What if Germany liberated Poland after keeping Danzig and it's earlier boundaries?

[Sunforged General]

In 1939 the Northern Section of the Maignot line is much stronger, being constructed mainly out of interlinking fortresses, than the section running from Strasbourg to Mulhouse, which is mostly well sited pillboxes, blockhouses and casemate machine gun batteries, and relying a lot on terrain and the Black Forest and the Rhine for protection. Very similar in concept we might say to the section of the 'extended' line that was crossed at Sedan, only properly finished (and presumably the keys to some of the bunkers hadn't been lost )
Both North and Southern sections are reliant on Gap troops to sally and force back advancing forces and to support the batteries, but the southern section more so. Dealing effectively with the Luftwaffe would be critical or weakpoints will be found and individual batteries will be silenced, and with respect the French air force was not capable of doing this in 1939, nor could it have been made so in the short term.

So it comes down to how well it is defended and how well the units selected to be gap troops perform under dive bomber attack to keep the entire thing secure. It should be much more defensible true but there will be weak points, (such as Corap's 9th proved to be), regardless of the fortifications themselves. If the Germans in a 1 vs 1 are going to cross the line, it will likely be in this section, and the butchers bill would no doubt be high.
Otherwise it will be later when Gustav and Dora come to play, they will look to obliterate fortresses in the Northern sector and given what they did to the fortresses at Sevastopol this would be a very big problem for France. They would have no answer to this unless they had managed to best the Luftwaffe.

Secondly economy wise, you might wish to peruse the old League of Nations yearbooks, if you are dubious about Germany's economy vs France in 1939, or look at modern GDP projections mapped for the time. Germany had a GDP ~3x that of France and outproduced her enormously in terms of Steel and Coal. Even if France cuts off Germany's supply of Iron ore from Sweden it merely drops production by a 1/4 as she continues to consume the very large amounts of ore she produces domestically.

Next Tanks, France could have produced more tanks, and more armaments, but to suggest they could outproduce Germany post 1938, when they had the Czech capabilities added to their own is a fantasy. Secondly the tanks she did produce were of variable quality, the B1, excellent in many ways but with serious running gear problems, the rest were, charitably, not up to scratch. And finally even in 1940 Reynaud had enormous trouble persuading the owners and unions to actually work beyond a standard working week, most armaments factories shut at 5pm sharp, something massive has to change in the French industrial mindset, perhaps the shock of being abandoned might do it, or possibly the USSR encouraging the communists to work hard, though the latter would be dependent on if the USSR and Germany were friendly and had signed their pact.

If it is France alone, and Germany 'respects' the sovereignty of Belgium and Switzerland to avoid 3rd party intervention then France will face an uphill struggle even given her colonial advantages.

A Couple of points to touch on. For one, Most of Germany's iron ore was of low grade and not useful for German purposes. Grand Admiral Raeder, head of the German navy, declared that it would be "utterly impossible to make war should the navy not be able to secure the supplies of iron-ore from Sweden". I'd argue a Grand Admiral should know what he's talking about. Secondly, the Maginot line along the Rhine river may have not been as fortified as it was in the northern sector, however, if this is the main axis of German attack, this means the French will send their entire army to this sector to reinforce it. The Rhine river is a formidable barrier to cross, if there are no bridges, and if the enemy on the other side is as numerous as you are, but entrenched. The line would definitely hold for the few days to a week it would take for French reinforcements to start arriving in Force, with Char B1s and massed Artillery.

Furthermore, the claims of Germany having a GDP 3X higher than France are based on official German statistics, handed out by Joseph Goebbels and should be taken with a grain of salt. Even the Weimar Republic proved its words to be dubious when it began Rearmament while telling the league of nations it wasn't, how can we trust anything they say? Its far more likely their GDP ratio was more in line with what it is today, which is Germany's economy being about 1.5 times as big as that of France (in 2019 the French economy in PPP terms was 3.161 trillion USD, while Germany's economy was 4.444 trillion USD in PPP terms). Also, Germany may have had the bigger steel industry, but France had the worlds largest production of iron ore in the late 1930s. France had room for growth, Germany had non if supplies from Sweden or the USSR are cut off.

Also France had other tanks superior to all German tanks, besides the Char B1...the Somua S35 also outclassed any German tank in its balance of armor, firepower and speed.

