Jump to content


How could Germany have won WWII?


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

pr0fit0fcanabis #61 Posted 05 October 2018 - 04:19 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 42734 battles
  • 10,396
  • Member since:
    06-05-2014

View PostPanthergraf, on 13 July 2018 - 07:54 AM, said:

 

How to squeeze out Britain with a failed Luftwaffe and a Joke of a Navy?

U boats.  Cheap and effective, especially before.the allies perfected sub hunting.  In 41 or 42 with more u boats they may have been able to strangle Britain.  



TBO K1LL4C4M #62 Posted 05 October 2018 - 08:49 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12630 battles
  • 414
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View Postpr0fit0fcanabis, on 05 October 2018 - 04:13 AM, said:

You have point by point covered exactly what I would have done.  By taking the Middle East Germany would have cut the British Empire off.from it's Eastern Colonies by taking the Suez Canal.  In conjunction Hitler could have devoted more resources to U boats and air assets with the goal of strangling England and forcing a peace.  Then without a staging base for the US he could have done the two prong assault on Russia.  

If they had a never ending flow of troops, maybe, thats probably the most missing point. They hadnt even enough men to Control the conquered parts of Europe. And the european axies powers wasn't helpful either as all of them struggled in their military  adventures. The OKW told Hitler before invanding poland its at least 10 years too early to start the war (not enough troops and Equipment) but  the Nazi Leadership knew they hadnt any time left as germany was economically down and totally broke in 1939 due to speeded up Army rebuild and other silly decisions they made. Germany lost the war before even one soldier took a step into poland. Even if the US wouldnt be a Part in the european Theater Germany would have lost, it may took 15 years longer, but still.

 

The whole Economy was based on conquering and squeezing out, you can't conquer If you don't have the troops not even mentioning the troops needed to secure.



NSW Mntd Rifles #63 Posted 14 October 2018 - 02:49 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 42406 battles
  • 602
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostTBO K1LL4C4M, on 05 October 2018 - 06:49 PM, said:

If they had a never ending flow of troops, maybe, thats probably the most missing point. They hadnt even enough men to Control the conquered parts of Europe. And the european axies powers wasn't helpful either as all of them struggled in their military  adventures. The OKW told Hitler before invanding poland its at least 10 years too early to start the war (not enough troops and Equipment) but  the Nazi Leadership knew they hadnt any time left as germany was economically down and totally broke in 1939 due to speeded up Army rebuild and other silly decisions they made. Germany lost the war before even one soldier took a step into poland. Even if the US wouldnt be a Part in the european Theater Germany would have lost, it may took 15 years longer, but still.

 

The whole Economy was based on conquering and squeezing out, you can't conquer If you don't have the troops not even mentioning the troops needed to secure.

 

I incorrectly quoted this response to the post I meant to respond to. I concur with your statement and hav reposted mine below.



NSW Mntd Rifles #64 Posted 18 October 2018 - 10:16 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 42406 battles
  • 602
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View Postpr0fit0fcanabis, on 05 October 2018 - 02:13 PM, said:

You have point by point covered exactly what I would have done.  By taking the Middle East Germany would have cut the British Empire off.from it's Eastern Colonies by taking the Suez Canal.  In conjunction Hitler could have devoted more resources to U boats and air assets with the goal of strangling England and forcing a peace.  Then without a staging base for the US he could have done the two prong assault on Russia.  

 

As I pointed out in an earlier post the British Empire, with a population of more than 500 million, had the closest thing to a never ending supply of troops. The Dominions east of Suez (Australia, India and New Zealand), as well as South Africa, were committed to keeping the Suez out of Axis hands. With relatively secure supply lines through the Indian Ocean and Persia, they would have continued to send troops and materiel to the North African front. One example of this is that the British forces in North Africa and the Middle East were mostly equipped with trucks manufactured in Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and South Africa. Nazi Germany could not touch these sources of materiel and did not have the capacity to control the sea lanes supplying them to Egypt and elsewhere.

