Could Hitler win WWII IF... he had divine foresight...

[Ethel mermania]

Watch yourself...

You shouldn't have made the thread if you didn't want people to offer their input, dear.

i stand by my asertion that if napolean had a b-52 air wing, he would have won the war.

[Draakonite]

Desperate people do desperate things, like using old men and Hitler Youth to maintain the ruins of Berlin in a last ditch stand against the overwhelming Soviet forces.

except that was in keeping with his ideals - separating Slavs from Jews and Communists wasn't.

Bulgaria isn't slavic?

[Draakonite]

You shouldn't have made the thread if you didn't want people to offer their input, dear.

i stand by my asertion that if napolean had a b-52 air wing, he would have won the war.

Wrong, 99% would crash because of piloting error, 1% because of running out of fuel.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

except that was in keeping with his ideals - separating Slavs from Jews and Communists wasn't.

Bulgaria isn't slavic?

Bulgaria was hardly an actual ally of Germany. More of a tool, like the Slavic populations themselves were to be used for slave labor.
they were Slavs but not communists, at least not yet - so they could be used.

[Shofercia]

Nope. Blitzkrieg tactics failed at Stalingrad, and the "superior" race failed to innovate. Without Hitler's non-interference, more Nazis could've gotten out, but the Battle of Stalingrad would still be lost by Nazis.

Had Hitler allowed his generals to run the war, the Battle of Stalingrad might not have even taken place. All of which is neither here nor there, since he didn't and it did.

Had Stalin not purged the Red Army, we'd be in Paris by 1943.

By breaching a defensive line, I meant breaching an entire defensive line, not just parts of it. The breach by Nazis fell apart, and even if they would've made it to the third defensive line, they'd run into fresh Red Army reserves. You have to keep in mind that the Red Army kept an entire Front in Reserve at Kursk.

I beg your pardon, but that's clearly moving the goalposts and a ridiculous definition of the term "breach". A breach in one part of the line, 99% of the time, is equal to a breach everywhere - that's how a defensive line works. Google defines breach:
"a gap in a wall, barrier, or defense, esp. one made by an attacking army."
All it takes is making a gap,not an entire structural collapse, which the Germans did at the first line, at the second line, and nearly did at the third line. Had they broken the third line, would it really have mattered? Probably not, admittedly.
And the breach in the south didn't "fall apart", it was fought back.
Again, to say they "only breached the first line" is factually incorrect by the actual facts of the battle and by the definition of the word "breach".

I was talking about a specific example, in a specific context, not about general theory, and you damn well knew that. The partial breach in the second line was not enough for exploitation, which is why Nazis failed to exploit it. On top of that, there was an entire Front in Reserve, waiting to cover said breach.

I meant the Tigers, Elephants and Panthers, which were first used on a mass scale by Nazis at Kursk.

Those vehicles were not counted as "wonder weapons" in literally any source I've ever seen - especially Elefants, which everyone thought were ridiculous and didn't even work (not much of a wonder weapon to not even have a machine-gun to defend itself from infantry). there was nothing new about the Tiger or Panther; they were just (in theory) better tanks than those that had came before. The Elefant was literally just mounting a bigger gun than usual on a tank carriage - nothing new about that.
Wonder weapons were the weapons that were supposed to be some sort of massive scientific advance or paradigm shift in warfare - directly, stuff like the V-2 or V-3, or indirectly, German subs that didn't need to resurface for weeks, or atomic weapons, or things like that.
While the wiki isn't perfect, they have a (fairly generous) list on there of what was considered a wonder weapon, and none of those three vehicles are listed there. In fact, the vast, vast majority of the things listed there, Russia never had to contend with in any numbers at all.

The Tigers weren't just better tanks in theory. They were better tanks in practice, at least a vast improvement on what Nazis had. Additionally, when the Soviets mounted a big on on a chassis, we got the Animal Hunter Assault Gun, which became one of the prototypes for the current Assault Guns in use.

