Jump to content


If Dunkirk failed?

Dunkirk

  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

I3iggus Nickus #1 Posted 19 July 2017 - 06:09 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 34181 battles
  • 4,813
  • [ACES]
  • Member since:
    03-17-2014

would the axis win or did the allies still have a chance?

 

We know america would have still ended up going to war against the Japanese, cause I doubt dunkirk would change the mind of the Japanese. Would America still declare war on Germany even if they knew Britain took a heavy hit? Would this effect the supply lines to Russia? Can Russia handle Germany alone? Would Britain have been finished off in operation sea lion?

 

 


​Member of the Senior Technical Engineer Club [ACES] Armoured Aces "Louder than God's revolver and twice as shiny"

1: A leap of faith. An unproveable belief in a reality beyond this world. 2: suicide. Escaping a pointless existence. 3: acceptance of an Absurd existence, and the freedom that comes with creating your own meaning.

"He who snipes snipers, runs the risk of becoming the sniper himself. If you gaze into the scope, the scope gazes back"


PATRIOTICxTBro #2 Posted 19 July 2017 - 06:26 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15281 battles
  • 1,897
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 19 July 2017 - 06:09 AM, said:

would the axis win or did the allies still have a chance?

 

We know america would have still ended up going to war against the Japanese, cause I doubt dunkirk would change the mind of the Japanese. Would America still declare war on Germany even if they knew Britain took a heavy hit? Would this effect the supply lines to Russia? Can Russia handle Germany alone? Would Britain have been finished off in operation sea lion?

 

 

 

seeing as 80-90% of German casualties happened on the eastern front I think Russia would have been fine. the important question to ask is if Hitler didn't become so enamored with taking Stalingrad and went straight for Moscow or the oil fields to the south what would have happened?


I3iggus Nickus #3 Posted 19 July 2017 - 06:37 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 34181 battles
  • 4,813
  • [ACES]
  • Member since:
    03-17-2014

View PostPATRIOTICxTBro, on 19 July 2017 - 12:26 AM, said:

 

seeing as 80-90% of German casualties happened on the eastern front I think Russia would have been fine. the important question to ask is if Hitler didn't become so enamored with taking Stalingrad and went straight for Moscow or the oil fields to the south what would have happened?

 

I would imagine that the british would have trouble holding north africa and since allied bombing might not have happened if britain got taken out

 

Is there oil the axis can access from a conquered north africa


Edited by Nicholas Sapien, 19 July 2017 - 06:38 AM.

​Member of the Senior Technical Engineer Club [ACES] Armoured Aces "Louder than God's revolver and twice as shiny"

1: A leap of faith. An unproveable belief in a reality beyond this world. 2: suicide. Escaping a pointless existence. 3: acceptance of an Absurd existence, and the freedom that comes with creating your own meaning.

"He who snipes snipers, runs the risk of becoming the sniper himself. If you gaze into the scope, the scope gazes back"


PATRIOTICxTBro #4 Posted 19 July 2017 - 07:10 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15281 battles
  • 1,897
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 19 July 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

 

I would imagine that the british would have trouble holding north africa and since allied bombing might not have happened if britain got taken out

 

Is there oil the axis can access from a conquered north africa

 

that would make the assumption that Britain would have lost the air war which I doubt due to radar. I mean the oil fields in Russia 


Sadriel Fett #5 Posted 19 July 2017 - 07:58 AM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 28264 battles
  • 5,251
  • [DARMY]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

Do you mean our war time supply lines to Russia?  Because, since the Germans had most of the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea bottled up pretty good and the Japanese Navy pretty much controlled the Pacific, the majority of our supply lines to Russia during the war was through the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf, through Iran.  The Allies actually had to build up and help upgrade a lot of those older ports and the infrastructure roadways through central Iran to transport most of the stuff up to Western Russia.  So, a lot of those ports they launch their ships from now that harass our own Navy boats in the Persian Gulf were built up by us during WWII.  Ain't that some sh*t?  How's that for gratitude?   :teethhappy:  

 


 

~ "This game would be great, if it wasn't for our teammates." ~

~ There's no such thing as Arty Safe. You have to play Arty Aware. You have to play SmArty. ~


