Profile of AvNY

Yup I think 1942 and particularly 43 would be big years for tank production and but what about during Barbarossa when Moscow nearly fell. Might the proportions have been rather different?

According to that information Through Aug. 1941 the following was sent:

48 Pz IV
177 Pz III
90 Pz II
54 Pz I

Essentially one Pz division.

The only other tank reinforcements sent in 1941 weren't sent until mid-end of December and consisted only of 68 Pz III and 16 Pz IV. By this time the German advance in Russia had already stalled.

This is full of pure fantasy. So now in 1940 the brits know that in 1942 they will want their troops in the Pacific? And you already know part of the price for peace would be the Suez canal? You are making things up and it STILL would not win them against the soviets. 25% of armor was sent to Africa? What are you smoking? because there are people in Colorado and Washington state who would pay good $ for those strains. The sources I found never showed more than 40,000-50,000 German effectives in Africa at any one time, as compared to c. 2.5 - 3 million Germans at any given point in the Soviet Union, not including another million from their allies.

HITLER. COULD. NOT. WIN.

Again I contest. If there was no way for Hitler to impose his will on the British how could the British impose their will on Hitler with no army. They may have had the empire but were these trainable troops? - the Aussies and the New Zealanders were great but few in number and they went home to fight the Japanese. All the millions of empire manpower in India did not prevent Burma falling and whilst they did help liberate it that was 4 years later during which time the British expected the Japanese to invade India whom was making noises about not really liking the British too much either.

With the UK surrendering part of the price would have been Axis troops on the Suez canal and probably a few British colonies - definitely protected access to middle eastern oil. . No need for long drives to the Caucasus. All aircraft and anti air units available for the Eastern front - much fewer occupation troops needed in France, Norway and Mediterranean. 25% of armour NOT diverted to North Africa. No wasting effort on warships and submarines and the Kriegsmarine. And assuming the US didn't enter (why would they with Japan to fight and no ally in Europe?) no lend lease to the Soviets who's armies at one point were receiving at least one meal a day from the US plus virtually all their boots, trucks and tires.

Russia was too big to conquer entirely but they just needed a secure grip on the Western half and its communication networks (i.e. Moscow and its railway hub) for long enough to dig in properly, fix the railways and build some better roads, get proper shelter for troops at which point I doubt they could have been moved till the nuclear bombs arrived

USA may have paid for 50 000 shermans, but they surely didn't produce that many. Neither there was a need for that many in europe, nor in pacific. This figure was probably written in the reports just to scare soviet army that was much stronger than allied forces in europe by the end of war.

You are sounding like WW2 era German intelligence.

Here is the Wiki article with links to 3 different sources for totals (all coming to that total):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

If you want really astounding differences, look at the production disparities in non-cool tech like trucks.

Just one example is that the US alone produced almost 3 million trucks and lorries compared to less than 400,000 by the Germans. To pick just one very sepcialized model, the DUKW (2.5 ton amphibious) they produced "only" 21,000 during the war. Great Britain, who was freed from having to produce these things because the US did it so well, still produced almost the same amount as the Germans (347,000 to the German 387,000) and did it with one country, not including France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, etc.

Sexy kit might win an engagement, but it is the non-sexy stuff that will win you the war.

I will give you credit for at least not adding to the list the invasion of the UK and not interfering with Hitlers' not interfering with his Generals.

1) While this was probably possible with what we know today, what saved the BEF back then where the circumstances of poor intelligence and supply issues on the part of the Germans. It was NOT because Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to hold off. The loss of 300,000 troops would have have been devastating but not defeating. Great Britain was still a world power with 10s of million in population on the isles alone. Just as the loss of millions by the the Soviets and of 100,000s by the Germans didn't end their effective ability to continue military operations so too this would not have meant the end of the British empire.

2) The British were modifying tactics as they went, were outproducing the German planes by 2 to 1, and the chance a pilot survived another day were greater, so the war of attrition that was the battle of Britain was doomed to failure.

3) This is probably the most reasonable option that might lead to success, but ignores that the Russians really were a huge threat and that their military was likely to get better (if not actually good) as time from the purges went on. Certainly there would have been more experience among the junior officers, an even greater reserve of men, and many more of the newer tanks available. But it is also not likely considering how intrinsic the East was to Hitler's plans.

4) I just don't think that would have mattered. If you don't take the time to reduce the substantial Russian forces on your flanks you become more exposed the farther you penetrate. Likewise, you still have the problem of running out of resources (2000 kilometers is a huge distance to supply an exposed offensive, particularly when your supply chain was never designed for it). Finally, they only barely managed to reach the outskirts of Moscow, a city 10 times bigger than Stalingrad and with vastly more resources towards it s defense. Remember that at the time the Germans had stalled they had already lost 60-70% of their combat effectiveness and the Mongolian forces were still being held in reserve.

5) My new favorite term with regards to naval strategy is "naval strategy is build strategy" (thank you Military History Visualized!). You could destroy all three US carriers and that just delays things a little bit (a few months at best?). The US produced over 100 carriers during the war. The British another couple of dozen. Destroying the US carriers would have lost to the US Midway... and little else. Even had they lost Hawaii (unlikely) it would have been easier for the US to retake it than for Japan to hold it, particularly that far out to sea and in the face of the growing numbers of US submarines and carriers.

6) This has been addressed in other threads as well. But I will add that the emphasis on war-fighting material is a classic mistake of people who look at these kinds of things. It doesn't matter if you have the "best" kit... or even if you have ENOUGH of the best kit... particularly if "best" doesn't include "the ability to operated and be kept operational" in the field. It matters if you have a long term war-fighting strategy. The Germans conentrated on the operational arts. (And they were extremely successful at that. Barbarossa achieved everything it set out to do- except politically defeat the Soviets.) But none of their weapons systems were designed with a strategy to win in mind. The US made a decision to continue the Sherman and work on the M-26 until it was ready. This meant better Shermans, and many more of them, despite the distance to the front (measured in months instead of days as with the Germans). But the point is they made their decisions not just on armor, armor penetration, etc. (which they did measure and improve) but by keeping in mind also production, re-supply, transport, repair, etc. What happened in a fight between a Tiger and a Sherman is irrelevant if there are always more Shermans and so few Tigers the Shermans don't ever run into them.

The war would have looked very different if some key decisions were made:

1) annihilation of British expeditionary force at Dunkirk in 1940; it was an utter miracle they survived. Give the finger to Goering.
2) Paid attention to the importance of radar during the battle of Britain in 1940; focus radar stations, not later on the civilian population.
3) Not attacking the Russians in opening a war on two fronts. German statesman Otto von Bismarck said his no.1 rule: don't fuck with the Russians. Germany as a country is hemmed in by neighbouring countries; they fought on two fronts in WWI as well.
4) Hitler agreeing to rush toward Moscow in 1941.
5) Japanese destruction of the US carrier fleet, which were absent on the day of the attack on Pearl Harbour December 7 1941.
6) Germany focus on high-quantity tank production rather than quality cf. Soviet and US mass manufacturing doctrine. Like in CoH2 if you stall for a KT, you're probably gonna get rekt by tank swarm later on.

I dont know..thats the question i ask myself.

Have anyone an answer?

Aside from the losses, etc, I am sure a lot were also sold to allies. The US Army only kept M4A3 versions in use after the war, so the rest would have been considered obsolete and/or put into "mothballs" (along with no longer needing them as the US demobilized). The Sherman was already recognized as not a modern tank after the war so keeping them, particularly the older variants, probably didn't make a lot of sense.

The same goes for a lot of other equipment. The US had huge stockpiles of surplus for years which were used for scrap metal.