Germany to Africa, how?

An interesting comparison for sure! Thanks for sharing.

That’s because each nation during WWII learned different lessons during that war. USSR build their tanks to be cheap because they know they will lose equipment and men. They accept that losing soldiers is going to happen so they tend to use numbers to gain the edge, however they haven’t needed to do this since WWII. The last tried this in Afgan and it didn’t work so well.

The US can’t take loses for $hit, so we try to destroy you from the air, far way, as fast as possible and units that are designed to be in your face while fighting are armored up.

@Zooey72:

the topic went in a weird direction, to  bring it back I would like to see someone argue the point I made with how Germany could have won the war.

If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?  I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no army, and in 41 Russia would have fallen before winter.  Even if it didn’t fall I am sure Moscow would have fallen, and the following spring offensive would have ended the war in the East.

The difference between this and other ‘miracle weapons’ is that an assault weapon is practical.  Jets and really big tanks take up too many resources even if they had been produced earlier or in greater numbers.  Ammunition would have been a factor, but that would have been it.

Imagine it, an army equipped with assault rifles opposed by armies who are equipped with what is basicaly now a hunting rifle.

Fortunately for the world Hitler didn’t like the concept until it was too late.Â

I found out, that it may have been allready implemented to German Soldiers way earlier, like 1942 as the Mkb-42.
It happend for tests that those Mkb`s 42 were sometimes dropped off for encircled infantry groups in russia to test run it. (weird)
but actually came to positive results of the Mkb-42 aka StGW '44.

Still pretty decisive. Imagine if it had lasted 10 days instead of 1. :-o

And Rome was conquered by barbarian hordes…  Just because a society is more sophisticated doesn’t mean it can’t be conquered by a less sophisticated one.

@ABWorsham:

Should the Italians and Germans occupied Tunisia in 1941? This would have given more airfields to attack Malta bound convoys, provided more ports for shipping, ports that were closer to the Apennine Peninsula. The addition of these ports would forced the British to hunt for shipping west of Malta, which could have helped ease the stress on Tripoli and Benghazi convoys.

Those might have proved to be advantages to the Axis, but they might have come at the cost of negative consequences that would have offset them.  Tunisia was a Vichy-controlled territory at the time.  If the Axis had invaded Tunisia, the Vichy regime would likely have regarded this as a breach of the 1940 armistice terms with Germany, and would probably have reacted in ways Germany would not have liked.  Remember that when the Allies invaded North Africa, Germany occupied the “unoccupied” Vichy-controlled southern part of France, to which France responded with the scuttle of its fleet at Toulon to keep it out of German hands.  France might have done the same thing if the Axis had walked into Tunisia in 1941, and might even have jumped to the Allied side entirely.  So the cost-benefit analysis of an Axis invasion of Tunisia involves some tricky might-have-beens.

And it is a big difference if those German ships are new (build in 1939, or something), because a lot of British ships were older then that.