What if?

[Richard Bartrop]

If you read history, a very good case can be made that, minus Hitler, there would have been no war.

Ferdinand Porsche was working on brilliant car designs for many years prior to the rise of the Third Reich. The Bug most likely would have happened anyway.

As far as aircraft go, racing planes of the '30s laid the groundwork for military aircraft of the WWII period. The Schnieder Trophy Supermarine S6s were direct forerunners of the Spitfire, for instance. Again, a thorough understanding of aviation history seems to indicate that private enterprise would have been working to rapidly advance aviation had war not intervened.

German scientists were working on rockets (along with Americans like Goddard) well before the war, with dreams of peaceful interplanetary travel. Had so much energy, money, and so many lives not been wasted, space flight most likely would have been a reality much earlier.

Seeing how much the aircraft industry has relied on government money, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, if left to their own devices they would have progressed even more slowly. Airliners were originally based on bombers, and postwar aviation relied on a network of airstrips originally built for the demands of the war. Maybe a world without WW2 would see flying boats remain viable a lot longer.

As for the VW, Porsche borrowed from others, such as Hans Ledwinka of Tatra, a company that had the misfortune of ending up on the wrong side of the iron curtain. If WW2 hadn't happened, and Czechoslovakia hadn't ended up in the Soviet sphere, who knows how big they could have gotten?

[Richard Bartrop]

It's all speculation. It's just as conceivable that another person would have risen to power in Germany who also jumped on the "we need to avenge what happened to us in WWI" bandwagon, whipped the people into a frenzy and became just as powerful. We'll never know.

Very true. Hilter never would have gotten anywhere if there weren't a lot of people willing to follow him. All they needed was someone willing to tell them what they wanted to hear. If that person was more competent than the Nazis, (which frankly wouldn't be hard), things could have gone far, far worse.

[Harry P.]

As for the VW, Porsche borrowed from others, such as Hans Ledwinka of Tatra...

I think he more than "borrowed" from Ledwinka. The Beetle's design was pretty much lifted entirely from Tatra. Didn't Tatra actually sue for that? But the suit came at an "inopportune" time for Tatra, as Hitler was busy occupying Czechoslovakia at the time, and the lawsuit conveniently "went away"...

[Harry P.]

From Wikipedia:

Both the streamlined design and the technical specifications, especially the air-cooled flat-four engine mounted in the back, give the T97 a striking resemblance to the KdF-Wagen of Volkswagen, which later became the Beetle. It is believed that Porsche used Tatra's designs since he was under huge pressure to design the Volkswagen quickly and cheaply.^[2]According to the books Tatra - The Legacy of Hans Ledwinka and Car Wars, Adolf Hitler said of the Tatra 'this is the car for my roads'.^[2][3]Ferdinand Porsche later admitted 'to have looked over Ledwinka's shoulders' while designing the Volkswagen.^[2][4]

Tatra sued Porsche for damages, and Porsche was willing to settle. However, Hitler canceled this, saying he 'would settle the matter.' ^[5] When Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Nazis, the production of the T97 was immediately halted, and the lawsuit dropped. After the war, Tatra reopened the lawsuit against Volkswagen. In 1967, the matter was settled whenVolkswagen paid Tatra 3,000,000 Deutsche Mark in compensation.^[6]

[johnbuzzed]

What if the Titanic didn't hit that iceberg?

[Richard Bartrop]

As far as the development of auto and aviation technology during wartime... it would seem to me that a huge war would hinder that, as all effort is put into supplying the military with as much equipment as can possibly be cranked out. Not much time left for R&D...

Because it's not just about more stuff, but better stuff, and WW2 did see a rise in orders for experimental aircraft. The Manhatten Project alone shows that your theory does not jive with reality.

