The US Army still uses blitzkrieg tactics, and is still refining them even to this day.

So yes, "perfected" was an overstatement by me. "Invented" would have been more appropriate.

Clearly the Soviets could have advanced to the Atlantic had they so desired. Indeed they probably would have as it would have given the Soviets access to real oceanic ports that has been their desire (and the aim of the Russian Empire before) seemingly, forever.

Allied troops and the hanging threat of the atomic bomb stopped that.

Would the cold war have gone hot? Dunno. Different scenario entirely.

Whole lot of "what if's" when one looks at the history of war.

While midway could have gone either way, it would not have mattered in the end. The Japanese lost WWII the instant the first bomb landed on a US target at Pearl Harbor.

By the end of WWII the USN had IIRC 173 carriers of all types. The 3 at Midway were not going to make any real difference at all even if we lost all of them. For this reason, one cannot really argue that Midway was decisive...because the outcome of the war was already a foregone conclusion.

As for the Japanese, the utter destruction of Kido Butai ended all designs for pursuing an offensive doctrine in the Pacific. Forever after, they were on the strategic defensive.

I find this a bit speculative. Nor do I think the conclusion was foregone., I also take issue with those who say it was American industry that won the war.

Although clearly a part of it, the much larger factor was American SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY. We had the planes (B-29, P-51Norden Bomb Site), subs (GATO campaigns in the Pacific), Computers, (code cracking and targetting), radar and most importantly the A-bomb.

Unfortunately we had few of these items in 1941-1942. If the Japanese had won at Midway, there would have been little stopping them from running rampant over the Pacific, besieging Hawaii and maybe bombing the Panama Canal zone (to prevent transfer of fleets). In short, it would have been very hard for the US to maintain any kind of surface naval presence in the Pacific with no carriers

Of course the Japanese army kept advancing in China and Burma almost until the end of the war. They would have advanced much furtherer had we not kept our allies supplied. Without a surface navy that would have been impossible.

Had the US carrier fleet been wiped out, how could Japan have stopped us from building more carriers? Japan's five or six carriers could not have sustained air superiority over the West Coast, not against large numbers of land based US planes. The shipyards of the West Coast would have replaced the Midway losses in six months.

You miss my point: Out and out production did not win the war by itself. Technology did. Technology we did not have in 1942.

But the counter question to yours is: If we had lost Midway, how could we have stopped them from raiding the west coast, including the shipyards?

We could not...or at least we would be severly hindered.

With the advantage of mobility they could pretty much pick the time and place.... Anywhere our forces were not. The US military would have been relegated to the role of "Waiting for them to arrive."


BTW: If the US had lost Midway, there is no way the US could have replaced 3 heavy carriers in 6 months. ONLY 1 Essex class carrier was produced in 1942 and only 3 of the light Independence class carriers. And all came in the 2nd half of the year. Not quite up to going face to face with the Japanese heavies.

I would disagree. The Republic was dead by Actium. The battle decided who the 1st emperor was going to be (excluding JC of course), however.

To the list, I thing the battle of Aquae Sextiae in 102BC & the subsequent battle of Vercellae in 101BC should be included. If the German migration had been successful, the Roman world might well have been cut short by 500 years. Gaius Marius & Sulla are often ignored - probably because they both turned nasty in their older years.

Ian

The premise i laid out is that arrived at in the book Shattered Sword, probably the pre-eminent non fiction work on the Battle of Midway.

I highly reccomend it.

Midway was not a decisive engagement because, in reality, the outcome of the war was already decided.

Incorrect, the entire US P38 Lightning fleet, BY FAR the most advanced long ranged single seat fighter in the world at that time, was tasked with the defense of the US west coast. What's more, without first taking Hawaii, no attacks on the west coast were even reasonable.

Using 20/20 hindsight, any Japanese attempt to take the Hawaiin Isles would've ended in disaster.

You are massively under estimating US Manpower and production capability in the areas of fighters and warships. Kido Butai was already hobbled from Coral Sea. Even before Midway they'd suffered irreplaceable losses.


