DECISIVE BATTLES - Pick The Most Decisive and Provide Rationale...

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

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.

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.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by tabs

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.

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.

[tabs]

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.

[tabs]

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...

[1967 R50/2]

Originally Posted by tabs

Science and Technology comes from having a mfg base. ....

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.

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.

[varmint]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

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.


an airstrip within bomber range of hawaii is of no practical use?


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.


i wish, you have yet to explain how. like we defended the phillipines?

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.


so, in your fantasy, there was no bombing campaign disaster in europe?

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 a practical impossibility to provide fighter cover for convoys the 3000 or so miles to the islands. what are your P-38s going to use for fuel? what is this army going to eat? what are the hundreds of thousands of civilians going to eat? a carrier and a few dozen submarines could completely interdict shipping. look at the chaos the germans caused on the murmansk run.

you have yet to explain how we were supposed to have stopped them. with what? the one aircraft carrier we had left, the ranger? 10 months of nothing. read any good history of the bloody night battles off the solomons. it was a disaster. then picture the same battles taking place off molokai.

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.


"they did work sometimes". is that the best argument you have?


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.


suppose i am the japanese commander. i base bettys and mavis's out of midway. land troops on kauii or one of the smalller leper colony islands. build an airstrip, and now have zeros, vals and kates in range of pearl harbor. begin blockading the big islands. any american surface ships that challenge me are going to get mauled. the subs are still a marginal threat. i have ten months to reduce hawaii to starvation before even one fleet carrier can challenge.



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

[tabs]

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

A powerful mind thinking a new is worth a 100 strong hands pouring steel.

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..

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by varmint

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

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.

[J P Stein]

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.

[varmint]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

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.

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.

[drew1]

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.

[vbaron]

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.

[Super_Dave_D]

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

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.

It’s generally accepted that Germany was more advanced in technology, in weapons. A jet fighter, Bomber and a liquid rocket powered interceptor (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

[Super_Dave_D]

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

Science trumps industrial output....usually.

Not in WWII it didn't.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally Posted by Super_Dave_D

It’s generally accepted that Germany was more advanced in technology, in weapons. A jet fighter, Bomber and a liquid rocket powered interceptor (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.

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

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.

[Super_Dave_D]

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

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.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally Posted by Super_Dave_D

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

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.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by varmint

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.

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.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

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.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

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?

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

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

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

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

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

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.

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.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by 1967 R50/2

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.

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.