Cruiser Abukuma #6 Posted 19 July 2017 - 09:07 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 17137 battles
  • 12,072
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013
had dunkirk failed hitler really wouldve had no reason to not push into britain.. seeing as how britain wouldve lost near 400k troops. combine that with the current status of the war and i firmly believe that britain would have had to surrender.. meaning at that time germany could then focus on the eastern front and bolster their supply lines and increase their troop count, combine that i mean which was the main reason they failed on the eastern front... and this is a new europe we're talking.. Now assuming this didn't take until 1945, i'm fairly certain that Italy would also still be on the axis side at this point, and both the german and italian navies would send help to japan.. which would ultimately seal the fate for the u.s. Alternate timelines are my specialty.. 

 

Looking For A Clan That Openly Accepts Anime And Was Founded On It?

Then Join The Kuromorimine Mechanized Division, The Largest and Best Anime Clan On Xbox!!

Want More Information? Then PM Myself Right Here On The Forums!!


SirDerp-a-lot #7 Posted 19 July 2017 - 09:43 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 55885 battles
  • 8,454
  • [GER_1]
  • Member since:
    05-15-2016

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 19 July 2017 - 07:09 AM, said:

would the axis win or did the allies still have a chance?

 

We know america would have still ended up going to war against the Japanese, cause I doubt dunkirk would change the mind of the Japanese. Would America still declare war on Germany even if they knew Britain took a heavy hit? Would this effect the supply lines to Russia? Can Russia handle Germany alone? Would Britain have been finished off in operation sea lion?

 

Sea Lion was prevented by German lack of experience in such operations, the RAF and the Royal Navy, not by the British Army.

 

The point about North Africa is a good one, but I still think that the Soviets would have beaten Hitler without a second (or third) front.



Albapfalzd3 #8 Posted 19 July 2017 - 02:07 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 23015 battles
  • 2,917
  • Member since:
    04-07-2017

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 19 July 2017 - 06:09 AM, said:

would the axis win or did the allies still have a chance?

 

We know america would have still ended up going to war against the Japanese, cause I doubt dunkirk would change the mind of the Japanese. Would America still declare war on Germany even if they knew Britain took a heavy hit? Would this effect the supply lines to Russia? Can Russia handle Germany alone? Would Britain have been finished off in operation sea lion?

 

 

 

The US didn't declare war on Germany until after Germany declared war on the US first and that was their (Germany's) BIG mistake. It wasn't our boots on the ground that won the war but our manufacturing and logistics. We (the US) kept the allied nations supplied throughout the war. The U.K. and the USSR would have had serious problems keeping the war going without U.S. supplies. 

 

View Postkorbendallas-01, on 19 July 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

 

Sea Lion was prevented by German lack of experience in such operations, the RAF and the Royal Navy, not by the British Army.

 

The point about North Africa is a good one, but I still think that the Soviets would have beaten Hitler without a second (or third) front.

 

The Soviets would not have been able to defeat Hitler if at least the threat of a second or third front wasn't there. If Hitler had know that there was no chance of a second or third front all those extra troops could have been sent to the eastern front in 42 and that would have easily been the difference. Would the USSR have been defeated? Probably not but European Russia would have been under Nazi rule and the USSR relocated to east of the Urals. 

 

Roy


Edited by Albapfalzd3, 19 July 2017 - 03:06 PM.


I3iggus Nickus #9 Posted 19 July 2017 - 02:57 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 34181 battles
  • 4,813
  • [ACES]
  • Member since:
    03-17-2014

View PostCruiser Abukuma, on 19 July 2017 - 03:07 AM, said:

had dunkirk failed hitler really wouldve had no reason to not push into britain.. seeing as how britain wouldve lost near 400k troops. combine that with the current status of the war and i firmly believe that britain would have had to surrender.. meaning at that time germany could then focus on the eastern front and bolster their supply lines and increase their troop count, combine that i mean which was the main reason they failed on the eastern front... and this is a new europe we're talking.. Now assuming this didn't take until 1945, i'm fairly certain that Italy would also still be on the axis side at this point, and both the german and italian navies would send help to japan.. which would ultimately seal the fate for the u.s. Alternate timelines are my specialty.. 