 

The reality is that the Axis war effort in North Africa, no matter how hard the Afrika Korps tried, was continually overwhelmed by the superior resources of the Empire. By dragging Britain into the conflict Germany had launched itself into a global war when it only had the capability of undertaking a European war. 


Edited by NSW Mntd Rifles, 22 October 2018 - 10:44 AM.


bunnydaddie #65 Posted 29 November 2018 - 03:34 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 9279 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    03-06-2016

My opinion is if Hitler did not interfere with how Barbarossa was to be conducted that could have been how Germany won WWII. It was madness/genius to attack Russia when Germany did. Russian tactics and troops were far inferior to the Germans at the time. The Germans came very close to having Russia capitulate if they would have taken Moscow in 41 or continue on to the oil fields in 42 instead of going after Stalingrad. Stalingrad was a huge mistake for the Germans and it was all Hitler for he wanted to take a city that had his rivals name on it. If you cut off the oils fields in the south, Germany would of had plenty of oil (would have taken about a year to 18 months to re-tool the railways and oil fields) but more importantly you are denying those reserves to the Russians.

 

Russia was just as limited for oil as the Germans were in 41 and early 42. They could only really support one offensive at a time. With the German tactics they were able to keep switching the initiative between Army Group Center and Army Group South. This had huge material and manpower losses for the Russians. When Hitler decided to go after Stalingrad, the Russians in my opinion loved it. Germany was forced to shift resources from the north/central to continue the slug fest in Stalingrad and it gave the Russians time to move and stand up factories and rebuild their decimated armies and take a breather sort of speak.

 

If they had continued on to the oil fields in the Caucasus and with Russia out of the way and established oil reserves England would have sued for peace eventually. War was not popular in England at the time either, they were slugging it out all by themselves in 41 and were loosing in Africa by a series of set backs.  It was Germany who were the fools who declared war on the U.S.. After Pearl Harbor the U.S. congress was still only willing to go after Japan. By Germany declaring war on the U.S. it help keep Britain in the fight for up to that point it had only been Roosevelt who had been trying to keep Britain in the fight until he could turn public opinion around in the U.S against Germany. U.S. was still very isolationist up to December 6th, 1941. 

 

We can only be grateful that this madman was involved and made these mistake by interfering with army matters/strategy/planning. True without Hitler Germany never would have taken the bold steps they did up till June 41 but with him they could never get past the "Little Corporal" syndrome.

 

Just my two coppers worth.

 

 



Capn Ratchet45 #66 Posted 29 November 2018 - 04:05 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24592 battles
  • 1,187
  • Member since:
    09-05-2015

View PostPATRIOTICxTBro, on 10 July 2018 - 11:38 PM, said:

there’s no singular event that lead to nazi defeat. It was a series of repeated mistakes and missteps that led to the down fall of Germany. Hitler was a horrific leader (thankfully) and an even worse “general”. He as well as his inner circle pretty much ensured a German loss in WW2. 

a true tomato



zXNsK-Dazzle-tm #67 Posted 03 December 2018 - 08:38 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 48946 battles
  • 52
  • Member since:
    12-26-2016
okay if gremany did not invade russia till the spring of 43 and rommel was at normady and the u boats where working like they should have been and if the bismark got out to sea things might have been different plus remember there is a greman u boat still sitting at the bottom of the north sea full of mercury over 400 tons waiting to go off .

NSW Mntd Rifles #68 Posted 04 December 2018 - 04:03 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 42406 battles
  • 602
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View Postbunnydaddie, on 29 November 2018 - 01:34 PM, said:

My opinion is if Hitler did not interfere with how Barbarossa was to be conducted that could have been how Germany won WWII. It was madness/genius to attack Russia when Germany did. Russian tactics and troops were far inferior to the Germans at the time. The Germans came very close to having Russia capitulate if they would have taken Moscow in 41 or continue on to the oil fields in 42 instead of going after Stalingrad. Stalingrad was a huge mistake for the Germans and it was all Hitler for he wanted to take a city that had his rivals name on it. If you cut off the oils fields in the south, Germany would of had plenty of oil (would have taken about a year to 18 months to re-tool the railways and oil fields) but more importantly you are denying those reserves to the Russians.