 

[Pz. Los]

Hitler's credibility was shot after Munich. The Polish government would also in no way accept the loss of its coastal territories, so there's no way a "fully independent" Poland would have been possible, especially with the Nazis in power. On a side note, can we stop using the term liberation? Liberation from what? Being territorially intact?

Liberation in terms of the game mechanics or in being under a Nazi jackboot like what happened historically if you like. It’s just a discussion, no need to take it personally.

 

[valisk]

A Couple of points to touch on. For one, Most of Germany's iron ore was of low grade and not useful for German purposes. Grand Admiral Raeder, head of the German navy, declared that it would be "utterly impossible to make war should the navy not be able to secure the supplies of iron-ore from Sweden". I'd argue a Grand Admiral should know what he's talking about. Secondly, the Maginot line along the Rhine river may have not been as fortified as it was in the northern sector, however, if this is the main axis of German attack, this means the French will send their entire army to this sector to reinforce it. The Rhine river is a formidable barrier to cross, if there are no bridges, and if the enemy on the other side is as numerous as you are, but entrenched. The line would definitely hold for the few days to a week it would take for French reinforcements to start arriving in Force, with Char B1s and massed Artillery.

Furthermore, the claims of Germany having a GDP 3X higher than France are based on official German statistics, handed out by Joseph Goebbels and should be taken with a grain of salt. Even the Weimar Republic proved its words to be dubious when it began Rearmament while telling the league of nations it wasn't, how can we trust anything they say? Its far more likely their GDP ratio was more in line with what it is today, which is Germany's economy being about 1.5 times as big as that of France (in 2019 the French economy in PPP terms was 3.161 trillion USD, while Germany's economy was 4.444 trillion USD in PPP terms). Also, Germany may have had the bigger steel industry, but France had the worlds largest production of iron ore in the late 1930s. France had room for growth, Germany had non if supplies from Sweden or the USSR are cut off.

Also France had other tanks superior to all German tanks, besides the Char B1...the Somua S35 also outclassed any German tank in its balance of armor, firepower and speed.

Steel production was of course critical for the Navy, nobody can argue that, and the longer the war goes on the more the lack of Swedish ore will tell for all the other services, yes.

But I think assuming that France could cut off the Baltic routes is a actually bit of stretch, Denmark would presumably declare herself neutral and bar warships of both sides from crossing, not doing so would almost certainly result in a German invasion that she cannot repel. Secondly, what ships of shallow draft did France have to send via that route? Nothing large is going through with ease, any of those may have to slowly maneuver through the straits via the Great Belt only, and for unfamiliar pilots there is a high risk being unexpectedly grounded, they would be sitting ducks for bombers and e-boats launching torpedos, and carefully placed mines.

The Germans of course have the Kiel Canal so can enter and exit at will regardless of Denmark's status. In WW1 the mad genius of the Royal Navy, Jackie Fisher, produced a special class of Battlecruiser with an extremely shallow draft so it could enter the Baltic sea to support an invasion. They were never used for their intended purpose for many reasons, but one of which, in the tactical sense, was that it was near suicidal to attempt to enter, and the experience of attempting to force a narrow strait where batteries, minelayers and such delights awaited was amply demonstrated to pretty much everyone's satisfaction by the Turks. On a strategic note, Germany would simply invade Denmark then you are also facing shore batteries with no room to maneuver and have just stranded a fleet..

Anyway lets say you do get your fleet into the Baltic, are you now proposing to tell Sweden it cannot export its ore to Denmark? Or are you going to tell Denmark and Sweden that they cannot engage in trade under the barrel of your guns? That is a violation of their neutrality, you may create two allies for Germany this way.

And if you do manage to bring a fleet through, it's going to cost, it would not be too difficult to close the straits behind them with aerial mine drops or u-boats and the u-boats in the Baltic would have a field day when they come in, and as they attempt to leave, and your fleet would attempt to leave at some point because they need fuel to continue their operations. Ships will be lost and damaged and they will use a lot of fuel in inefficient low speed maneuvers. Do you think you will be able to dictate trade terms to Sweden and Denmark and ask them at the same time to 'fill 'er up'? Filling up might also be very difficult as most of their ports are deep enough only for shallow draft vessels and could not allow a large ship to dock.

Also you would be facing a not inconsiderable German Fleet capable of entering the Baltic Sea or the North Sea, the Kiel Canal gives them total flexibility, cutting you off on the other side of the belts and destroying you at their leisure as you slowly make your way through the belts. And they will know you are coming and be in a good disposition to cause the maximum possible effect.