 

I think operation sea lion would still happen, but I think it would still fail cause the british had the RAF and the Royal navy. I still think the UK and US would still be able to use britain for strategic bombing which really hit them where it hurt, but I doubt the british had any strength to hold north africa.

 

View Postkorbendallas-01, on 19 July 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

 

Sea Lion was prevented by German lack of experience in such operations, the RAF and the Royal Navy, not by the British Army.

 

The point about North Africa is a good one, but I still think that the Soviets would have beaten Hitler without a second (or third) front.

 

Yeah I thought the same, the only thing I might see happening is that low morale might have affected the british cause of all their losses, or they might call for a peace treaty cause of dunkirk.

 

I still think the soviets would still do good against germany if america supplied them, but I don't know how great of an effect the america lend lease program had on the soviets. I assume it was pretty good though. Russia would still have access to the US and UK via pacific route and still being able to use the arctic route but unable to use the persian corridor route due to UK not being able to hold North Africa. 

 

View PostAlbapfalzd3, on 19 July 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

 

The US didn't declare war on Germany until after Germany declared war on the US first and that was their (Germany's) BIG mistake. It wasn't our boots on the ground that won the war but our manufacturing and logistics. We (the US) kept the allied nations supplied throughout the war. The U.K. and the USSR would have had serious problems keeping the war going without U.S. supplies. 

 

I still the think the US might have gone to war if the UK was still alright after operation sea lion....but I imagine it would be an uphill battle


​Member of the Senior Technical Engineer Club [ACES] Armoured Aces "Louder than God's revolver and twice as shiny"

1: A leap of faith. An unproveable belief in a reality beyond this world. 2: suicide. Escaping a pointless existence. 3: acceptance of an Absurd existence, and the freedom that comes with creating your own meaning.

"He who snipes snipers, runs the risk of becoming the sniper himself. If you gaze into the scope, the scope gazes back"


SirDerp-a-lot #10 Posted 19 July 2017 - 04:34 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 55885 battles
  • 8,454
  • [GER_1]
  • Member since:
    05-15-2016

View PostAlbapfalzd3, on 19 July 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

The Soviets would not have been able to defeat Hitler if at least the threat of a second or third front wasn't there. If Hitler had know that there was no chance of a second or third front all those extra troops could have been sent to the eastern front in 42 and that would have easily been the difference. Would the USSR have been defeated? Probably not but European Russia would have been under Nazi rule and the USSR relocated to east of the Urals.

 

Spoken with such certainty that nothing more needs to be said.

 

Have a nice day!



SirDerp-a-lot #11 Posted 19 July 2017 - 04:37 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 55885 battles
  • 8,454
  • [GER_1]
  • Member since:
    05-15-2016

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 19 July 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

I still think the soviets would still do good against germany if america supplied them, but I don't know how great of an effect the america lend lease program had on the soviets. I assume it was pretty good though. Russia would still have access to the US and UK via pacific route and still being able to use the arctic route but unable to use the persian corridor route due to UK not being able to hold North Africa.

 

Up to a point those supplies were vital, but I think that the Soviet would have eventually build up enough capacity outside immediate German reach that the situation would have changed. I know the Soviet flew a lot of Airacobras, does anyone know what the most modern tank was that they got in any numbers?

Cruiser Abukuma #12 Posted 19 July 2017 - 06:28 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 17137 battles
  • 12,072
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 19 July 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

 

I think operation sea lion would still happen, but I think it would still fail cause the british had the RAF and the Royal navy. I still think the UK and US would still be able to use britain for strategic bombing which really hit them where it hurt, but I doubt the british had any strength to hold north africa.

 

 

Yeah I thought the same, the only thing I might see happening is that low morale might have affected the british cause of all their losses, or they might call for a peace treaty cause of dunkirk.

 

I still think the soviets would still do good against germany if america supplied them, but I don't know how great of an effect the america lend lease program had on the soviets. I assume it was pretty good though. Russia would still have access to the US and UK via pacific route and still being able to use the arctic route but unable to use the persian corridor route due to UK not being able to hold North Africa. 