 

Russia was just as limited for oil as the Germans were in 41 and early 42. They could only really support one offensive at a time. With the German tactics they were able to keep switching the initiative between Army Group Center and Army Group South. This had huge material and manpower losses for the Russians. When Hitler decided to go after Stalingrad, the Russians in my opinion loved it. Germany was forced to shift resources from the north/central to continue the slug fest in Stalingrad and it gave the Russians time to move and stand up factories and rebuild their decimated armies and take a breather sort of speak.

 

If they had continued on to the oil fields in the Caucasus and with Russia out of the way and established oil reserves England would have sued for peace eventually. War was not popular in England at the time either, they were slugging it out all by themselves in 41 and were loosing in Africa by a series of set backs.  It was Germany who were the fools who declared war on the U.S.. After Pearl Harbor the U.S. congress was still only willing to go after Japan. By Germany declaring war on the U.S. it help keep Britain in the fight for up to that point it had only been Roosevelt who had been trying to keep Britain in the fight until he could turn public opinion around in the U.S against Germany. U.S. was still very isolationist up to December 6th, 1941. 

 

We can only be grateful that this madman was involved and made these mistake by interfering with army matters/strategy/planning. True without Hitler Germany never would have taken the bold steps they did up till June 41 but with him they could never get past the "Little Corporal" syndrome.

 

Just my two coppers worth.

 

 

 

Your analysis of the Russian campaign falls into the same trap that has led to the destruction of every invader of Russia since the 17th Century. An obsession with geographic objectives is the hallmark of every poor military commander in history. Clausewitz wrote in his analysis of Napoleon's 1812 invasion that one must destroy the enemy's capacity to wage war instead of capturing objectives. This was the mistake the US made in Iraq. It was the mistake Napoleon made and it was the mistake the German High Command made in 1941-1942.

 

As I have mentioned in other posts, Germany did not have the capacity to destroy Britain's ability to wage war. Also it did not have the capacity to reach Soviet steelmaking and production areas, and it did not have the capacity to touch the bulk of the Soviet territories. Germany could not destroy either the British Empire's or the USSR's capacity to wage war.

 

It is also sheer fantasy to pretend that the British Empire was losing in Africa. As in the Soviet territories the British Imperial forces had only to stop Axis advances, deny supply, then strike back when the enemy was weak. Naval superiority and safe supply lines guaranteed continual supply of men and materiel to the Empire forces in North Africa. Australia alone had only three divisions of troops in North Africa and another five at home training to be deployed to North Africa if needed. Even in December 1941 Britain was able to release two Australian Divisions from North Africa to fight the Japanese. It was one of these divisions that stopped the Japanese in New Guinea and recaptured their major northern beachheads in 1942. South Africa could have sent more troops to defend Egypt, as could India. The truth is that they were never needed. The Axis was never strong enough to capture Egypt or the Suez. And the Axis was never strong enough to defeat the USSR. 

 

Japan had its own Soviet hell in China. The massive commitment of the Imperial Japanese Army to the Chinese front forced them to oppose an invasion of Australia, the lynch pin of any victory in the South-West Pacific. I've said previously on this thread that, when Germany forced the British Empire into war in 1939 it had no capacity to fight a global strategic war. A capacity that the British Empire possessed from beginning to end. That imbalance never changed throughout the conflict, regardless of short-term tactical losses by the Empire and its allies.



NSW Mntd Rifles #69 Posted 04 December 2018 - 04:27 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 42406 battles
  • 602
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

Some time ago I posted a thread about the propaganda created in the British Empire after the fall of France in 1940. There was a very strong belief in the Dominions and Great Britain that Germany should be reminded of the Empire troops that had caused the German and Turkish armed forces so much misery in World War I.