The Japanese Heavies were irreplaceable, as were their aircrews. At whatever stage they were lost, they'd have been gone forever. What's more, you are totally overlooking US production in "escort carriers" and submarines(which in and of themselves are very dangerous counters to any carrier fleet)

Midway was not a decisive battle.

the first big essex class carrier did not reach the pacific til may of 43. and the bad guys had there own new ships under construction.

the japanese could have easily taken some of the hawaiian islands. and made a run at oahu. retaking them would have been a nightmare. image the nightmare naval battles around guadalcanal off waikiki beach. or okinawa with american civilians in the cross fire.

the japanese strategy was to take as much territory as possible, and then negotiate a peace. with the german threat much more real in FDR's mind, and his advisors talking about a pacific war stretching into 1947, it might have made sense.

I agree - It was all about who could produce the most stuff. Japan and Germany BOTH found out the hard way!

I will take 50,000 Shermans over an est. 1200 Tigers anyday!

The japanese produced a mere handful of new carriers during the war. The US, on the other hand, produced very close to 200 new carriers during the war.

Easily? How can you say that when historically they failed utterly at even taking Midway? Do you know how many divisions of troops the US could have flooded the Hawaiin Islands with? Not just infantry, but armor as well. And hundreds, if not thousands of fighters.

Post war analysis of the Japanese threat to Hawaii showed that it was never a realistic threat at all.

The US was never going to accept anything short of unconditional(or very close to it) victory.

Even with the casualty projections of Olympic and Coronet, and all the suffering we'd seen all accross the Pacific, there was no serious thought given to cancelling Operation Downfall, the military invasion of the Japanese Home Islands.

Yep.

the whole point of this discussion is to speculate on what would have happened if we'd lost the naval battle of midway. the japanese invasion only turned back because they lost air superiority. the marines on the island simply could not have held.

imagine losing the enterprise and hornet as well as the yorktown. most of the enemy carriers survive. the japanese then have almost ten months before the first essex class shows up. they base bombers out of midway, land on kaua'i, and put up a fighter strip there.

the p-38s are all going to europe. the pacific command has to beg for everything they get. the sub fleet is still crippled by torpedo problems. and surface ships are useless without air cover. it only makes sense to withdraw the fleet back to san diego.

armor almost pointless on a jungle island. and the enemy could have cut off and starved any army there. exactly the way macarthur and nimitz treated most of their strongholds. look at how corrigedor and the phillipines fell.

american industry would win eventually. but the war goes on 2-3 years longer.

Midway DID NOT end Japanese Offensive operations..they were continuing on down the Solomons Islands building an airstrip at Guadalcanal and were moving troops over the Owen Stanley mountains in New Guinea.

As previously stated the Japanese air crews were being depleted and were not at full strength anymore by the time of Midway. That was how shallow the Japanese well of trained manpower and material was in conducting their Pacific war of aggression.

Science and Technology comes from having a mfg base. All things considered The USA MASS PRODUCED its way to victory in WW2. Plain and Simple.

The USA was basically one step behind Germany in technology ( the Germans were the first to put Jets and rockets into military operation). Before the war American scientists all looked to Germany for technical expertise. Germany by excluding and persecuting the Jews shot itself in the foot with regards to science and technology. As many of their top scientists left Germany before the war with the USA as their destination. The Germans had a nuclear program but suspended it in 1942. Hitler even ordered the suspension of the development of new fighter aircraft in 1941, his thinking was that the war was already won. This all slowed the German armaments industry from putting new models at the front. Germany did NOT go to a complete war time economy until 1945....they were still making Steinway Pianos in 1945.

The German armaments industry was basically very inefficient working at cross purposes with each other, that even extended to the German military. AS the Luftwaffe did not cooperate with the Kriegsmarine in the war in the Atlantic. The Luftwaffe had its own infantry and mechanised divisions. The Waffen SS was an independent command, but for practical purposes was subordinated to the German Army. Each member of Hitlers entourage basically had their own fiefdom which they jealously guarded, as was Hitlers style of leaderhsip...It was only Albert Speers organizational skills that coordinated the German armaments industry after he took over in 1942. Even with the Heavy bombing by the US and Brits of Germany, Germany produced more war material in 1944 then at any time before.