There is a very good reason the Royal Navy never tried this in two world wars. You might find if you want to cut off ore supplies that you need to look more closely at what the allies did try, which is to buy up the stocks of ore with cold hard cash.

Now for Maignot, yes you are quite right it would be obvious in our hindsight that the Germans will feel the southern section is the weak point, in Hoi Terms, 'just' a Level 10 vs the insane L12 of the northern line.
It still has great advantages, the telephone network for the forts and blockhouses is connected with buried armoured cables, so a cohesive response to breakthrough attempts is possible. Getting past this is going to be extremely costly. But it is not 1916, the Germans will almost certainly take control of the air quicker than in our war, as they will be facing the French Air Force alone, and here is where we begin to see the downside of French doctrines and equipment.

• France has very good planes, most have no radios
• France has some excellent tanks, most have no radios
• France has some excellent fighting men, yet her HQ uses runners, riders and carrier pigeons as in 1914 rather than radios or telephones.
• France has Gamelin, need I say more.

Firstly getting to the line.
We are going to want to chop down every tree in sight and block any trails to hinder and prevent their advance.
But Gamelin.

Petain once said the Ardennes was impassible, which people remember and laugh at, but he finished his sentence with the words 'provided special measures are carried out' and his intention was to fell every tree that needed to be chopped to block all the pathways and trails or anything that looked remotely navigable. Under Gamelin's watch this was specifically not carried out so the Cavalry could use it to advance, because one of the most basic lessons of 1914-1918 had been forgotten.

Anyway, I would see that piercing the Line costs Germany extremely dear in blood, but not on a Verdun scale, because the Luftwaffe will have free reign for a while at least to carve up units that are supporting the line. France will need to put her best units right in the firing line, or risk her A (and especially) B grade reserves breaking under the bombardments as they historically did leaving a huge gap, but this is also going to prove very costly in terms of her own best soldiers. The world class French Artillery is going to need protecting from the Stukas to perform its deadly mission and there is a big shortage of anti-air and fighter coverage.

Our next option, as I see it, is to prepare for a defense in depth behind the line, multiple lines of forward facing fortifications cut into every hill side, and defilade pill boxes on every slope and fall back slowly in a controlled retreat with each line retreating to behind the next and into a new line, so that for Germany every step of the journey into France is an assault on the Maginot line. This way we maximize the chance the German Army mounts a coup and kills Hitler and his inner circle because of the horrible losses, whilst Reynaud and Deladier drink a nice bottle of wine in a pretty Cafe by the Seine.
But Gamelin.

This cretin and his staff are still thinking of a 'continuous front' will they pull back the manpower needed to build such defenses? If they do what quality will they be? Sedan and the Maignot extension, gives us a reason to suspect that there will be very serious problems in this regard. The Maisons Fortes built around the Meuse lacked their steel doors and blast shields, which left these fortifications easy prey for the German tanks. Maj. Sarraz-Bournet, one of Gamelin's staff, found that many bunkers built by civilian contractors did not have embrasures facing the right way, he wondered if it was sabotage or simply sheer incompetence, he also found that the barbed wire that had been lain out was done so in such an appallingly shoddy fashion he concluded the men who laid it had never been trained to do so and almost certainly had not been supervised whilst they did their work.

So let us put aside statistics and such for a moment, the Line gives France a chance here. She needs to be up to the job of absorbing the initial extremely heavy blow, then turn every step for the German soldiers into a graveyard. And she is going to suffer mightily herself to do so. It is not impossible to imagine she can slow the progress of any German spearhead to such an extent that it begins to cause the Army to think about snuffing out Hitler, but we are probably talking about being willing to accept Verdun scale casualties on her own side to inflict them on the Germans in order to achieve this.
Based on the performance of her leaders, and her entire military command right down through the chain, her civilian workforce and her general will to fight, this is not an easy ask.

 

[Kovax]

As for the OP's question:
There would have been no reason and no motivation for Germany to liberate Poland once both France and the UK were already at war with Germany. First, Hitler wanted Poland as an avenue to reach the Soviet Union, and releasing it as an independent state would have put it squarely in the way of his goals. Second, France and the UK would never have accepted a peace deal with Hitler after his credibility was thrown completely out the window, smashed on the ground, and trampled into the dirt, as a result of him having broken both his word and signed treaties on numerous occasions. There was no point in making deals with someone who could never be trusted to keep their side of it. As long as Hitler was in power, the Allies were not going to negotiate.