[Richard Bartrop]

From Wikipedia:

Both the streamlined design and the technical specifications, especially the air-cooled flat-four engine mounted in the back, give the T97 a striking resemblance to the KdF-Wagen of Volkswagen, which later became the Beetle. It is believed that Porsche used Tatra's designs since he was under huge pressure to design the Volkswagen quickly and cheaply.^[2]According to the books Tatra - The Legacy of Hans Ledwinka and Car Wars, Adolf Hitler said of the Tatra 'this is the car for my roads'.^[2][3]Ferdinand Porsche later admitted 'to have looked over Ledwinka's shoulders' while designing the Volkswagen.^[2][4]

Tatra sued Porsche for damages, and Porsche was willing to settle. However, Hitler canceled this, saying he 'would settle the matter.' ^[5] When Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Nazis, the production of the T97 was immediately halted, and the lawsuit dropped. After the war, Tatra reopened the lawsuit against Volkswagen. In 1967, the matter was settled whenVolkswagen paid Tatra 3,000,000 Deutsche Mark in compensation.^[6]

Like I said, it would have been interesting to see how Tatra would have done if they weren't bottled up in the Soviet sphere.

[Tom Geiger]

What would a Pacer look like today if AMC was still around..?

What if Chevrolet brought out the Pacer instead of AMC? Would it be a big classic today based on the loyalty base of Chevy?

[Harry P.]

Because it's not just about more stuff, but better stuff, and WW2 did see a rise in orders for experimental aircraft. The Manhatten Project alone shows that your theory does not jive with reality.

But the Manhattan Project wasn't about building better cars or better planes. It was all about building better bombs.

[johnbuzzed]

Sometimes "more stuff" and not "better stuff" is just what's needed, as exemplified by the Sherman tanks and Soviet small arms of WWII. They weren't better, there were just a lot more of them and they were less complex, ergo, easier to maintain and less subject to harsh conditions than their counterparts.

[Draggon]

What if front wheel drive didnt work out so well?

What if gas was still 26 cents a gallon?

What if NASCAR did not have "green white checkers"

What if we had left Japan and Germany to fend for themselves after WWll?

[Ace-Garageguy]

What if frogs had wings?

What if elephants could fly the the speed of sound?

What if 1+1=3?

What if pi=77.667289?

Edited September 10, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[kalbert]

As far as the development of auto and aviation technology during wartime... it would seem to me that a huge war would hinder that, as all effort is put into supplying the military with as much equipment as can possibly be cranked out. Not much time left for R&D...

Wrong.

While manufacturing must run at an extreme pace, R&D is as important of role in military might as production pace. The need to produce more, better, faster, and cheaper was a requirement for anyone with a stake in the outcome of war.

As an example,the Cold War stalemate? Each "side" racing to out do the other's potential for destruction, the race for space, advancements in cryptography, globalization of communications...

At the beginning of the US Civil War, one shot long guns with limited range and accuracy built with technology that dated to the Revolution were the only arms available. By the end, repeating rifles, revolvers, and cartriges were a requirement for competitive battle. As was the advancement of communication and transportation of goods and troops via an increasingly sophisticated rail system. Advancements in metallurgy, construction, education, textiles, all driven by the need to stay one step ahead of the other "side" and both sides made significant advancements.

At the beginning of WWI, aviation was hardly a player in military force, at the end it was a requirement. In the early beginnings of WWII much of the worlds aviation was still piloting those same planes or ones of similar design with minimal payload capacity, communication ability, range, or armor. By the end of the war both "sides" had developed the largest most advanced aircraft man had ever seen capable of things just a short time earlier were thought to be impossible. None of this advancement would not have occurred without war. Each side was in a race to one up the other, and both needed to be constantly finding bigger, faster, better technology to hold position. Also a factor, very different technology was required on both fronts, planes that worked well over Europe did not over the Pacific, and vice versa. The technologies used by the Japanese required a different response than what was working in Europe.

Without the do or die fierce competition of wartime, those advancements would have occurred at a snails pace, if at all. Wartime is a double edged sword. Humanity both suffers and advances during wartime.