Keitle in a conversation with Guderian in 1943 stated that Germany was losing 150,000 men a month without fighting any major battles. But could only replace 75.000 of them a month...This statement indicates that Hitler and the German High Command knew the war was lost, due to attrition of manpower and material.

Had the US lost at Midway, it would have put the Hawaiian islands into play....possibly neutralizing them as a jumping off place for military operations. It would also have made Australia's existence more tenous.

The Japanese wouldn't have had the reach to seriously threaten the West Coast on a continuing basis. However the West Coast of the US as a base of operations instead of Hawaii would have made it much more difficult to win.

Hold what ? The Island itself was useless for what the Japanese needed. That was one of the great failures of the Japanese plan to begin with. They expected to turn it into a major base, but it was wholly unsuited for such a use. Their intel sucked, the entire operation was nonsensical. As was their invasion of the Aleutians.

You're smoking hashish. Huge quantities of it. The US would have had Hawaii so well defended the whole darn IJA couldn't have taken it.

No post war study has suggested the Japanese could ever have taken Hawaii due to a US loss at Midway. It's a total pipe dream. It's even more ridiculous a hypothetical than Sea Lion was in the ETO.

The P38 fleet was only sent to Europe in response to the disastrous early daylight bombing raids over Germany, and only because the threat to the West Coast- which was never real anyway- had receded.

USN Surface ships operating off the US West coast would have had air cover from P38s as far out as 1000-1500+ miles from shore. Had the P-38s been moved to Hawaii(as they'd almost certainly have been if the US lost at Midway), they'd have been able to start hitting any Japanese Invasion fleet at ranges triple that of the Japanese own carrier based fighters ability to launch strikes.

It is true the USN MK13 torpedo was a disaster, but they did work sometimes, and the US would have had so many subs guarding the approaches to Hawaii it's highly likely they'd have done some significant damage to the Japanese Invasion fleet.

Hawaii is not a jungle island, and no, armor is not useless in Jungle terrain either. Limited yes, but not useless. All the more so because of the IJA's complete lack of suitable anti-armor weapons.

With What? Flying against Hawaii Kido Butai would have been outnumbered massively in aircraft. Probably 4 or 5 to 1. If not more. And unlike Pearl, there would be no massive strategic surprise.

The US would have been waiting for them, with the kitchen sink.

It would not have lengthened the war appreciably given the fact that US heavy bombers flying out of China using atomic weapons would have still ended it in 1945.

The Japanese just plain could not compete in the long term with US industry and manpower levels, let alone the US nuclear program.

The offensive operations the Japanese conducted post Midway were for the mot part aimed at strengthening their defensive perimeter.

The threat to Aus was gone after the Battle of the Coral Sea.

The Hawaiin Islands were never in play, nor would they ever be in play. Japan simply lacked the assets to take them. Every single post war study on the subject has borne this out (AFAIK).

There was never any real Japanese threat to the West Coast. In retrospect the entire notion was laughable.

I voted for the Battle of the bulge. Why? Because I have the honor of knowing one who was there, Sgt. Don Malarkey.

A quote from his book, "Easy Company Soldier".

"The seige of Bastogne was finally broken. A tank battalion from Patton's 3rd Army had penetrated the German lines and rolled into town. That was wonderful. The circle was broken. We could get supplies in and wounded out. But later, we heard that the 3rd had rescued us. That cockeyed idea is phonier than a three-dollar bill. Easy company didn't need rescuing."

The move down the Solomons was an extension of their empire...a gamble on their part..

Coral Sea did not end the threat to Australia..the move over the Owen Stanley's and a subsequent base on he Australian side of the island would have endangered Australia.


A loss at Midway would have opened the Hawaiian islands up to attack, thus making them a more unstable base of operations. Also the West Coast would have been opened up to Japanese raids...the end result is that the war in the Pacific would not have been the foregone conclusion it was but would have eventually ended the same way only it would have taken longer.