Nope. Blitzkrieg tactics failed at Stalingrad, and the "superior" race failed to innovate. Without Hitler's non-interference, more Nazis could've gotten out, but the Battle of Stalingrad would still be lost by Nazis.

Ah, yes, the superior race failed to innovate. I'll be taking these early-model helicopters, the jet engine (and the first combat plane to use such), as well as the V-1 and V-2 rockets and sit them all over in the "non-innovative military technologies" section, with the American Crocodile Tank, and the Davy Crockett Mortar, because these apparently non-innovative German technologies are obviously as effective as the other two.

I was talking about tactics used at the Battle of Stalingrad... As thus, your strawman is clearly inferior to my argument.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

I was talking about a specific example, in a specific context, not about general theory, and you damn well knew that.

No, I obviously didn't, and that still doesn't change anything.

The partial breach in the second line was not enough for exploitation, which is why Nazis failed to exploit it.

It absolutely was exploited, hence why the II SS Panzerarmee was able to reach Prokhorovka, which all my sources indicated anchored the THIRD line. How do you not exploit or penetrate a line and yet somehow smash through its main axis of defense and proceed to reach the other side, anyhow?

On top of that, there was an entire Front in Reserve, waiting to cover said breach.

Not relevant.

The Tigers weren't just better tanks in theory. They were better tanks in practice,

No way in hell. They were nearly impossible to make, broke constantly, had obsolete armor, were incredibly slow, and near0impossible to maintain.
At least the Panzer IV was kinda quick and could be made in greater numbers.

at least a vast improvement on what Nazis had.

Definitely arguable.

Additionally, when the Soviets mounted a big on on a chassis, we got the Animal Hunter Assault Gun, which became one of the prototypes for the current Assault Guns in use.

Spectacular.
At any rate, none of what you listed have ever been classified as Wunderwaffe of any kind.

[Draakonite]

Bulgaria isn't slavic?

Bulgaria was hardly an actual ally of Germany. More of a tool, like the Slavic populations themselves were to be used for slave labor.
they were Slavs but not communists, at least not yet - so they could be used.

Croatia, Slovakia, Cossacks, Russian Liberation Army...

Ah the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, although the number of participants isn't overhelming.

[Shofercia]

I was talking about a specific example, in a specific context, not about general theory, and you damn well knew that.

No, I obviously didn't

Well, for future reference: when I talk about weapons used at the Battle of Kursk, I'm talking about weapons used at the Battle of Kursk.

The partial breach in the second line was not enough for exploitation, which is why Nazis failed to exploit it.

It absolutely was exploited, hence why the II SS Panzerarmee was able to reach Prokhorovka, which all my sources indicated anchored the THIRD line. How do you not exploit or penetrate a line and yet somehow smash through its main axis of defense and proceed to reach the other side, anyhow?

If you want to exploit something, you have to create a corridor wide enough and be able to move a massive number of forces through it. That didn't happen, unless you want to use the absolute literal definition, where even if one tank makes it across, that's exploitation, which, IMHO, is bullshit. Ability to exploit weakness, to me, means the ability to move around and encircle your opponent, or, at the very least, the ability to attack them where they're not expecting, and thus to exploit their inability to defend themselves. The Soviets revealed almost no weak points at Kursk, definitely not enough for any meaningful exploitation, which is why that didn't happen.

On top of that, there was an entire Front in Reserve, waiting to cover said breach.

Not relevant.

It is when you're talking about exploitation. The goal is to exploit a weak point in your enemy's defensive, not to attack into the teeth of their largest military formation.

The Tigers weren't just better tanks in theory. They were better tanks in practice,

No way in hell. They were nearly impossible to make, broke constantly, had obsolete armor, were incredibly slow, and near0impossible to maintain.
At least the Panzer IV was kinda quick and could be made in greater numbers.

If by obsolete, you mean armor that's extremely hard to penetrate...