 

 

I still the think the US might have gone to war if the UK was still alright after operation sea lion....but I imagine it would be an uphill battle

Which was onyl possibel via dunkirk and a few other strokes of luck.. had dunkirk failed.. amd the battle of britain taking place at its priginal proposal.. britain wouldve been knocked out of the war.. due to the fact of the raf being crippled..


 

Looking For A Clan That Openly Accepts Anime And Was Founded On It?

Then Join The Kuromorimine Mechanized Division, The Largest and Best Anime Clan On Xbox!!

Want More Information? Then PM Myself Right Here On The Forums!!


PATRIOTICxTBro #13 Posted 19 July 2017 - 07:03 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15281 battles
  • 1,897
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013

View PostAlbapfalzd3, on 19 July 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

 

The US didn't declare war on Germany until after Germany declared war on the US first and that was their (Germany's) BIG mistake. It wasn't our boots on the ground that won the war but our manufacturing and logistics. We (the US) kept the allied nations supplied throughout the war. The U.K. and the USSR would have had serious problems keeping the war going without U.S. supplies. 

 

 

The Soviets would not have been able to defeat Hitler if at least the threat of a second or third front wasn't there. If Hitler had know that there was no chance of a second or third front all those extra troops could have been sent to the eastern front in 42 and that would have easily been the difference. Would the USSR have been defeated? Probably not but European Russia would have been under Nazi rule and the USSR relocated to east of the Urals. 

 

Roy

Do you not understand that 80-90% of German casualties happened on the eastern front any way you really think 10-20% more troops would have just been too much? Like I said it wasn't a lack of man power that lost on the east it was a lack of brain power on Hitler's part. 



IBROX 04 #14 Posted 19 July 2017 - 07:24 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20549 battles
  • 9,454
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    11-10-2014
Dunkirk never failed & yet we now have a Nanny State. 

Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm

 

 

 


Matthew J35U5 #15 Posted 22 July 2017 - 12:44 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostPATRIOTICxTBro, on 19 July 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:

 

seeing as 80-90% of German casualties happened on the eastern front I think Russia would have been fine. the important question to ask is if Hitler didn't become so enamored with taking Stalingrad and went straight for Moscow or the oil fields to the south what would have happened?

If they go for Moscow in 1942, they have enormous difficulty due to the extensive prepared defenses in that direction. (Because that was where they expected an attack.) Baku is really far away. Not sure they could have made it that far. 

View PostCruiser Abukuma, on 19 July 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

had dunkirk failed hitler really wouldve had no reason to not push into britain.. seeing as how britain wouldve lost near 400k troops. combine that with the current status of the war and i firmly believe that britain would have had to surrender.. meaning at that time germany could then focus on the eastern front and bolster their supply lines and increase their troop count, combine that i mean which was the main reason they failed on the eastern front... and this is a new europe we're talking.. Now assuming this didn't take until 1945, i'm fairly certain that Italy would also still be on the axis side at this point, and both the german and italian navies would send help to japan.. which would ultimately seal the fate for the u.s. Alternate timelines are my specialty.. 

How about the reason that Germany had no ability to launch a seaborne invasion of Britain, no ability to supply such an invasion, and no ability to stop the RN from wiping out their enitire invasion force?

 

 

As if the Italian and German navies would be able to accomplish anything. How many carriers did those fleets have? We already know what happens when BB fleets attempt to fight carriers. 

View Postkorbendallas-01, on 19 July 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

 

Up to a point those supplies were vital, but I think that the Soviet would have eventually build up enough capacity outside immediate German reach that the situation would have changed. I know the Soviet flew a lot of Airacobras, does anyone know what the most modern tank was that they got in any numbers?

Sherman I think. 

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 19 July 2017 - 01:09 AM, said:

would the axis win or did the allies still have a chance?

 

We know america would have still ended up going to war against the Japanese, cause I doubt dunkirk would change the mind of the Japanese. Would America still declare war on Germany even if they knew Britain took a heavy hit? Would this effect the supply lines to Russia? Can Russia handle Germany alone? Would Britain have been finished off in operation sea lion?

 

 

America didn't declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on America. (I mean, America did DoW Germany, but after the Germans did). 