The question I have is: What would the UK and other Allied countries have done if Hitler had been killed in one of the early assassination attempts, the army took control of Germany, and the new military leader(s) attempted to arrange some kind of negotiated peace deal? I would assume that if France had already fallen, Germany would be in a strong enough bargaining position to retain most of the German-population regions it re-took after losing them in WWI, while releasing France (with the possible exception of all or part of A-L), most of Poland (retaining Danzig and a couple of other heavily German-populated areas), and most of Czechoslovakia (other than the Sudetenland). Before France's defeat, Germany would likely have needed to give back everything to strike any kind of deal, and might have needed to pay reparations and pare down its military (particularly naval assets to satisfy the UK) as well, to insure no repeat of the situation for at least another couple of decades. By the point where the German war machine began to stall out in the East, with the US already involved in the war, I don't think the Allies would have settled for anything short of unconditional surrender, no matter who was in command, as it was becoming clear that Germany was incapable of winning the war in the long run.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Also France had other tanks superior to all German tanks, besides the Char B1...the Somua S35 also outclassed any German tank in its balance of armor, firepower and speed.

German armor superiority throughout the early part of the war was based on command and control, not weight of armor or barrel length.

 

[Kovax]

German armor superiority throughout the early part of the war was based on command and control, not weight of armor or barrel length.

The main advantages that German armor had were:

1 - a three-man turret. A German tank had a commander, gunner, and loader in the turret. A French tank, with only a two-man turret, had to have the commander either load the gun or aim and fire it, so as soon as the enemy was engaged, the tank was effectively out of command, and unable to respond quickly to changes in the situation.

2 - an armored cupola, so the commander could view the surrounding situation without having to open the top hatch and leave himself exposed to enemy gunfire. French tanks were nearly blind in comparison, once the shooting started and the hatches were closed.

3 - operation as large independent elements of armor, as opposed to more than half of the armor being tied in twos and threes to directly support the infantry. The Germans were able to engage many of the French tanks with a massive local numerical advantage, destroying them with few or no losses in return.

4 - Local initiatives, allowing immediate response to rapidly changing conditions on the battlefield. The French relied on commands being given from well behind the lines, leading to communications delays and misunderstandings of the situation.

 

[bz249]

The main advantages that German armor had were:

1 - a three-man turret. A German tank had a commander, gunner, and loader in the turret. A French tank, with only a two-man turret, had to have the commander either load the gun or aim and fire it, so as soon as the enemy was engaged, the tank was effectively out of command, and unable to respond quickly to changes in the situation.

2 - an armored cupola, so the commander could view the surrounding situation without having to open the top hatch and leave himself exposed to enemy gunfire. French tanks were nearly blind in comparison, once the shooting started and the hatches were closed.

3 - operation as large independent elements of armor, as opposed to more than half of the armor being tied in twos and threes to directly support the infantry. The Germans were able to engage many of the French tanks with a massive local numerical advantage, destroying them with few or no losses in return.

4 - Local initiatives, allowing immediate response to rapidly changing conditions on the battlefield. The French relied on commands being given from well behind the lines, leading to communications delays and misunderstandings of the situation.

There were two extra thingy for the Germans... first due to Anschluss and the Occupation of Bohemia they collected experience about actually moving a large armored formation, while retaining combat power (the French units of twos and threes are partly a consequence of that; some units lagged behind due mechanical failure/logistical problem and they joined when they joined... the other dispersed armor was slow, obsolete stuff unable to participate in a maneuver warfare). Second their concepts were field tested in Poland against actual enemy opposition and non-working concepts (like the light division, which are basically the French DLC-s) are discarded. Quite a large part of the French armor was in units (DLC, DCR) which were for one or another reason ineffective.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

German armor superiority throughout the early part of the war was based on command and control, not weight of armor or barrel length.

Yes but people like Sunforged only think about world of tanks 1 vs 1 sadly.

 

[Kovax]

Yes but people like Sunforged only think about world of tanks 1 vs 1 sadly.

The "World of Tanks" mentality only quantifies a few factors: gun penetration and armor strength. It doesn't take vision, speed, communications (internal as well as external), or ready ammo supply (versus total supply) into account. Ergonomic factors played a significant role as well, in cases where the crew had to struggle with various operations even under normal conditions, which became much more strenuous and complicated while under fire or done while in motion in a life-or-death situation.