Additionally, when the Soviets mounted a big on on a chassis, we got the Animal Hunter Assault Gun, which became one of the prototypes for the current Assault Guns in use.

Spectacular

I agree!

[The Tiger Kingdom]

If you want to exploit something, you have to create a corridor wide enough and be able to move a massive number of forces through it. That didn't happen, unless you want to use the absolute literal definition, where even if one tank makes it across, that's exploitation, which, IMHO, is bullshit.

An entire SS Panzer Army (II, under Hausser) got through, with possible additional follow-up from the Army divisions following behind. That was three big, elite divisions at the very least - dozens of thousands of men and hundreds of tanks and assault guns, all punched through the second line.

Ability to exploit weakness, to me, means the ability to move around and encircle your opponent, or, at the very least, the ability to attack them where they're not expecting, and thus to exploit their inability to defend themselves.

That's an extremely narrow and not very accurate definition of "exploit", honestly.
That's like pure Fullerism, which never worked very well in execution.

The Soviets revealed almost no weak points at Kursk,

Except at the southern half, at which the first, second, and nearly third lines were broken, which would have broken salient and necessitated throwing in two entire Tank Armies and then an entire additional Front had it fallen.
Relative to the north line, that looks like a weak point.

definitely not enough for any meaningful exploitation, which is why that didn't happen.

You are an absolute master of moving goalposts, you know that? First we're debating if the Germans breached the second line or not, then we debated what "breach" means, now you're saying it doesn't count unless there was "exploitation", which is inherent in no actual meaning of the term "breach".
At best, we're now debating using your personal definitions as opposed to those used by the actual sources, which I get the feeling are being moved around post-to-post.

It is when you're talking about exploitation.

You're literally the only one talking about exploitation.

The goal is to exploit a weak point in your enemy's defensive, not to attack into the teeth of their largest military formation.

Not every battle is won by some Fullerian "thrust" into a weak point in the line. Those often aren't present, and when done, often don't work. See the Allied campaigns that destroyed the German Army in France for proof of that.

If by obsolete, you mean armor that's extremely hard to penetrate...

It was obsolete because it was massively boxy and non-slanted, meaning you had to have a shitload more armor than you would've if it was slanted. The whole tank was a massive shell-trap. Yeah, it was hard to shoot through, at the cost of being almost impossible to move. It's incredibly inefficient and wasteful at best, and actively detrimental to shell deflection at worst.
There's a reason the Germans switched to sloped armor on the Panther and King Tiger. You'll see what I mean if you look at a comparison of them side-by-side. There's a reason tank design moved away from non-sloped armor on the whole.

I agree!

Nice. I suppose I'll take this as a concession.

[Lemanrussland]

What the fuck?

[Shofercia]

If you want to exploit something, you have to create a corridor wide enough and be able to move a massive number of forces through it. That didn't happen, unless you want to use the absolute literal definition, where even if one tank makes it across, that's exploitation, which, IMHO, is bullshit.

An entire SS Panzer Army (II, under Hausser) got through, with possible additional follow-up from the Army divisions following behind. That was three big, elite divisions at the very least - dozens of thousands of men and hundreds of tanks and assault guns, all punched through the second line.

And "exploited" right into the teeth of Soviet Defenses.

Ability to exploit weakness, to me, means the ability to move around and encircle your opponent, or, at the very least, the ability to attack them where they're not expecting, and thus to exploit their inability to defend themselves.

That's an extremely narrow and not very accurate definition of "exploit", honestly.
That's like pure Fullerism, which never worked very well in execution.

How would you define exploiting a weakness? Ability to attack an army right into the army's teeth?

The Soviets revealed almost no weak points at Kursk,

Except at the southern half, at which the first, second, and nearly third lines were broken, which would have broken salient and necessitated throwing in two entire Tank Armies and then an entire additional Front had it fallen.
Relative to the north line, that looks like a weak point.