 

Here is the thread: http://forum-console...__fromsearch__1



KilledByPing #70 Posted 04 December 2018 - 08:11 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 17983 battles
  • 2,773
  • [ENVY]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2017

View Postx Der Meister x, on 11 July 2018 - 02:00 AM, said:

I'm a history major, and German, so naturally WWII has always intrigued me. And talking about alternate outcomes is also interesting because if you change one or two things, the larger picture is greatly altered. That's really fascinating IMO. 

 

So lets get to it. Reasonably, how could it have been possible...if at all? 

 

My favorite theory was always Hitler ignoring the USSR and USA in 1941, and heavily reinforcing Rommel.

 

With that, he could push through Egypt, into the Middle East, and thereby securing that huge source of oil. By doing that and having Turkey surrounded, it may have convinced them to join the Axis. 

 

With Suez locked up, if he then focused Germanys efforts on Malta, taking that woulda turned the Mediterranean into an Axis Lake. Maybe Franco woulda brought Spain into the war at that point? 

 

Either way, Germany and Italy would be in a MUCH better spot in this version of 1942-1943 than they were historically. 

 

Idk where to go from there however. Britain is still alive and well at that time. The USSR is still there as well. And Hitler being Hitler, he would at some point be compelled to attack them. Or would Stalin strike first?

 

Maybe by having the Middle East secured, he could launch a two pronged offensive into the USSR? One from the Middle East, one from Europe? How would that fair in comparison to the actual Operation Barbarossa?

 

If Hitler look the Middle East, would Britain launch an offensive out of India in response? With the Middle East under Axis control, how would the Allies supply the USSR with the Iran route closed?

 

So many possibilities :).

 

Please feel free to correct me or add on to what I have started. 

 

Germany didnt use premium ammo.

Edited by KilledByPing, 04 December 2018 - 08:12 AM.


Kebabsaurus Rex #71 Posted 04 December 2018 - 02:05 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21509 battles
  • 2,076
  • [ASYLM]
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

Germany should not have invaded Russia - they had a non-aggression agreement between the 2 countries but Hitler wanted to invade. Left with a war on 2 sides and mired in the horrific Eastern front.

 

Hitler's general's were very good while Hitler was an awful commander. At the beginning of the war he left matters to his generals, hence the reasons for the wins. Later on he became personally involved leading to awful decisions.

 

By contrast, Stalin had purged his army and so Russian forces were badly led at the beginning. Towards the latter part of the war Stalin trusted his generals leading to victories by Zhukov et al.



Huncho_Mystic #72 Posted 05 December 2018 - 10:22 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11428 battles
  • 1,186
  • [ELDER]
  • Member since:
    01-24-2016

Let's take into consideration the fact that at some point, Hitler was going to attack Russia.  It was part of the whole basis for what he was trying to do (create living space and a future for Germany in his eyes)  So I'll focus a theory on how Germany could have won with some changes to the Russian war.

 

A few changes to the battle plan might have worked:

 

-Skip the battle of Britain and gearing up for Sealion- all those planes and pilots lost could have made the difference

-Throttle war production UP not DOWN after France-more tanks, more planes, more training, more ammo, etc

-Better intelligence efforts.  Germany needed to know how far outgunned and out manned they were

-Prepare for the worst case.  Winter clothing, provisions, equipment and refitting for tanks and plans for the oncoming of the cold

-Better planning with Japan.  Coordinate with your ally- inform them of invasion plans, ask for them to coordinate a strategy with Germany.  How much different would the war have been if the Army got it's way and fought Russia, as opposed to the Navy's Southern plan??  No Siberian transfer in December seems a likely minimum outcome.  How does Stalin hold on with Vladivostok taken in the east, Moscow under siege, and no Pearl Harbor in 1941?