Indeed. The whole idea of an offensive war against the Americans in the Pacific was plain crazy. The answers probably lie in the psychology of the Japanese militarists at that time.:confused:

You completely contradict yourself in this post.

Once Kido Butai had lost the carriers at the Battle of Coral Sea the threat to Australia was over. Dividing their carrier force was a gigantic mistake. They should have kept the whole force together. With the full weight of Kido Butai (6 fleet carriers) the Battle of the Coral Sea would have been very different. Instead they penny packeted their force, which doomed them at both Coral Sea, and later at Midway.

Stopping the invasion of Aus was the whole point of the US taking the Japanese on at Coral Sea to begin with.

There was never any real threat of invasion against Hawaii, the Japanese simply lacked the military power to take it. The fact that they were unable to take even a minor outpost like Midway is definitive proof of that. Against Hawaii, the air forces the Japanese would have faced would have been several times larger.

You guys should read the book "Shattered Sword", it covers all these topics pretty thoroughly and is considered to be the definitive work on Midway.

You completely contradict yourself in this post.

Not quiet so fast me buckooo..Churchill upon hearing that Pearl had been bombed and that the US was now in the war stated with certainty that the Allies had just won the war...Thus it was known by Churchill to have been a foregone conclusion.

Losing at Midway would have made the situation more dicey and would have prolonged the conflict. The results would have been the same as the US industrial capacity still would have kicked in,and taht Japan was vastly inferior to Americas industrial capacity.

With Midway in Jap hands it would have opened Hawaii to attack, perhaps not invasion..in other words Hawaii would have become the front lines and not the staging area it was. The US would have had to use the West Coast for the staging area, and would have been subject to Japanese raids...That is why they built the Kaiser Steel Plant in Fontana, CA (60 miles inland) in 1942 and not on the coast, which would have made the cost of transportation of materials cheaper.


If the Coral Sea ended the immediate threat of Australia's invasion, the Jap airstrip at Guadalcanal would have interfered with Australia's communication and supply lines. Thus putting Australia in jeapordy. Midway iretrievabily set Japan back but did not immediatily end Japans expansion.

Japan still had a Carrier force...after Midway...the US and Japs were basically trading ships...only thing was the Japs couldn't replace the ships or the trained personal.

YOu should read "Japanese Destroyer Captain" by Tamechi Hara Or John Tolands 'Rising Sun" or The US Navy In WW2" Sam Elliot Morrison, or Challenge For the Pacific or Strong Men Armed , by Robert Leckie, SALVO by Newcomb...Samuri by Saburo Sakai, Incredible Victory..Walter Lord. among others

Edwin Hoyt writes good stuff about the Pacific Naval war...

If you really believe both statements than they are contradictory as Germany's industrial base was far smaller than the US.

However, we could have outproduced Germany 10 fold, but if Hitler developed the A-bomb first the war was lost. Roosevelt knew that which is why he consented to build the A-bomb

Science trumps industrial output....usually. Using absolutes would just be ridiculous.

But the reality is Germany did not lead the US in technology: They had no computers, inferior radar, the British put superior jets into operation almost simultaneously, etc. German planes, almost every model, was inferior to the US equivalent. Even the ME-262 was designed with almost no range capability, making it vulnerable because it could not stay in the fight.

The reality is that superiority in science comes not from an industrial base, but from having a better EDUCATIONAL base. And the US had the largest and best universities in the world. A powerful mind thinking a new is worth a 100 strong hands pouring steel.

As an aside the Germans were NOT the first to militarize rockets: Rockets in warfare is nothing knew and have been used for centuries: "By the rockets red glare". Which is not to minimize Von Braun's technical achievements.

the bomb does change everything. the only point i will concede.

I am supposed to argue against this?

Einstein was teaching where before Hitler came to power...Von Braun was from what country again...as previousily stated Hitlers antisemiticism caused a lot of sceintific talent to emigrate to America and Britain. However before WW2 Germany was the technological leader in the world. German was the language of science...back in the day...even into the 1970;s when you bought a car it was German engineering that was touted.