German designs were a generation or more ahead of what the French were fielding, even if the armor on a few of the French tanks was thicker and the guns as effective or more so under controlled conditions. Once the next generation of Allied tanks came on line, those same hard to quantify factors began to reverse, and tanks like the M4 Sherman featured advanced optics, useful internal communication systems, and far better ergonomics than the "technically superior" German designs. Besides, the Allies used Anti-Tank Guns and Tank Destroyers to engage German tanks whenever possible, rather than fight tank-on-tank duels. Those Allied tanks were then fielded in larger groups than the French used, and were supported by motorized infantry, rather than being tied down in support of infantry on foot, with effective communications to local command HQs capable of reacting to situations as they happened.

Note that the Soviet T-34 was an ergonomic nightmare due to its sloped armor encroaching on crew space, originally with a small 2-man turret, radios which rarely worked, internal intercoms which were only audible with the engine off, only 7 rounds available in the turret before having to remove the floor panels to pass up more from below, and other serious flaws, none of which are reflected in the basic gun/armor stats. It was "capable" of engaging German tanks on favorable terms, but was incapable of making effective use of those capabilities. The T-34/85 corrected several (not all) of the faults. Meanwhile, Germany went from the Panzer III and IV to the Panther and Tiger, dropping the cupola from both in later incarnations without significant improvements in periscopes and other optics to compensate. Germany LOST those initial advantages it had enjoyed as the war progressed, and fared much more poorly in later tank engagements compared to the early years of the war, in spite of the "better stats" of its "wonder weapons".

 

[Eusebio]

As @hkrommel points out, the overriding project of Hitler and the Nazi leadership was to build an empire spanning the western Eurasian continent in order to compete on a global scale against the economic might of the United States, and was willing to break any agreement to accomplish that goal. In such a vision France would be a subordinate member of the continental German empire, if lucky shorn of Alsace-Lorraine/colonies and given internal autonomy; Britain would be facing a rival across the channel who, once secure on land after the defeat of Russia would turn to building a global navy and airforce with the ability to blockade and force Britain into submission at will. With this as the goal, and Germany having proved that all agreements were only temporary expedients in the pursuance of that goal, it would have been actively suicidal for Britain and France to make any sort of deal with Hitler or the Nazi leadership no matter what they promised about Poland.

@Kovax's what-if about a military coup removing the Nazi party is slightly more interesting, though I think only semi-realistic in a scenario where Fall Gelb failed and Germany is in 1942 with the Allied blockade causing starvation and the USSR becoming more and more belligerent in the east. In such a situation I think the Allies might consider a negotiated peace if there were real and concrete provisions made by Germany to prove it had given up its dream of continental empire, such as fully restoring Polish and Czechoslovakian independence along with disarmament and allowing British and French troops into Eastern Europe to deter Soviet/future German designs. But I don't know how realistic this all is.

 

[hkrommel]

The "World of Tanks" mentality only quantifies a few factors: gun penetration and armor strength.

And, ironically, it ignores accuracy. That's why many people think the Sherman Firefly with the 17 pounder was better than the M4 Sherman with a 76mm gun, even ignoring serious ergonomic issues with the 17 pounder.

During field tests conducted by both the British and Americans, the 76mm performed better than the 17 pounder at all ranges, except at long range. But, although the 17 pounder could penetrate more armor at longer distances using sabot rounds, the testers couldn't hit the target (a Panther) in 15 shots with sabot at 1,000m, while the 76 was much more accurate. With normal AP rounds in both the 17 pounder and the 76, performance was comparable.

All of that ignores, though, that even taking a shot at ranges over 500m was unlikely, and taking 1km+ shots as a serious attempt to knock out enemy armor was quite rare.

 

[Denkt]

The "World of Tanks" mentality only quantifies a few factors: gun penetration and armor strength. It doesn't take vision, speed, communications (internal as well as external), or ready ammo supply (versus total supply) into account. Ergonomic factors played a significant role as well, in cases where the crew had to struggle with various operations even under normal conditions, which became much more strenuous and complicated while under fire or done while in motion in a life-or-death situation.