If they weren't broken, then the Red Army did a good job, seeing as that's something that never happened to Nazis before. Nazis cruised over the Franco-British Armies in 1940 with relative ease. Ditto to the Polish Army in 1939. Never, prior to Kursk, was a massive Nazi Offensive stopped prior to reaching Operational Depths.

definitely not enough for any meaningful exploitation, which is why that didn't happen.

You are an absolute master of moving goalposts, you know that? First we're debating if the Germans breached the second line or not, then we debated what "breach" means

You don't think that a definition of "breach" is vital to determining whether a line was "breached" or not?

It is when you're talking about exploitation.

You're literally the only one talking about exploitation.

So you're not talking about it?

The goal is to exploit a weak point in your enemy's defensive, not to attack into the teeth of their largest military formation.

Not every battle is won by some Fullerian "thrust" into a weak point in the line. Those often aren't present, and when done, often don't work. See the Allied campaigns that destroyed the German Army in France for proof of that.

I said that it was the goal. I never said that it was the only goal. Thus, your rebuttal is classified as a strawman.

If by obsolete, you mean armor that's extremely hard to penetrate...

It was obsolete because it was massively boxy and non-slanted, meaning you had to have a shitload more armor than you would've if it was slanted. The whole tank was a massive shell-trap. Yeah, it was hard to shoot through, at the cost of being almost impossible to move. It's incredibly inefficient and wasteful at best, and actively detrimental to shell deflection at worst.
There's a reason the Germans switched to sloped armor on the Panther and King Tiger. You'll see what I mean if you look at a comparison of them side-by-side. There's a reason tank design moved away from non-sloped armor on the whole.

I was talking about the Tiger tanks that were used at Kursk, and I also listed Panther thanks. Thus, one can easily extrapolate from the text that said Tigers were King Tigers.

I agree!

Nice. I suppose I'll take this as a concession.

I wouldn't, if I were you.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

And "exploited" right into the teeth of Soviet Defenses.

Right...proving my point that the second line was broken, because those defenses constituted the third line.
That was literally all I was arguing.

How would you define exploiting a weakness? Ability to attack an army right into the army's teeth?

That part of the overall line was weak. That doesn't mean the entire front was weak. But having the Germans penetrate that far sure as hell wasn't part of some sort of Soviet master plan.
The fact that they were repulsed at the third line (barely) doesn't mean that the Germans didn't get farther than the first line, which I recall, very long ago, was the actual point of this debate here.

If they weren't broken, then the Red Army did a good job, seeing as that's something that never happened to Nazis before. Nazis cruised over the Franco-British Armies in 1940

Not really, and not uniformly. Look up the Battle of the Gembloux Gap, or the Battle of Stonne, for starters.

with relative ease.

Not so much. Also see German tank losses in France/the Low Countries in 1940.

Ditto to the Polish Army in 1939.

See German tank and aircraft losses in Poland. You amy be surprised.

Never, prior to Kursk, was a massive Nazi Offensive stopped prior to reaching Operational Depths.

*coughAlameincough*

So you're not talking about it?

I am because you moved the debate there - I don't know why you are or what relevance it has to the original points.

I said that it was the goal. I never said that it was the only goal. Thus, your rebuttal is classified as a strawman.

No, it's not, because that's legitimately what your argument looked like to me, and honestly, your retroactive classification of my argument doesn't mean very much to me, and I don't know why you think I would care. If you want me to stay on your topic, maybe do a better job of writing what you're trying to say.
If you say it's THE goal, you imply it's the primary goal, hence why I focused on it. You see how this works? You're trying to find the tiniest loopholes to try and divert the debate - don't think I don't notice.

I was talking about the Tiger tanks that were used at Kursk,

So was I.

and I also listed Panther thanks. Thus, one can easily extrapolate from the text that said Tigers were King Tigers.

Sorry, but bull-fucking-shit. The Tiger and King Tiger are markedly, crucially different tanks - either you're moving the goalposts yet again or you're being so vague with your language that it's ridiculous and verges on legitimate poor writing. That's like saying "well, I was talking about six and eight in the same sentence, so anybody could tell that six actually meant seven".
Also, the KT was used first IN NORMANDY (look it up), so that's another miss that the Soviets got the "bleeding edge" of it first. Also, not Wunderwaffe, soo...
See, this is what I mean.