As stated Hitler ordered the ceasation of development of new fighter aircraft in 1941, as he thought the war was already won. Thus that cost the Germans technical superiority. However not only did Germany field the ME 262, but the first rocket powered fighter ME 363...and jet bomber the Arado and pusher puller prop driven Donier...then we come to the V2...and first cruise missle the V1.

Had Hitler continued with the development of the bomb after 1942 it would have been a race to see who got it first..

Read the book Shattered Sword. This is all covered in some detail therein, the author's conclusions are quite clear.

You have serious delusions as to the capabilities of the IJA and IJN while simultaneously seriously underrating the US's ability to defend Hawaii.

How could you possibly think that the Japanese could take Hawaii with a mere 4 carriers and a division of infantry (thier practical single sorty amphibious sea lift limit)? It's beyond comprehension.

US Air superiority alone would make the entire notion of a Japanese invasion of Hawaii a total non-starter. It would, in fact, be an operation of pure idiocy. As i said, it would make Sea Lion look like a good idea.

The main reason Yamamoto decided to attack Midway was to draw out the American fleet to a "Decisive Battle" the premiere Japanese naval strategy.
The flaw was the unnecessary complication of the plan and the Americans knew they were coming & from where & when. Simply put, the US ambushed them and were extremely lucky.

As to Hitler & the A bomb......the Germans had no chance. The industrial might of the US was required to make the thing..... not to mention the scientific minds of the allies. Hitler's Germany simply did not have the industrial capacity and were being bombed into rubble.

The best books I've read on the Pacific war are:

Japan's War

Combined Fleet Decoded....kinda heavy lifting.

Miracle At Midway is a good one.

A contemporary (as in the 40s) account to the Naval war in WWII is Cmdr/Cptn. Walter Karig's 4 part series of Battle Report.....hard cover only and tough to find.

if the japanese could only land one division, how did they get two on luzon in 41, with armor? we underestimated them then. guess we still do today.


i don't know american strength on the islands at the time. i doubt more than ten percent were combat troops. and there are dozens of islands in a chain over a thousand miles long. were we supposed to defend them all?

still waiting for some explanation of how the navy was supposed to defend the islands, and the sea lanes with nothing that could stand up to the IJN.

I don't think Pearl Harbor was because of the Japanese wanting to invade Pearl harbor. They just wanted to destroy the US Pacific Fleet to get rid of US interference as they proceded to the Philipines & Indonesia.

I would like to think "Battle of the Bulge" because I like the 101st answer to the demand for surrender, "Nuts". But this is not shaping, it sure isn't the US way of thinking now. But I voted "Defeat of Spanish Armada" because it gave the British control of the seas which they exploited for several hundred years to change the world.

I think US industry definitely helped in WW II. We could manufacture equipment faster than our enemies could repair theirs. Also, Statistical Quality Control was developed in the US which made possible replacement parts that could be changed on the battlefield. The scary thing is that today we manufacture almost nothing. I heard China makes our soldiers & boots. Since our Gov controlled GM sold Hummer to China, I guess they'll make its military brother the Humvee as well.

Battle of Hastings:

Completely changes the society and political landscape of England, setting the stage for world domination.

Second choice: Marathon, stopping the Persians was pivotal in the development of western culture.

It’s generally accepted that Germany was more advanced in technology, in weapons. A jet fighter, Bomber and a liquid rocket powered interceptor :eek: (although dangerous)!! All in operation with nothing from the US and the Brits came in very later with theirs. Their tanks were far superior (Tiger I, Tiger II, Panther). The ME109 and FW190 were always formidable in battle. The dreaded 88 AT/AA gun and on and on.

Germany was not the first to employ rockets but they sure took it to the next level. The V1 Buzz Bomb (that’s what the British Jet was defending against), The V2 – the first ballistic and first man made object to achieve sub-orbital space flight. Over 3000 were launched killing 7200+ people. The US went to great lengths to capture the scientist and as many V2’s as they could. There was a reason for that. What was that guys name?? Oh ya - Wernher von Braun – that guy that ran our first ICBM program and then went on to run that little Apollo program.

I do believe that Germany even used an anti ship missile, the Fritz X

Not in WWII it didn't.