-Finally a clearer application of obtaining the strategic objective.  Was it Moscow?  Ukraine? Eliminating as much Russian manpower as possible?  The shifts in plans created some fatal delays



Panzer lV #73 Posted 20 December 2018 - 12:38 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 22996 battles
  • 1,252
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostTripleFFFG, on 10 July 2018 - 09:54 PM, said:

If Hitler would have waited to declare war on Russia and kept the alliance with Russia, outcome might have been different.

Russia only declared war on Japan August 8, 1945, with VJ day being August 15, 1945

Russia shares the spoils of the victory over Japan. 

 

The sad part is Japan sent Envoys to Russia earlier in 1945, to ask the Soviet's to help broker peace, Molintov after discussing it with Stalin refused, and sent them home. Which is ironic as one of the main reasons the Soviet's were able to launch their Moscow counter attack was they were assured the Japanese were not going to join the war against the USSR. Which allowed the transfer of forces and material, from the Trans Bakul areas, which made the conter offensive possible.

 

Regards, John Waters. 


-Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

-People who can smile when things go wrong, have found someone else to blame.

Panzer lV #74 Posted 20 December 2018 - 01:11 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 22996 battles
  • 1,252
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

Personaly i don't think Germany could have won regardless, Germany was never good at fighting stratigicaly, and they never understood global war. For all the talk of Blitzkreig, it was only ever used as intended vs Poland. Only 15% of the Wermacht was motorised. Industrialy Germany produced more material etc, in WW1, then WW2. Despite controling all of westren Europes industrial capacity, ie, USSR, with much less industry produced 50,000 T-34 alone vs Germany's total of all AFV production at just over 25,000, Britain outproduced Germany as well.

 

Then you have the manpower problems, Germany could not sustain a long war, yet the Soviets at Moscow despite all the losses up to Moscow, still had access to 4 million men that were being called up in training etc. The Luftwaffe actualy cut production of aircraft after France, this was never made up after BOB, add to that no strategic bomber program ie, 4 engine bombers, with greater ranges, and payloads, met they could never attack Soviet producton centers in the Urals, or have an impact on BOB. They later tried with the He - 177, but it was an failure

 

The only reason Hitler sought the NA pact with the USSR, was Poland he did not want to risk a second front opening vs the USSR. Sad part is the USSR actualy contacted Britian earlier to negotiate an non agression pact and were turned down, had that been sighned Poland may not have occured.

 

Anyway always a fun subject to discuss.

 

Regards, John Waters.


-Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

-People who can smile when things go wrong, have found someone else to blame.

AA_Mike-Sandwich #75 Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:38 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 7946 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    05-25-2018

Germany had some of the most elite tank crews of them all.  The panther tank was also meant to be a fast and agile but before they began construction Hitler ordered it to be loaded up with more armor and a bigger cannon all on a tank that was meant for smaller modules and plate. This caused more break downs and took way too long to accelerate.  So sure, it did block plenty of shells it was not brilliant.  If you ever watch a documentary on the M4 Sherman tank commanders talking about how the tank was "the right tank for the wrong war", they are right in a way but the M4 was really not a bad tank at all.  It's rounded/sloped plate was brilliant and it was tremendously reliable.  It used a type of engine that I believe was commonly used in airplanes, correct me if I am wrong please mates.  This engine did catch flame a lot.  The Y-34 design was originally turned down due to the fact that russia want more smaller tanks however when the designer actually drove the tank well over a hundred miles to the test site, passed all testing, and then drove it to another country and back.  The design was passed and construction began.  Sadly, the designer died due to an ammonia, the tank did not have a built in heating system.  The T-34 was what I believe to be the greatest tank of ww2 not only because of how many Russia made, but how they introduced them.  Germany was attacking with their assortment of tanks which was mainly the III j, the 38t(which was check but they captured it and renamed it) and they also used the pz IV.  The T-34 dominated them all swiftly in one battle I believe. Germany made 500 king tigers as well, which broke down often but were unstoppable.  Many US ww2 M4 tanker say that the M4 was bad because it took 5 of their tank to destroy one of germany's tanks.  That's because they commonly scouted in groups of five.  The M4's cannon could only penetrate the back of a king tiger however the popularly known M4A3E8, mounted a much bigger cannon which could blast through the side and out maneuver the King Tiger, Panther and Tiger. Germany's tanker were trained to destroy these E8's first because of this.  Brittian's version of the E8 was the Sherman Firefly.  A firefly tanker destroyed Germany's greatest ace tanker by hitting its ammo racks.  This German Ace tanker once destroyed 15(maybe 30 I don;t remember)  M4 Shermans all by himself.  