I wouldn't, if I were you.

Except you basically stopped putting up opposition to that argument and didn't contest the points that I made there, in favor of cutting apart a quote to make it look like I agreed with you when anyone reading the original post could tell I didn't. Terrible debating tactic, by the way, very easy to figure out.
What exactly should I be assuming?

[Ethel mermania]

i stand by my asertion that if napolean had a b-52 air wing, he would have won the war.

Wrong, 99% would crash because of piloting error, 1% because of running out of fuel.

absurd,

the french forces were very well trained under napolean, what makes you think the bomber wing would be any different?

[Benuty]

Wrong, 99% would crash because of piloting error, 1% because of running out of fuel.

absurd,

the french forces were very well trained under napolean, what makes you think the bomber wing would be any different?

This would require them having 1940s level tech in the Napoleonic wars. Who is to say the Coalition forces wouldn't have it as well?

[Ethel mermania]

absurd,

the french forces were very well trained under napolean, what makes you think the bomber wing would be any different?

This would require them having 1940s level tech in the Napoleonic wars. Who is to say the Coalition forces wouldn't have it as well?

late 50's early 60's but who is counting.

well if we assume only hitler had the devine book, why not assume napolean was a general during the second world war, and had access to a fully functional nuclear capabile us air wing at his beck and call. think of what one 3 plane flight would have done to gudarians punch through the arden.

take that you dirty boshe.

[Shofercia]

And "exploited" right into the teeth of Soviet Defenses.

Right...proving my point that the second line was broken, because those defenses constituted the third line.
That was literally all I was arguing.

Can we just agree that a part of the second line was temporarily broken?

How would you define exploiting a weakness? Ability to attack an army right into the army's teeth?

That part of the overall line was weak. That doesn't mean the entire front was weak. But having the Germans penetrate that far sure as hell wasn't part of some sort of Soviet master plan.
The fact that they were repulsed at the third line (barely) doesn't mean that the Germans didn't get farther than the first line, which I recall, very long ago, was the actual point of this debate here.

Barely? Dude, the Soviets went on the offensive right after repulsing Nazis. Meaning Soviets had reserves. Meaning that there was an entire Front ready to repulse Nazis if necessary. If you read my posts in context, instead of chopping them up, you'd realize what I was talking about.

If they weren't broken, then the Red Army did a good job, seeing as that's something that never happened to Nazis before. Nazis cruised over the Franco-British Armies in 1940

Not really, and not uniformly. Look up the Battle of the Gembloux Gap, or the Battle of Stonne, for starters.

Earlier I specified that it was done on a massive scale. I also realize that Yelnia happened before Kursk, but neither Gembloux nor Stonne nor Yelnia had a war-altering scale, although you can argue for the latter's morale push.

with relative ease.

Not so much. Also see German tank losses in France/the Low Countries in 1940.

So? Even Wikidorkia admits:

Allied casualties: Total: 2,260,000 casualties
Nazi casualties: Total: 163,650 casualties

As I said, relative ease.

Ditto to the Polish Army in 1939.

See German tank and aircraft losses in Poland. You amy be surprised.

Pretty sure I won't be. Again, I said relative ease. You're welcome to break up my posts all day long, but I'm still going to point you to what I originally meant.

Never, prior to Kursk, was a massive Nazi Offensive stopped prior to reaching Operational Depths.

*coughAlameincough*

Massive if the key word there chief. And since we're talking about WWII, I'm talking about massive by WWII standards.

So you're not talking about it?

I am because you moved the debate there - I don't know why you are or what relevance it has to the original points.

If you wouldn't break up posts, you'd know.

I said that it was the goal. I never said that it was the only goal. Thus, your rebuttal is classified as a strawman.