I'm not sure who your are reading but the Me-232, Comet, and V2 had 0 effect on the outcome of the war. That's indisputable.

The A-bomb on the other hand ended it. Our computers broke their codes and our radar could detect a U-boat snorkel, effectively ending the war in the Atlantic. So who had the better tech?

M-262: No range. Could be shot down over it's own airfield as it had no fuel for extended dog fights.

Comet: It's fuel could melt the pilot. And often did.

ME109 and FW109 were clearly inferior to the Allied counterparts. The proof is in the pudding.

As for the tanks you mention, they are generally considered to be overweight and underpowered, (Tiger/TigerII) difficult to build, difficult to maintain, (all of them) and having no range (also all of them). Many people tend to be obsessed with stats: Bigger guns, heavier armor, but in the end these things only made them more unwieldly, inflexible and rare as they were often broken down or bogged down.

The Germans obsession with gigantism also extended to their Tank Killers, which was a rather dead format having limited offensive capability because they had no turret.

In fact there are no major tank battles that employed these giants where the Germans came out on top. (see Kursk, Bulge, etc.)

The Panzer Mach IV was a possibly the best Axis tank and proved it through-out the war, but especially in Africa.

The best tank of the war is widely (and wisely) considered to be the T-32. Easy to produce, easy to maintain, fast with good range, packing good punch and protection. Very well suited to true blitzkrieg warfare and exploiting breakthroughs.

My comments is a reply to your statement “But the reality is Germany did not lead the US in technology”, It has nothing to do with the outcome of the war – man your shifting gears to support your comments

BTW – the German Panzer IV or Mark IV was not referred as the Mach IV (man that’s a fast tank)

The Russian tank you refer to is the T-34 and not the T-32 but I guess that a typo huh.

My point by citing the numerous examples, was that the often vaunted axis technologies, while on the surface are seemingly impressive, were in fact quite problematic, overrated, underdeveloped and inferior to the allied achievements.

Norden bomb site
More effective radars
Computers
Long Range Heavy bombers
Longe Range Escort fighters to accompany them
A-bomb

These are all allied achievements for which the Axis had no answer and no equivalent. They were all effective. Far more so than the axis technologies, which were too little, too late, and often wrong-headed or poorly concieved both in design and strategic use. Effectiveness of course is a key attribute in any successful technology.

The Axis did have a technological breakthrough for which the allies had no countermeasure: Sarin gas, but they never deployed it because:

1. Hitler had been gassed during WW1
2. He thought the Allies also knew how to make it.

If midway falls the US has months to reinforce Hawaii. As far as how the Japanese landed so many troops on Luzon, they did it in waves. That's not a viable option in an attack on Hawaii. Luzon is much, much closer to Japan, and it's supply lines could easily handle such a task. The exact opposite of the scenario they'd have faced at Hawaii.

There is an OOB for the Hawaiin defense in Shattered Sword, i'll look it up tommrow night and post it for you.

As to how the US defends the sea lanes to Hawaii, they use air power(B-17s and P-38s among others), and submarines.

Augmented with escort carriers protecting the convoys, this should be quite sufficient to stop the remnants of Kido Butai. (Even if the Japanese won midway with no carrier losses, they'd have lost many of their IRREPLACEABLE elite pilots in the carrier attacks against Yorktown, Hornet, and Enterprise).

The critical flaw the Japanese made was in sending only 2 carriers into the Coral Sea. The Whole of Kido Butai should have been employed. That force should have never been used penny packet. Ever.

As it was, 2 of the 6 fleet carriers were knocked out in the Coral Sea, as well as 2 whole airwings. It was this more than anything else that cost the Japanese victory at Midway.

Their convoluted and idiotic plan to attack an island wholly unsuited for thier needs based on poor intel was not exactly helpful either. Why would we expect they'd behave any differently if attacking Hawaii? Plus, the US had broken their code. We'd know when they were coming on top of it.

Agreed.

In some areas the Allies were far ahead of the Germans in technology.