[kalbert]

Sometimes "more stuff" and not "better stuff" is just what's needed, as exemplified by the Sherman tanks and Soviet small arms of WWII. They weren't better, there were just a lot more of them and they were less complex, ergo, easier to maintain and less subject to harsh conditions than their counterparts.

Both good examples of technology that was researched and developed, not just the units themselves, but the production and maintenance of. As they were damaged and destroyed, new, faster, better ways to build new ones and repair old ones were developed to keep pace with the demand for more functional units.

[johnbuzzed]

Amen to the post of 1:14 by Kyle.

What if Sprint Cup cars - you know, "stock cars"- were required to run the same types of engines that were available in them from the factory? No "corporate" or aftermarket motors.

Edited September 10, 2013 by johnbuzzed

[kalbert]

What if Sprint Cup cars - you know, "stock cars"- were required to run the same types of engines that were available in them from the factory? No "corporate" or aftermarket motors.

Races would be a heck of alot shorter that's for sure!

[Harry P.]

Wrong.

While manufacturing must run at an extreme pace, R&D is as important of role in military might as production pace. The need to produce more, better, faster, and cheaper was a requirement for anyone with a stake in the outcome of war.

As an example,the Cold War stalemate? Each "side" racing to out do the other's potential for destruction, the race for space, advancements in cryptography, globalization of communications...

At the beginning of the US Civil War, one shot long guns with limited range and accuracy built with technology that dated to the Revolution were the only arms available. By the end, repeating rifles, revolvers, and cartriges were a requirement for competitive battle. As was the advancement of communication and transportation of goods and troops via an increasingly sophisticated rail system. Advancements in metallurgy, construction, education, textiles, all driven by the need to stay one step ahead of the other "side" and both sides made significant advancements.

At the beginning of WWI, aviation was hardly a player in military force, at the end it was a requirement. In the early beginnings of WWII much of the worlds aviation was still piloting those same planes or ones of similar design with minimal payload capacity, communication ability, range, or armor. By the end of the war both "sides" had developed the largest most advanced aircraft man had ever seen capable of things just a short time earlier were thought to be impossible. None of this advancement would not have occurred without war. Each side was in a race to one up the other, and both needed to be constantly finding bigger, faster, better technology to hold position. Also a factor, very different technology was required on both fronts, planes that worked well over Europe did not over the Pacific, and vice versa. The technologies used by the Japanese required a different response than what was working in Europe.

Without the do or die fierce competition of wartime, those advancements would have occurred at a snails pace, if at all. Wartime is a double edged sword. Humanity both suffers and advances during wartime.

But isn't it true that US auto production came to a dead halt during the war as the car makers shifted to producing military vehicles? And isn't it true that after the war, the "new" postwar cars were the same old models that were being produced before the war because the "Big 3" didn't have the time during the war to develop new models? So isn't it true that US auto production/development was slowed by the war, not accelerated?

[kalbert]

But isn't it true that US auto production came to a dead halt during the war as the car makers shifted to producing military vehicles? And isn't it true that after the war, the "new" postwar cars were the same old models that were being produced before the war because the "Big 3" didn't have the time during the war to develop new models? So isn't it true that US auto production/development was slowed by the war, not accelerated?

The "big 3" didn't have time to build new cars, and the low demand for new automobiles made them not as lucrative as military contract work. Why waste resources building cars that won't sell when you could be building war machines who's orders are so big they are hard to fill? Certainly did have engineers with their eyes open planning and soaking up ideas from their work on wartime projects that would be implemented as soon as automobile production resumed though. Factories at the beginning of the war that were converted from building automobiles to building war machines became specialized for making war machines very efficiently very quickly. Every ounce of manufacturing technology that was developed for building war machines that was already implemented in the factories at the end of the war, was converted after the war to produce more automobiles faster to keep up with the demand of soldiers returning home to a booming economy with money to spend. Advancements in metallurgy, casting, machining, and stamping, electronics, and fuels that were made during the war enabled the OHV engines, automatic transmissions, down to radios with longer range and clearer sound that emerged after the war. The same is true for industry throughout the world, though some areas needed much rebuilding in infrastructure before industry could resume, as it came online, they all built more better faster as a result of knowledge gained during the competition of war.