No, it's not, because that's legitimately what your argument looked like to me, and honestly, your retroactive classification of my argument doesn't mean very much to me, and I don't know why you think I would care. If you want me to stay on your topic, maybe do a better job of writing what you're trying to say.
If you say it's THE goal, you imply it's the primary goal, hence why I focused on it. You see how this works? You're trying to find the tiniest loopholes to try and divert the debate - don't think I don't notice.

Again, primary goal doesn't mean only goal.

I wouldn't, if I were you.

Except you basically stopped putting up opposition to that argument and didn't contest the points that I made there, in favor of cutting apart a quote to make it look like I agreed with you when anyone reading the original post could tell I didn't. Terrible debating tactic, by the way, very easy to figure out.
What exactly should I be assuming?

Actually, what's going on, is that I'm seeing that you haven't read much, (possibly haven't read anything,) about the Battle of Kursk. And yet, you're trying to vigorously debate it, based on some random wikidorkia knowledge. You shouldn't be assuming anything. You should do your reading.

[Acrainia]

Hitler didn't need divine foresight to win anything, had the Germans enjoyed a slightly little more luck in 1940-1941 and run the campaign a little smarter they might have won the whole shebang. The Soviets were on the verge of giving up on several occasions, its not unrealistic to assume they would have thrown the flag in had they been denied many of the few moral boosting victories they got early on.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Hitler didn't need divine foresight to win anything, had the Germans enjoyed a slightly little more luck in 1940-1941 and run the campaign a little smarter they might have won the whole shebang. The Soviets were on the verge of giving up on several occasions, its not unrealistic to assume they would have thrown the flag in had they been denied many of the few moral boosting victories they got early on.

I'm sure you have a source for that.

[Trotskylvania]

Hitler didn't need divine foresight to win anything, had the Germans enjoyed a slightly little more luck in 1940-1941 and run the campaign a little smarter they might have won the whole shebang. The Soviets were on the verge of giving up on several occasions, its not unrealistic to assume they would have thrown the flag in had they been denied many of the few moral boosting victories they got early on.

I'm sure you have a source for that.

Given that they knew from the very start that it was a literal life or death struggle, and that if they lost, not only would every one in the government be purged, the Nazis were going to exterminate the population of the entire country through starvation and sterilization, I'm going to lean in the other direction. The Soviets could never afford to give up, and they damn well knew it. At the very best, they might accept an armistice that was status quo ante bellum, but that's not victory for the Germans.

[Glorious Vladimir Putin]

The question is irrelevant. Only I have such foresight.

[Shofercia]

The question is irrelevant. Only I have such foresight.

From your sig: "Град Владимир Путин и России Родину!"

That means that Putin is a city in Russia. I do not think that's the message that you're trying to convey. If it is, then my mistake, carry on. If it's not, what are you trying to say?

[Glorious Vladimir Putin]

The question is irrelevant. Only I have such foresight.

From your sig: "Град Владимир Путин и России Родину!"

That means that Putin is a city in Russia. I do not think that's the message that you're trying to convey. If it is, then my mistake, carry on. If it's not, what are you trying to say?

Fuck

[Cameroi]

hitler had generals who could have won, if they hadn't had hitler. but the whole mindset that drove what hitler was about, would have defeated itself, sooner or later, one way or another. even if it hadn't had the albitros of hitler himself.

[Draakonite]

hitler had generals who could have won, if they hadn't had hitler. but the whole mindset that drove what hitler was about, would have defeated itself, sooner or later, one way or another. even if it hadn't had the albitros of hitler himself.

He would need to get sane for a moment to realize that he sucks at warcraft. Stalin did it.

[Gauthier]

The question is irrelevant. Only I have such foresight.

From your sig: "Град Владимир Путин и России Родину!"

That means that Putin is a city in Russia. I do not think that's the message that you're trying to convey. If it is, then my mistake, carry on. If it's not, what are you trying to say?

Putin is an infrastructure.