This is more true than you allude to here. The production P-80 was actually significantly superior to the Me262 in a variety of performance categories. It was a better turner and had better range as well as more reliable engines. By 1945 allied jet engine tech was actually superior to that of the Germans. Our engines were producing more thrust and lasting several hundred % longer MTBF. And had the war stretched into 1946, the P80 would have been available in the thousands.

The (Me163?) Komet was a horribly flawed and desperate attempt to stop the destruction the US heavies were raining down on German industry.

The V-1 and V-2 were, IMO, a total waste of resources.

There is a lot of validity to criticizing the Tiger I and II and some of the other exotic german heavy tank killers, but the Panther was probably the best all around tank of WWII. The real problem was that the Germans never standardized on one or two designs like the US and Russians did.

I actually think the Panther was a significantly better tank, but the PzIV was also quite capable.

I think you could make a strong argument for the GB Sherman Firefly, the German Panther or the T-34/85 being the 'best' tank of the war. The best US tank was clearly the M4A3E8/76 "Easy Eight" Sherman, and it was a very fine tank indeed, but it was still undergunned compared to the others.

1. U do realized Hitler interfered with the development of the ME 262..he wanted a bomber. It could have been in service many months earlier and it would have effected the outcome of the air war. Again the development of the Comet and V2 came late in the war when the die was already cast. Also the deployment of the V2 was against civilian targets and not military another Hitler blunder...it seems he was his own worst enemy.

2. The Germans ceased development of the A Bomb n 1942...just about time the US was getting started. Computers were in a very rudimentary stage...The Brits had captured an enigma machine...and it was the work of the code breakers and not the computer that solve the mystery...Both sides employed radar...the Germans mostly used it for against the British strategic night bombing offensive Late in the war their night fighters were equipped with radar...Radar is a bit of a push as each side continually developed and refined their capabilities.

3. The ME 262 was vulnerable upon landing...however by the time it was dribbled into service the Germans had long lost air superiority and it was a matter of too little to late...read #1 comments

The ME 163 was just out of developmental stages by the end of the war..

4.The ME 109 saw service in the Spanish Civil War in 1936 and ended WW2 still in service (The ME109 was still in service in Spain till the 1960;s) ...So the ME 109 was well past its prime by 1943. However in its day it was the state of the art along with the Spitfire that came along a little later in the 1930's. The FW190 was put in service in 1941 and was becoming long of tooth by the end of 1943. The first Mustangs P-51's were introduced into service in the beginning of 1944...However the plane I would have chosen to fly would have been the JUG or P-47 simply indestructible. This argument of yours is specious on this point.

5. The Panther Mark VI is considered to be the best tank of WW2 it had speed armour and firepower. It did have a liability it was overly complicated, over engineered. The Panzer Mark V or Tiger I was slow and ponderous, but with that 88 gun ferocious and so heavily armoured it was almost impossible to knock out ...Wittman with his 6 Tigers wiped out a whole Brigade of British Sherman's in Normandy..some 50 tanks without a loss. The Tiger II was an even heavier behemoth...Read comment 6.

6. The German obsession with Gigantism was Hitlers own megalomania at work. By the end of the war the Germans had designed several monsterous tanks that were in effect moving pill boxes and they were designed by none other than Ferdinand Porsche. It was his bemoth Tank Buster the Ferdinand that was employed at Kursk that ran afoul of the Soviets. For 2 basic reasons it didn't have infantry support and didn't sport a machine gun to neutalize enemy infantry. The survivors of Kursk were later deployed at Anzio in Italy to great effect.

7. Yes the Mark IV was probably the best of the lot for the Germans it was built in the biggest quanity and with mods it was still formidable by wars end..a tribute to German 1930's tech.

8. I too would classify the Soviet T-34 as the single best tank of the war..simple to mfg, easy to maintain, hard hitting and crude...but it could be easily mass produced. During the fall of 1941 the rains came which turned the Russian roads into seas of mud...this in effect ground the German armoured offensive to a halt...why because the German tanks had NARROW Tracks..the Soviet tanks had wide tracks which allowed them to still move about in the mud. Subsequent German tanks if one notices had wider tracks so they to could move in muddy conditions.