German designs were a generation or more ahead of what the French were fielding, even if the armor on a few of the French tanks was thicker and the guns as effective or more so under controlled conditions. Once the next generation of Allied tanks came on line, those same hard to quantify factors began to reverse, and tanks like the M4 Sherman featured advanced optics, useful internal communication systems, and far better ergonomics than the "technically superior" German designs. Besides, the Allies used Anti-Tank Guns and Tank Destroyers to engage German tanks whenever possible, rather than fight tank-on-tank duels. Those Allied tanks were then fielded in larger groups than the French used, and were supported by motorized infantry, rather than being tied down in support of infantry on foot, with effective communications to local command HQs capable of reacting to situations as they happened.

Note that the Soviet T-34 was an ergonomic nightmare due to its sloped armor encroaching on crew space, originally with a small 2-man turret, radios which rarely worked, internal intercoms which were only audible with the engine off, only 7 rounds available in the turret before having to remove the floor panels to pass up more from below, and other serious flaws, none of which are reflected in the basic gun/armor stats. It was "capable" of engaging German tanks on favorable terms, but was incapable of making effective use of those capabilities. The T-34/85 corrected several (not all) of the faults. Meanwhile, Germany went from the Panzer III and IV to the Panther and Tiger, dropping the cupola from both in later incarnations without significant improvements in periscopes and other optics to compensate. Germany LOST those initial advantages it had enjoyed as the war progressed, and fared much more poorly in later tank engagements compared to the early years of the war, in spite of the "better stats" of its "wonder weapons".

The M4 Sherman unlike the myths about it seems to have been an all around excellent tank, it is hard to say anything bad about it and it was not a cheap tank unlike the T34, its large production value was due to how large and advanced the american industry was, Germany did not have anything like the Detroit tank plant.

Sherman had a 5 man intercome (Pz IV only had 4 out of 5) and its radio was probably better than those on the german tanks. It had a gyro stabilized gun and the 75mm gun was not a bad gun by any means, in fact in the majority of situations it was the better gun since it was more suited for HE and such targets was way more common than German tanks. Also the Sherman had excellent crew survivability, generally the tank worked and it was easy to fix.

Note that the Soviet T-34 was an ergonomic nightmare due to its sloped armor encroaching on crew space, originally with a small 2-man turret, radios which rarely worked, internal intercoms which were only audible with the engine off, only 7 rounds available in the turret before having to remove the floor panels to pass up more from below, and other serious flaws, none of which are reflected in the basic gun/armor stats. It was "capable" of engaging German tanks on favorable terms, but was incapable of making effective use of those capabilities. The T-34/85 corrected several (not all) of the faults. Meanwhile, Germany went from the Panzer III and IV to the Panther and Tiger, dropping the cupola from both in later incarnations without significant improvements in periscopes and other optics to compensate. Germany LOST those initial advantages it had enjoyed as the war progressed, and fared much more poorly in later tank engagements compared to the early years of the war, in spite of the "better stats" of its "wonder weapons".

The main issue of the late german tanks is they had very poor reability, Panthers had something like 35% of its tank operational so 2/3 was effectively useless also if it broke down it was very hard to repair unlike the Sherman, also I don't know how good the Panther was to fight infantry, from what I have heard it was pretty bad at that purpose, having alot of front armor but poor side armor and a gun ment to destroy tanks. The Tiger was probably much better against infantry and had similar ability to fight enemy tanks but it was even heavier and supposedly much more expensive to make than the Panther.

Also if the chance for a Sherman to actually fight a german tank is quite low, we can probably assume the same for T34 on the Eastern front and infantry vs a side supported by tanks would probably favor the side that had the tanks and that is maybe also an issue with building expensive tanks that seldom works, you can't cover much ground with them unlike the large numbers of Sherman and T34 can do.

 

[Secret Master]

barrel length.

But, although the 17 pounder could penetrate more armor at longer distances using sabot rounds, the testers couldn't hit the target (a Panther) in 15 shots with sabot at 1,000m, while the 76 was much more accurate.

So, basically, this:

 

[Acheron]

The main issue of the late german tanks is they had very poor reability, Panthers had something like 35% of its tank operational so 2/3 was effectively useless also if it broke down it was very hard to repair unlike the Sherman, also I don't know how good the Panther was to fight infantry, from what I have heard it was pretty bad at that purpose, having alot of front armor but poor side armor and a gun ment to destroy tanks. The Tiger was probably much better against infantry and had similar ability to fight enemy tanks but it was even heavier and supposedly much more expensive to make than the Panther.

I was told that the Tiger was actually more reliable than the Panther, despite being heavier, provided both got their (considerable) prescribed amount of maintenance. Anyone else knows something about this?