Technology, as a whole, advances very quickly when there is extreme competition, as in war.

[johnbuzzed]

Races would be a heck of alot shorter that's for sure!

More interesting, too!

[kalbert]

More interesting, too!

For sure!

[Harry P.]

The "big 3" didn't have time to build new cars, and the low demand for new automobiles made them not as lucrative as military contract work.

Not so. It wasn't low demand that forced the automakers into military production.

The "big 3" didn't have time to build new cars, and the low demand for new automobiles made them not as lucrative as military contract work. Why waste resources building cars that won't sell when you could be building war machines who's orders are so big they are hard to fill?

The auto makers didn't decide to switch from civilian to military production because of "low demand" for cars or because the military orders were more profitable. They shut down civilian production because the government stopped all civilian auto sales and deliveries in 1942. It was the government shutting down the civilian auto industry, not "low demand" from consumers.

...Certainly did have engineers with their eyes open planning and soaking up ideas from their work on wartime projects that would be implemented as soon as automobile production resumed though.

From Teachinghistory.org: Beginning immediately after the production of automobiles ceased (1942), entire (auto) factories were upended almost overnight. Huge manufacturing machines were jack-hammered out of their foundations and new ones brought in to replace them. Conveyors were stripped away and rebuilt, electrical wires were bundled together and stored in the vast factory ceilings, half-finished (auto) parts were sent to steel mills to be re-melted, and even many of the dies that had been used in the fabrication of auto parts were sent to salvage.

In the autumn of 1944, looking then toward the end of the war, Ford, Chrysler, Nash, and Fisher Body of General Motors received authorization from the War Production Board to do preliminary work on experimental models of civilian passenger cars, on condition that it not interfere with war work and that employees so used be limited to planning engineers and technicians. Limits were also set on the amount of labor and materials the companies could divert to this.

Sounds to me like WWII slowed down US auto production big time. In fact, it stopped all manufacturing and R&D. Isn't that why the "new" postwar cars were old pre-war cars, and the first actual "new" models took years to make it to market?

[Harry P.]

Advancements in metallurgy, casting, machining, and stamping, electronics, and fuels that were made during the war enabled the OHV engines, automatic transmissions, down to radios with longer range and clearer sound that emerged after the war.

Automatic transmissions were introduced in the 1930s, long before the war.

[Tom Geiger]

I agree with Harry, the government ended not only automobile production, but all other kinds of production of consumer goods so all US factories could concentrate on making materials for the war. There may have also been a low demand for new cars, since most men of a certain age group pretty much disappeared into military service after Pearl Harbor .And there was pretty much limited use due to fuel and rubber rationing too. Still, there was very limited production of civilian cars and trucks. You would need government approval to purchase one based on your need. For instance a doctor making house calls may have qualified for a new car. Or others involved in war production may have qualified for new trucks. Otherwise it was make due with what you had.

Neither of my grandfathers were in WWII (and my dad was too young). Both had exempt jobs. One worked for the railroad, essential to moving materials and the other was a watch maker. I remember my grandfather telling me that he would walk to work and just got enough gas each week so they could have Sunday dinner at my great grandmother's house. I still have his rationing stamps.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Tom Geiger

[Richard Bartrop]

What if we had left Japan and Germany to fend for themselves after WWll?

both would end up completely occupied by the Soviets.

[kalbert]

Ok, ok. You win Harry, I surrender. You're clearly an expert on whatever you think this topic is too.

Obviously none of the technologies that were invested in and advanced during the war would have influenced automobile production after the war. War time advancements are just like NASCAR kits. They're only useful for their immediate intended purpose, and to suggest that they might have application in other areas is absurd.

Edited September 10, 2013 by kalbert