Would they have had a panther or the tiger? it was the effectiveness of the T-34 and KV-1 during the 41 invasion that sent the Germans to the design table.

Unless you're magically making the rest of their logistics operation significantly more mechanized and modern it's not going to change the end result. You're also giving the Soviets 3 additional years to improve and equip the Red Army.

Tigers were maintenance nightmare.

LMCane said:

---

JABQ04 said:

---

Also don't forget that that the appearance of PZ Vs and VIs caused the Soviets to develop their own heavy tanks, which were equal to or even slightly better than German heavy tanks.

---

but that is my point

if the Germans spent 1941 and 1942 building Tigers and Panthers before attacking

the Russians would not have had the KV-1 until 1944

and may have lost the war by then.

---

The KV-1 was developed following lessons learned with the T-28 and SMK during the Winter War with Finland… the KV-1 would've been present regardless.

First of all, concentrating just on who had what equipment is way, way too narrow. But on that topic -

- the first KV-1s entered service in 1939.

- the Panther didn't even start development until 1942, and that in direct response to the Wehrmacht's unpleasant encounters with T-34s and KV-1s. So it's not a sure thing that, without Germany invading the USSR in 1941, the Panther would even exist.

- the design work on the Tiger started in 1938, as a heavy breakthrough tank. It's intended role was to be able to take hits while punching a hole in enemy defenses. Once that hole was open, the lighter tanks (Pz IIIs and IVs) would be able to exploit the gap, while the Tiger units went back for repair and refit. That why they didn't care so much about it's short range and mechanical unreliability - in it's intended role, it didn't really need to actually go all that far or fast.

So, most likely, you'd have Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions much better kitted out with Panzer IIIs (50mm gun version) and IVs (the low velocity 75mm gun version), with Tigers in separate heavy assault tank battalions. Although it is possible that they up-gun the Pz III and IV, and started work on Panther a year later than in actual history, after they start encountering Shermans in North Africa. (It's often overlooked that in late 1942-early 1943, the Sherman outgunned most German tanks, and had equal or better armor.)

Your focus on German equipment seems to assume that the Soviets would remain static, which is unrealistic. Waiting until 1944 would have given the Red Army three extra years to rebuild from the effects of Stalin's purges, to build and strengthen their defenses along the Molotov-Ribbentrop line in Poland, and to replace most of their T-26 and T-60 light tanks (which made up the majority of their tank park in 1941) with T-34s and KV-1s.

There is informed speculation among some historians that, had Hitler not invaded the USSR in 1941, Stalin would have attacked Germany in 1943, perhaps even as early as 1942. Mostly, he would let Germany and it's Western enemies (England and France until mid-1940, then England and the US after December, 1941) beat up on each other until he felt Germany had been sufficiently weakened.

Because even if Hitler waits until 1944 to go after Russia, England is still going to be there, and Hitler is still going to declare war on America after Pearl Harbor. This would have significant effects on Germany's resource allocation. Fighter planes and flak guns to fight the Anglo-American bomber offensive and U-boats for the convoy war. Fighter planes, and to a lesser extent flak guns, are fungible, they can be moved around, but more steel for U-boats means less steel for tanks.

And I think even with more resources allocated to fight the bomber offensive and the convoy war, Germany is still going to lose both, because the US will allocate more resources toward Germany and play a longer, slower game against Japan, no matter how much MacArthur and King complain. Also, the US and England aren't sending resources to Russia in Lend-Lease, nor do they have to protect convoys making the Murmansk run.

That means that by the summer of 1944, the Luftwaffe is going to be decisively engaged in a death struggle with Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force. One that, with drop-tank equipped P-38s, P-47s, and increasing numbers of P-51s (the Mustang really didn't get to England in large numbers until mid-1944) escorting American bombers into Germany, the Luftwaffe would be losing.

Without heavy Luftwaffe support, any invasion of the USSR is not going to go well. German air superiority was a key, even critical, element of the tactical success of Operation Barbarossa.

Finally, if the war in Europe is still going on in August of 1945, the Enola Gay drops the first A-bomb on Berlin instead of Hiroshima.

Smeghead4761 said:

---

First of all, concentrating just on who had what equipment is way, way too narrow. But on that topic -

-

There is informed speculation among some historians that, had Hitler not invaded the USSR in 1941, Stalin would have attacked Germany in 1943, perhaps even as early as 1942. Mostly, he would let Germany and it's Western enemies (England and France until mid-1940, then England and the US after December, 1941) beat up on each other until he felt Germany had been sufficiently weakened.

Because even if Hitler waits until 1944 to go after Russia, England is still going to be there, and Hitler is still going to declare war on America after Pearl Harbor. This would have significant effects on Germany's resource allocation. Fighter planes and flak guns to fight the Anglo-American bomber offensive and U-boats for the convoy war. Fighter planes, and to a lesser extent flak guns, are fungible, they can be moved around, but more steel for U-boats means less steel for tanks.

---

If Germany was not at war with Russia, which means Russia isn't at war, the Japanese may not have attacked Pearl Harbor as they were always afraid of war with Russia. The possibility of fighting the US and Russia simultaneously was not something the Japanese were going to risk.

LMCane said:

---

I think there is a lot of doubt whether a Western President would have used an atomic bomb against Berlin versus dropping it twice on the Asians.

for the same reason even Hitler did not demolish Paris. and yes I know Von Choltitz refused the order but even after that Hitler could have sent the Luftwaffe or V-1 and V-2 against Paris

but Hitler was an "architect" and loved European cities.

---

It's an interesting "what if?", although by August 1945, even without the final battle for Berlin and the destruction that caused, dropping an A-bomb on Berlin would have been largely an exercise in making the rubble bounce and then glow.

If they wanted a city that hadn't been hit as a demonstration, they would have needed to drop it on a city that B-29s could reach, but B-17s and B-24s couldn't, maybe Danzig or Koenigsburg. There never was a list of German cities not to bomb, unlike in Japan.

I don't buy the "the Americans only dropped the A-bomb on Japan because racism" arguments. If the bomb had been ready in time to use against Germany, either FDR or Truman absolutely would have ordered them dropped if they thought it would shorten the war.

ETA: the best way to shorten the war, if the A-bomb was available, would have been to use it to kill Hitler. Yes, lots of collateral damage, but "Take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."