 

Happy tanking everyone!  I wrote this purely from memory of books I read and documentaries I watched. PLEASE correct me if I am wrong on anything(Other than my opinions)

Thankee,  Next person to kill me, message me on ps4 please.  I am a light tanker.



AA_Mike-Sandwich #76 Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:42 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 7946 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    05-25-2018
And Poland got the sad end of ww2 losing more than 20% of its population. Fun fact though, America was going to bomb Japan using the B-bomb.  It was a canister that held hundreds of Mexican free tailed bats.  A Mexican free tailed bat can carry up to 3 times it's weight.  Each bat had an incendiary bomb strapped to it and once dropped in Japan they would roost o houses etc.  They planned on dropping millions of these bats on Japan through the B-bomb however the Atomic bomb was finished first. 

AA_Mike-Sandwich #77 Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:43 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 7946 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    05-25-2018
And yes, my comments are not related to the poll.  Apologies mates. :(

cosmicray1 #78 Posted 06 February 2019 - 01:37 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13533 battles
  • 254
  • [SMINC]
  • Member since:
    03-07-2016

It's thought that Germany was trying to avoid Napoleon's mistakes in the Russian invasion and focus on the Russian army more than  Moscow, they almost got to Moscow. As mentioned above a detour in Greece , led by Churchill's insistence to fight everywhere, cause a crucial few weeks delay in Barbarosa. However given the hierarchical structure of the Soviet Union taking Stalin's Moscow may have been more significant that the Tzar's Moscow. If Japan had been more helpful in pinning down the Eastern divisions Moscow also could have fallen, Their last minute arrival saved Moscow.

As many said Leningrad wasn't effective, those resources devoted to Moscow or the South would have been much more effective. The oil fields of Iraq and Iran were very vulnerable and closing the Suez would have made the Mediterranean Sea a German lake. If Germany had accomplished either taking Moscow or the oil fields of the Caucasus they would have been in a better situation, they succeeded in neither 

Another factor in Germany''s loss was the stubbornness of Churchill, it was reasonable to expect Britain would make a deal, Germany had spared the BEF and they both had lots of WASPs. It was either Churchill or Lord Halifax and Halifax was pushing for a deal. It's hard to believe that one person can make a difference, but Churchill was such a man

A final point is that early in Hilter's rule the military was planning to remove him when his excursions into Lorraine then Sudetenland failed, as they correctly understood they weren't able to meet unified opposition. But when there was no combined opposition Hitler's power grew. When Chamberlain gave away Czechoslovakia, they has about 2/3 as many divisions as Germany and mountains to defend them, with France and Poland, Germany had no chance. Chamberlain with his 3 divisions on the continent ruined everything with his concessions



AA_Mike-Sandwich #79 Posted 18 March 2019 - 06:42 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 7946 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    05-25-2018
Germany did absolutely have the capability to win however Hitler was their problem.  

WidowMaker1711 #80 Posted 18 March 2019 - 08:17 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 12024 battles
  • 10,033
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostMike-Sandwich456, on 18 March 2019 - 06:42 PM, said:

Germany did absolutely have the capability to win however Hitler was their problem.  

 

Germany had the capability of winning a very short war. Geographically its a hard place to defend. It depends on importing critical materials. Anything that forces Germany into a blockade very quickly starts to drain the system.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users