 

Sea Lion would have been a disaster of epic proportions. 

 

The most likely consequence is Britain failing to hold North Africa, which in absolute terms, took very little resources away from Germany's Russia campaign. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Cruiser Abukuma #16 Posted 22 July 2017 - 02:12 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 17137 battles
  • 12,072
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 22 July 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

If they go for Moscow in 1942, they have enormous difficulty due to the extensive prepared defenses in that direction. (Because that was where they expected an attack.) Baku is really far away. Not sure they could have made it that far. 

How about the reason that Germany had no ability to launch a seaborne invasion of Britain, no ability to supply such an invasion, and no ability to stop the RN from wiping out their enitire invasion force?

 

 

As if the Italian and German navies would be able to accomplish anything. How many carriers did those fleets have? We already know what happens when BB fleets attempt to fight carriers. 

Sherman I think. 

America didn't declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on America. (I mean, America did DoW Germany, but after the Germans did). 

 

Sea Lion would have been a disaster of epic proportions. 

 

The most likely consequence is Britain failing to hold North Africa, which in absolute terms, took very little resources away from Germany's Russia campaign. 

 

lol wat... the RAF wasn't even close to full fighting force when the original beginning was supposed to take place.. This of course being back when the RAF were seeking reinforcements from the U.S.. However the actual invasion got postponed multiple times allowing great britain to bolster the RAF.. Had everything took place on time the RAF would have been scrambling and would've succumbed..  as for your bb fleet theory... That's not entirely true.. It depends of fleet composition. And if you are going to go the extra mile and try to say the RAF taking out bismarck is proof.. i'd reccomend you look back at what happened when bismarck wasnt by herself and or with one to two back up ships.. case in point the glorious loss that was the hood.. Had germany had their active fleet all together.. not their entire fleet mind you.. so take bismarck, tirpitz, the hipper class, and even their carriers which they did have mind you.. including graf zeppelin and her unfortunate fate.. you'd have a whole different story... I don't think you realize who you are arguing with here.. In regards to ways germany or japan couldve won the war.. I have many... The battle of britain being one of them... but please keep making your argument as it interests me to see people who disagree with these statements and try to have their own form of an argument

 

Looking For A Clan That Openly Accepts Anime And Was Founded On It?

Then Join The Kuromorimine Mechanized Division, The Largest and Best Anime Clan On Xbox!!

Want More Information? Then PM Myself Right Here On The Forums!!


GroomingChief65 #17 Posted 22 July 2017 - 07:45 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10524 battles
  • 460
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

Hitler wanted a peace agreement with Britain not to obliterate them which is the biggest reason why the evacuation succeeded, it was allowed to succeed. The gesture of chivalry was ignored by Churchill who vowed to fight on.

 

It's hard for me to believe the German's don't overwhelm Russia if they can ignore the western front altogether. Divisions were held back including Waffen SS. I recall the Germans were close enough to see the domes of the Kremlin, they were mere kilometers away, and we know the Kremlin was evacuated at this point as Stalin was in panic mode. Hitler then decides to turn his divisions toward Kiev, was it?  If he can take the oil away from Stalin and use it for his own war machine I guess he figures it's checkmate.  Also don't forget he's a student of history and probably takes into account Napoleon.

 

You might say oh why would he do that, that stuff was ancient history by then. Not really, it was around 75 years before he was born that Moscow was set ablaze and evacuated before Napoleon arrived, it's just about the length of time WWII is before us here today and the generals of today I am sure still study the tactics used in WWII even though modern weaponry has advanced significantly.   



Zxyphos #18 Posted 23 July 2017 - 12:27 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 18182 battles
  • 12,368
  • [RATT]
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013
The real fighting took place on the Eastern front, and Lend-Lease saved the allies regardless. So, OP's question is a moot point.

I3iggus Nickus #19 Posted 23 July 2017 - 12:37 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 34181 battles
  • 4,813
  • [ACES]
  • Member since:
    03-17-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 22 July 2017 - 06:44 AM, said:

How about the reason that Germany had no ability to launch a seaborne invasion of Britain, no ability to supply such an invasion, and no ability to stop the RN from wiping out their enitire invasion force?

fair enough but would the luftwaffe have the ability to tie down the RAF or just have air superiority, so they wouldn't use strategic bombing on germany?


