon.


With what would he have invaded Britain with? There were not enough ships for an amphibious assault, no means to provide logistical support, the Royal Navy was ruling the sea and the RAF would've had a field day over England.


Both Hitler and Stalin were well-aware that sooner or later, there would be war. The ideological differences, historic grievances and economic interests were just insurmountable. This is also the reason why Stalin tried to delay the inevitable by entering talks with Hitler to settle Russo-Germanic relations for the near future, and making a series of diplomatic moves like the infamous TASS statement of june 14th, 1941. Hitler attacked when the Soviets were still coping with the effects of the purges, and were still unindustrialized. Supported by the great results that the Wehrmacht achieved a year earlier, where they defeated the ghost of 4 years of trench warface in mere weeks, and there wasn't really anything stupid by the decision to invade the Soviet Union.

My question is about not being used because of minor cosmetic blemishes. I don’t buy that.

I am very aware of bad research and production decisions, but minor cosmetic blemishes ?

What's your response to this then?

https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/hitler-underestimated-the-soviets

I don't see where the link provided contradicts what i'm saying. It even acknowledges it!


The War in the East was inevitable, and it was better to go at it sooner rather than later.

The Germans still had plenty of talented pilots in 1942.



In 1941, the Russian army had plenty of men under arms, but very little in the way of arms. Their soldiers had 1 rifle for 4 men. They had few tanks, few aircraft, and were hopelessly outclassed. But, more importantly, their state was heavily centralized. All C&C came from Moscow, all decisions were made in Moscow, local commanders were scared #%&*$# of Stalin. If the Germans had taken Moscow, then the soviets may well have been made headless. With no orders coming in, the Russian forces would have been extremely uncoordinated, demoralized and effectively neutralized. The germans could have then turned south and rolled up the whole Russian army.



They were 5-10 days from wiping out the RAF by destroying the airfields when they switched to London. If they had concentrated on the airfields the RAF would have been out. The RN was an effective force, but the channel is too small for a large fleet to maneuver, and would have been susceptible to air attack. As for their invasion force, Hitler had a large fleet of invasion barges at Calais throughout the battle of britain. They also had airborne forces.



The issue is less whether to invade Russia, but rather when. Finish of the UK first, then invade Russia in 1942. That would have been the smart play.

Sea lion (lol) would have been the Wehrmachts first major defeat, but it may have provided a German 100 metre swimming record holder.

People talking about Sea Lion and the Battle of Britain rarely discuss the Royal Navy and its capability to destroy most of the invasion "fleet" simply by sailing past the individual low-freeboard river barges at high speed. A minor fact re the equipment of the Heer at this time is the total lack of artillery and nothing but a sprinkling of water-proofed tanks supposed to simply drive ashore and off to London. The rest were rifleman Mk1. The RAF (God Bless Them) could have lost totally over Kent and simply retreated back to Midland airfields, but they didn't lose.

The Navy was even in its depleted state simply overwhelming, the old battleship Revenge alone would have been sufficient. The Luftwaffe had no...repeat...no torpedo-bombers and were hopeless at hitting ships (Ref Dunkirk) with bombs, forget the Stukas...breakfast for any fighter.

Moscow instead of the Ukraine, though.......another story altogether. Barbarossa over by Christmas 1941.

Pretty much, yes Max. People talking about the big army in south, IMHO, are vastly underestimating what the fall of Moscow would have done to Russian morale. Kremlin gone, Stalin hiding...etc.

Sure thing Nixer, NoFlyBoy got it wrong about being only 29 kilos from Moscow when the decision was made in August. Try 200 kilos instead.

Yep.

Adolph was assuming (he did a lot of that) victory around Moscow, so he headed for his favorite objectives, the bread basket in Ukraine and those Baku oilfields...a continuing theme for the last century or so since mechanization took root.

BTW; Hope all is well with you and yours Max. All good here, just doing my best to not go off the rails in my written stuff at school, might get booted if I don't tread lightly.

Your learned commentary on military subjects is always educational and interesting.

We are good thanks Nixer, though I'm a bit restricted by the bloody COVID regulations. I'm a two-time loser, being old and having suppressed immunity because of my treatment. I do love mil history though still an ignorant git I'm afraid. Read a lot though. Take care and be good mate, not many of us unreconstructed types left.

It is not so much the Luftwaffe had no torpedo bombers, as that they had no inventory of aerial torpedos (turf wars between the Luftwaffe and the Kreigmarine had made sure of that) or anti-shipping ordnance in general in the spring of 1940, and the Germans had burned through most of their handful crews with anti-shipping/maritime training fighting the Battle of France of the early stages of the Battle of Britain.

Anyway, the Sandherst wargame in the 1970s definitely seems to support the idea that Sea Lion was a losing proposition. That said, as shown be Royal Navy operations in and around Crete, and the Malta convoys, the RNs air defense was not stellar, and the Germans were able to improvise fairly quickly with their existing bomber forces (and obviously aided by the Italians) to threaten the Royal Navy in confined waters. The issue would have come down, I think, to three things: (1) Would the Royal Navy go all in to destroy the invasion, or would it try to preserve some of its capital ships to protect the empire? (2) Would the Luftwaffe have been able to improvise and/or acquire from the Italians some sort of effective maritime strike force by the late summer? (3) Would the Luftwaffe have been able to provide a strong enough air bridge to tide the Germans forces over during the gap in supply caused by the inevitable RN counterattack?