 

[Denkt]

I was told that the Tiger was actually more reliable than the Panther, despite being heavier, provided both got their (considerable) prescribed amount of maintenance. Anyone else knows something about this?

I have not looked much into it but reability issues can depend on many things such as lack of spare parts, that one advantage of keeping number of vehicle types small.

 

[Kovax]

The Germans didn't experience the problems with HE rounds in their high-velocity guns the way the Allies did, so the Panther's main gun was no worse (but no better) at infantry support than the standard 75mm guns, and better at it than the Allied 76mm guns.

The initial teething problems with the Tiger were mostly solved, and reliability increased to the "reasonable" level until material shortages late in the war forced the use of low-grade steel in places, and the reliability dropped again. The Panther's teething problems were only partially solved, because the high-grade materials were simply not available in the quantities required, so heavier but less-reliable alternatives had to be designed. Basically, half of the problems were ADDED after the initial prototypes, because the tank could not be mass-produced as originally designed. The main culprits were the transmissions and final drive gears, the latter which replaced a complex exotic-alloy helical gear set with a simple set of gears made of conventional steel, and the results were prone to failure after only a couple hundred kilometers, but there was no alternative.

Note that Panzer IVs, a pre-war design, were still operating at the end of the war, and were STILL managing a decent combat record, while the new and expensive toys were failing. Those were the REAL "Wunderwaffen", in my opinion.

 

[Henry IX]

I was told that the Tiger was actually more reliable than the Panther, despite being heavier, provided both got their (considerable) prescribed amount of maintenance. Anyone else knows something about this?

The Tiger benefited from being a much bigger tank. This means you can put in a bigger engine with more robust components. The Panther tried to fit way too much armour and gun onto a tank of its size, meaning that it was significantly overweight for its drive train and gearing. This could have been solved with higher quality steel but as Kovax pointed out this was in short supply at that point in the war. The Tiger also benefited from a less truncated development cycle than the Panther, with the worst problems being ironed out before it was mass-produced. The Ausf-D model (the type that served at Kursk) was effectively a prototype in mass production and it had appalling reliability problems. The later Ausf-A and Ausf-G models were actually OK for reliability, but the tanks reputation for burning out when driven hard (or sometimes just because) was cemented. The Panther was problematic from an operational perspective because as well as some ongoing reliability issues (they never fixed the gears or divetrain) it was too heavy for most bridges and too fuel-hungry for extended drives. This necessitated moving them by train, which given the overburdened and vulnerable nature of the Reichsbahn, was a serious drawback. The Germans simply couldn't drive them hundreds of kilometres on their own tracks, unlike the Soviets who often completed long road marches prior to engaging with armoured forces.

Also on the actual OP, Germany couldn't have released a largely intact Poland with Hitler being Hitler and even if they did nobody trusted him at this point. WWII was only ever going to end with the total defeat of one side once it began.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Yes but people like Sunforged only think about world of tanks 1 vs 1 sadly.

I can't speak with certainty about World of Tanks, but I'm more than familiar with World of Warships. It involves the Russian designers analyzing all facets of naval history, and then tinkering with the code to make sure that no matter what else happened the Russian ships and naval rifles were far superior to anything else ever created on the planet and they would prove it scientifically game after game by just ever so slightly tilting the table to Stalin's side by remembering the rule that Stalinwood and Stalinsteel gave their vessels an inate quality and manning them with a crew comprised of the virile young men of Russia who are unmatched by the Capitalist West.

Russia stronk. /nods

Still a good game. Great game. One of my faves. But, yeah, Soviet bias is a thing these days.

 

[bz249]

I can't speak with certainty about World of Tanks, but I'm more than familiar with World of Warships. It involves the Russian designers analyzing all facets of naval history, and then tinkering with the code to make sure that no matter what else happened the Russian ships and naval rifles were far superior to anything else ever created on the planet and they would prove it scientifically game after game by just ever so slightly tilting the table to Stalin's side by remembering the rule that Stalinwood and Stalinsteel gave their vessels an inate quality and manning them with a crew comprised of the virile young men of Russia who are unmatched by the Capitalist West.

Russia stronk. /nods

Still a good game. Great game. One of my faves. But, yeah, Soviet bias is a thing these days.

I think they are Belarussians... so wannabee Russians with minority complex.

 

[kettyo]

I think they are Belarussians... so wannabee Russians with minority complex.

Aren't Belorussians just Russians in another state?