​Member of the Senior Technical Engineer Club [ACES] Armoured Aces "Louder than God's revolver and twice as shiny"

1: A leap of faith. An unproveable belief in a reality beyond this world. 2: suicide. Escaping a pointless existence. 3: acceptance of an Absurd existence, and the freedom that comes with creating your own meaning.

"He who snipes snipers, runs the risk of becoming the sniper himself. If you gaze into the scope, the scope gazes back"


Matthew J35U5 #20 Posted 24 July 2017 - 11:02 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostCruiser Abukuma, on 22 July 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

 

lol wat... the RAF wasn't even close to full fighting force when the original beginning was supposed to take place.. This of course being back when the RAF were seeking reinforcements from the U.S.. However the actual invasion got postponed multiple times allowing great britain to bolster the RAF.. Had everything took place on time the RAF would have been scrambling and would've succumbed..  as for your bb fleet theory... That's not entirely true.. It depends of fleet composition. And if you are going to go the extra mile and try to say the RAF taking out bismarck is proof.. i'd reccomend you look back at what happened when bismarck wasnt by herself and or with one to two back up ships.. case in point the glorious loss that was the hood.. Had germany had their active fleet all together.. not their entire fleet mind you.. so take bismarck, tirpitz, the hipper class, and even their carriers which they did have mind you.. including graf zeppelin and her unfortunate fate.. you'd have a whole different story... I don't think you realize who you are arguing with here.. In regards to ways germany or japan couldve won the war.. I have many... The battle of britain being one of them... but please keep making your argument as it interests me to see people who disagree with these statements and try to have their own form of an argument

Yeah, Sea Lion was postponed several times, because it was a stupid plan, which had no chance of working. They were going to use river barges (only half of which had engines) to try and cross the strait for god's sake. How the German navy & airforce expected to stop the Royal Navy from annihilating that flotilla is a mystery. The wake of a destroyer sailing past probably could have sunk half of them.

 

Of the 12 American carriers lost in WWII, one was sunk by naval gunfire. Of the 20 Japanese carriers lost in WWII, one was sunk by naval gunfire. At least 24 battleships were sunk by aircraft. Clearly, battleships were not well suited for fighting aircraft carriers. If you want a real life example of how a carrier-based fleet renders a BB-based fleet superfluous, you might want to turn your attention to the Pacific theatre of WWII. If Germany cared to gather their entire fleet of Tirpitz, Bismarck, Scharnhorst& Gneisnau, all of the Hipper-class, and as many destroyer flotillas as they could manage, they would still be entirely defenseless against an American carrier task force, which could bring as many as 1000 planes to battle, and be entirely unable to retalitate against those carriers, which would be safely 100's of km away. 

 

Again, we know this, because the Japanese (who were approximately 1,000,000x more competant at sea than Germany) had a significantly superior fleet to that described above (Tirpitz and Bismarck are pathetic compared to Yamato and Musashi, amazingly having more armour by mass, while having hugely inferior protection), including the best naval aviators in the world, and still were crushed by the Americans.

 

Clearly, I'm talking to a weeb who doesn't know enough about Japanese history to understand how thoroughly useless Germany's fleet would have been in a battle between carrier-based navies. Maybe, instead of reading 'alt-history', you should try reading real history first. But don't let me dissuade you, tell me more about how Japan and Germany could have won WWII. 

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 22 July 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

fair enough but would the luftwaffe have the ability to tie down the RAF or just have air superiority, so they wouldn't use strategic bombing on germany?

Sure, if the Luftwaffe had continued to attack RAF bases, they hypothetically could have made it impossible for them to base out of southern England. They could achieve some superiority in the air, because the RAF would at least then be basing as far away from the battle as the Luftwaffe was, and possibly Britain would have had significantly more trouble bombing Germany because of the increased range. (Tho idk the specifics) But the idea that the Luftwaffe would be able to achieve the kind of dominance that the allies had over France in 1944 is a fantasy. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:






Also tagged with Dunkirk

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users