What was Hitler's biggest mistake?

K2 · 21-09-2003 12:08am

I think the Germans could have beaten the russian regular armed forces but the sheer size of the land they would have to occupy is too great, esp considering how much of Europe they held. But given time (say 10 to 20 years) famine and fighting would have killed off most russian resistance and the germans would have freed up more troops using local collaberators in the occupied countries to deal with what was left. You're dead right about North Africa. Without the brits there even the italians could have taken it.

RicardoSmith · 21-09-2003 1:05am

Well he made a lot of them for sure. I think that hes early successes which were easy early blows, led Hitler to believe he was a genius and a brilliant military mind. Whereas in fact he wasn't. For he made a lot more bad decisions than good ones. It was his mistaken belief in his own abilities that was his biggest mistake.

Tiger frontal shot? Someone been on the funny tobacco again. a T-34 might chip the paint work that would about it. Even with the T34/85 you'd need a side shot. I think some of those big 100m guns might jump the tigers turret from its mountings. But that would be about it. Of course you'd need to be inside the range of the 88mm to do it. Probably not very healthy.

Me262 killed more of its pilots in accidents than in action. Ooh great killing machine that. It had little impact in the war. It needed another 2 years development before it would have been effective.

23-09-2003 1:11pm

Me262 killed more of its pilots in accidents than in action. Ooh great killing machine that. It had little impact in the war.

True, but the potential ws there to be used. The German rocket program was moving along quite well at the last stages of the war with german scientists making some major discoveries. Had more resources been alloted to the research & development of the Me262, it could have become a viable weapon for war, however it would never have won the war.

RicardoSmith · 23-09-2003 8:01pm

Fair point. But look at korea, they found the props more useful for ground support and some escort missions mainly due to the range of them compared to the early jets which were a bit thirsty.

spooiirt!! · 27-09-2003 8:58pm

thats great about the tiger man, but i talked to a guy who actually fought in them.
the armour wasnt sloped, so the whole front plate would just come loose. it wasnt pierced but it would fall apart.

RicardoSmith · 27-09-2003 11:17pm

Originally posted by spooiirt!!
thats great about the tiger man, but i talked to a guy who actually fought in them.
the armour wasnt sloped, so the whole front plate would just come loose. it wasnt pierced but it would fall apart.

If they were that bad it makes you wonder how a couple of them could hold back many times their numbers in T34s and M4's then doesn't it! You'd need to be very close to a tiger to damage that frontal armour. Well inside the range of the tigers own gun. So unless the tiger was disabled or had some other problem then nothing should get close enough to damage it with a frontal shot.

On the the western front it usually took 4 or more M4s usually with a loss of one or two of the M4's to distract the Tiger until something like a firefly could get a side shot in. Those fireflys weren't to plentiful either. Granted on the eastern front this was easier as they just swamped them with numbers. Biggest flaws with the tiger was that it would get stuck a lot since it was heavy and not that manoverable. It consumed a lot of fuel. Finally it wasn't that reliable and broke down a lot. Of couse it made a great target for fighter bombers. So thats how most of them were destroyed. A lot were just abandoned when spares or fuel weren't available.

spooiirt!! · 02-10-2003 4:21pm

well how about the fact that the tigers had better range and the crews better trained. again, i talked to a ww2 veteran, who fought in tigers, and he should know a bit better than you.
er.. no offense meant, by the way!

RicardoSmith · 02-10-2003 11:25pm

Originally posted by spooiirt!!
well how about the fact that the tigers had better range and the crews better trained. again, i talked to a ww2 veteran, who fought in tigers, and he should know a bit better than you.
er.. no offense meant, by the way!

Well obviously I wasn't there (no really) so I'm going what I've read in countless articles and books over years and history stuff I've seen on TV. I've never heard the story that the Tigers armour was brittle and as poorly constructed. I have heard it about T-34's. In the most common story is that no allied tank could knock out a tiger from a frontal shot whereas your guy is telling you the opposite. Maybe all the "experts" and historians just never picked up on it before. I'd have though I'd have seen some mention of it somewhere though.

ssh · 02-10-2003 11:51pm

My grandad fought in the Koenig-Tiger (King Tiger), which was an extremely well armoured but underpowered tank. Really, the P-V Panther was probably the most refined WW-2 era German tank, it had a sloped front, sane amounts of armour given the engine power and a decent 88mm gun.

Although he felt this was accepted by most tank crews, he was happier in the P-VI becuase it was more or less indestructible. Sherman shells bounced off it and infantry AT weapons did little damage.

The only disabling frontal shot on a Tiger that I have heard of was when the shell glanced off the underside of the cannon and lodged itself between it and the turret. The turret jammed, and the crew paniced and bailed out.

To veer back on-topic, Operation Barbarrosa gets my vote. The expenditure of 100,000 odd soldiers for very little gain was probably the one thing which lost Hitler the war. If he had held tight on the eastern front, I would assume that the Wehrmacht could have soaked up quite a huge proportion of whatever Stalin sent towards him, thus giving him manpower and resources to fight on the western one.

Still, thank god he didn't...

What was Hitler's biggest mistake?

Comments