Personally, I lean on the side of Sandherst and many modern historians that Sea Lion was always a high risk gamble even had the Luftwaffe "succeeded" in the Battle of Britain. However, I do not think the German chance of success was zero. Even in the battle of France, there were a few poor decisions by the French and (at the lower levels) a few key actions by the Germans that probably spelled the difference between victory for the Germans and, if not defeat, at least stalemate. So, on the other side of the coin, a few "die rolls" going the German's way (as they did in Crete) could have meant disaster for the British.

Things often don’t go as expected in military operations. I am of the opinion that Sea Lion would have failed. But it would have only taken a small window of time for Germany to have put a couple divisions across the Channel. Then aerial resupply of the most critical supplies might have let them have pushed into London. And even then, there is a big difference between pushing into London and succeeding in taking London. But it would have been a life-or-death struggle either way. I am of the opinion that there is a difference between being able to get a couple divisions across and getting a successful invasion.

As I said, things sometimes don’t turnout as expected. Look at Operation Cerebrus , the Channel Dash.

I agree with Nimits.

I can't just leave it at that. Never mind if the Luftwaffe had planes theoretically capable of being modified as torpedo bombers, they had no operational torpedo carrying aircraft in 1940. In fact their anti-shipping capability was very poor.

The German plan involved the surviving barges, mostly unpowered, to be turned around and go back to France to be reloaded and again risk the trip. These were canal barges FCS, very low freeboard and vulnerable even to a rough sea. Very few had any doors to unload troops, it was just scramble out and over and run up the beach. Not my idea of a fun time. Granted a few could have have even so got ashore, but forget resupply. Even Dover was too much for them to consider taking. OG mentions "a couple of divisions". No way Jose.

The navy..... we're not talking Capital ships here, just small patrol boats, frigates and destroyers would have had a field day. And if all else failed, my then countrymen would spray the b@stards with mustard gas. Liker Churchill said at the time.. "we shall never surrender". And there was a capital ship, the Revenge, with nothing to oppose her, the Kriegsmarine had no large ships not in the panel beaters, thanks again to the Navy.

The Luftwaffe "air bridge". Right, these are the same fallschirmjager that were cut to peaces in Crete in 1941. Good luck taking on desperate Brits with lightly armed paras, even the hopeless tanks that the Brits had at that time would have done the trick, and the RAF, regardless of the air Superiority issue still had night bombers capable of cratering runways. Lets not go into the very limited numbers of Ju52s available to stage supplies. Sure as hell Goering's merry men never managed it anywhere else later in the war. I think that the surviving RAF Fighter Command planes from the Midland bases would have made their presence felt too.

I often talked about this with my parents and grandparents whilst they still lived, and there was no element of defeatism there. They knew full fine what the Nazis had in store if victorious. Whatever it took, it would be done.

I was agreeing with your larger point (the Luftwaffe had in the summer of 1940 virtually no anti-warship capability); however, I do not think the aircraft themselves were the limiting factor. Planes can be modified to carry torpedoes (the US did it with the B-26, the Germans with later variants of the He 111), and other possible tactics (dive bombing, skip bombing), can make even non-torpedo aircraft deadly to heavy warships. What the Luftwaffe lacked in 1940 was trained anti-shipping crews (and proper tactics) and anti-shipping ordnance; both shortages could theoretically have been rectified, though probably not without pulling from the resources already being consumed by the Battle of Britain.

Ineed Old Chap.Same with the Capital ships. Vanity projects that did very little for Germany's war effort. Hitler was so exasperated by their ineffectiveness and inactivity that he wanted the lot scrapped, mid-war.
As you say regarding the Panzers, if the steel and production time was used to produce U-Boots as Raeder wanted, the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic and therefore Britain's survival may have been questionable.
The more I read of the Third Reich's arms output strategy (never a total war economy and industry until too late) and internecine rivalry between branches of the Forces and influential key protaganists within them, the more I come to the conclusion that 'Teutonic Efficiency' was a myth.

I have an excellent book on the design, manufacture and deployment of the Me-262 that I need to re-read. But I do recall that it states that this supposed interference by Hitler either never took place or had no effect, the 262 was simply not ready to be put into production as a either fighter or a bomber as early as is generally assumed today.

Could you share the title and author?

The 4 volume tome by Smith/Creek on the Me262 I thought was pretty good.

Germany didn't switch over to a full-fledged wartime economy until after the infamous "total war" speech by Goebbels at the Berlin Sportspalast in early 1943. By then it was way too late.

One thing is clear. Both Napoleon and Hitler failed to read the same "How to invade Britain" book that William the Conqueror read.

Step one: Wait until the British are distracted by another invasion

Not to forget the "Don't invade Russia!" memo...

I must post this now. One of my favorite memes of all time.

I'm looking, it's not on my library shelves so I'll have to look through some volumes I have put away in boxes.

I've gone through a few boxes and can't find the book, I believe it was "Messerschmitt Me 262: Arrow to the Future" by Walter J Boyne ( https://amazon.com/Messerschmitt-Me-262-Arrow-Future/dp/0874742757? )


Found a video that states much of what I recall reading:


https://youtu.be/JSIgldbu5QU





I did find that I own THREE copies of "Yeager"

I have that book is quite good, but not as good as the Smith/Creek tome.

Nor as expensive! You can easily spend a grand or more for the set.

Look around.
Vol 3 (new) from Amazon Canada > $89.16