Jump to content


How could Germany have won WWII?


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

SmalltalkJava #81 Posted 11 April 2019 - 11:59 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 17640 battles
  • 427
  • Member since:
    11-20-2013
By not invading Russia.    

NSW Mntd Rifles #82 Posted 04 May 2019 - 02:34 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39312 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
This 

Edited by NSW Mntd Rifles, 04 May 2019 - 02:35 AM.


Cannon x Fodder #83 Posted 20 July 2019 - 07:50 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13486 battles
  • 980
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014
Assassinate FDR and frame Mexico for the assassination.  Without the phony war in the Atlantic during 1940 and 1941, Britain will be forced to surrender.  The US naval presence in the Atlantic allowed the British to keep the bulk of their fleet in the Med protecting their fuel supply from Iran.  Having to protect their food and material supply from Canada and the US, would have required more naval forces to be allocated from the Mediterranean fleet.  Less forces in the Med and Italy's navy could have stopped Britain's fuel supply, essentially ending their ability to wage war.

Getting rid of FDR, especially by blaming Mexico, would have ended the phony war.

LittleMike333133 #84 Posted 19 August 2019 - 10:36 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 25449 battles
  • 9
  • [NASTY]
  • Member since:
    01-12-2016
Germany should have waited until it developed nuclear weapons and then attacked USSR with there first strike all of the other countries would of surrendered knowing that Germany was the only country with nuclear weapons 

Shadow Akula 96 #85 Posted 19 August 2019 - 11:51 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13248 battles
  • 1,135
  • Member since:
    01-07-2017
I have several reasons why I think they failed, I’d like to draw attention to the second and third points specifically, these points would have really helped them.

By not attacking the soviets, at least not until Britain was out, sure Stalin was waiting for that moment because he knew Germany would invade eventually, but if Germany only moved forces into defensive positions along the soviet border, waited for Japan and other allies to build up forces on soviet border territory, oh and made sure they were prepared for the winter, launch co-ordinated attacks on all sides, USSR have no allies left cause the U.K. is out, USSR lose.

And ignoring goering and launching a full scale invasion of Britain with Luftwaffe support - we had spitfires and hurricanes sure but no where near enough to fend off both naval and air forces in the case of an invasion. We were struggling to fend off the Luftwaffe on its own, if German high command were able to have seen that, they’d have scrapped goering’s idea and launched a full scale invasion. Instead Hitler let goering have his way and so the Germans only got as close as the Channel Islands.

Also by reigning in Japan and Italy - Italy didn’t need to go to Africa that early, they didn’t need to mess things up there. Japan didn’t need to push that far into Asia (which is why the US cut their oil shipments), they didn’t need to bomb pearl harbour. Italy could have helped with the U.K. invasion, Japan could have stockpiled more oil while waiting, maybe allied with one of the Chinese sides (China was still in civil war when japan invaded in 1937), the KMT was backed by Germany at the time too.

perhaps recruiting Spain into the axis instead of letting them be neutral after their civil war, Germany could have used their Luftwaffe support in the civil war as leverage. Sure the Axis was more than just Germany, Italy and Japan but hardly anyone hears about Romania, Finland, Hungary. If Spain joined that could have been the 4th “big guy gonna create an empire” of the Axis

So personally I think all of the above reasons are why they failed and how they could have won.

S.A.96

Pssst. I know who you are. Hail Sithis

YouTube channel: Shadow Akula 96

2nd YouTube channel coming soon: Shadow Drifters

My solo YT will cover various games maybe even some WoT

My other YT, a joint channel with a friend will mostly cover GTA stuff with a few other games here and there.


Cannon x Fodder #86 Posted 19 August 2019 - 11:41 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13486 battles
  • 980
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014

View PostShadow Akula 96, on 19 August 2019 - 11:51 AM, said:

I have several reasons why I think they failed, I’d like to draw attention to the second and third points specifically, these points would have really helped them.

By not attacking the soviets, at least not until Britain was out, sure Stalin was waiting for that moment because he knew Germany would invade eventually, but if Germany only moved forces into defensive positions along the soviet border, waited for Japan and other allies to build up forces on soviet border territory, oh and made sure they were prepared for the winter, launch co-ordinated attacks on all sides, USSR have no allies left cause the U.K. is out, USSR lose.

And ignoring goering and launching a full scale invasion of Britain with Luftwaffe support - we had spitfires and hurricanes sure but no where near enough to fend off both naval and air forces in the case of an invasion. We were struggling to fend off the Luftwaffe on its own, if German high command were able to have seen that, they’d have scrapped goering’s idea and launched a full scale invasion. Instead Hitler let goering have his way and so the Germans only got as close as the Channel Islands.

Also by reigning in Japan and Italy - Italy didn’t need to go to Africa that early, they didn’t need to mess things up there. Japan didn’t need to push that far into Asia (which is why the US cut their oil shipments), they didn’t need to bomb pearl harbour. Italy could have helped with the U.K. invasion, Japan could have stockpiled more oil while waiting, maybe allied with one of the Chinese sides (China was still in civil war when japan invaded in 1937), the KMT was backed by Germany at the time too.

perhaps recruiting Spain into the axis instead of letting them be neutral after their civil war, Germany could have used their Luftwaffe support in the civil war as leverage. Sure the Axis was more than just Germany, Italy and Japan but hardly anyone hears about Romania, Finland, Hungary. If Spain joined that could have been the 4th “big guy gonna create an empire” of the Axis

So personally I think all of the above reasons are why they failed and how they could have won.

S.A.96

Germany could not physically invade GB, it took the allies approximately 50 landings underfire to develop a strategy and equipment to accomplish Overlord and they still almost failed. Germany had none of the equipment or experience to attempt an amphibious assault, and they couldn't transport enough men or equipment by air.  GB is taken out of the war through negotiations with the US to keep them from assisting GB in the Atlantic militarily.  That would force GB to lesson their naval presence in the Med.  Without that presence, their fuel oil has to come the long way around the African continent exposing it to commerce raiding from Japan.  Less fuel reserves, less ability to wage war, GB is out of thr war by 1941 and Germany only has to contend with the USSR.



Shadow Akula 96 #87 Posted 20 August 2019 - 02:08 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13248 battles
  • 1,135
  • Member since:
    01-07-2017

View PostCannon x Fodder, on 19 August 2019 - 11:41 PM, said:

Germany could not physically invade GB, it took the allies approximately 50 landings underfire to develop a strategy and equipment to accomplish Overlord and they still almost failed. Germany had none of the equipment or experience to attempt an amphibious assault, and they couldn't transport enough men or equipment by air.  GB is taken out of the war through negotiations with the US to keep them from assisting GB in the Atlantic militarily.  That would force GB to lesson their naval presence in the Med.  Without that presence, their fuel oil has to come the long way around the African continent exposing it to commerce raiding from Japan.  Less fuel reserves, less ability to wage war, GB is out of thr war by 1941 and Germany only has to contend with the USSR.

Inexperienced and ill-equipped. I point you in the direction of their allies. They could have asked Japan for training and traded something for a few landing craft. The Germans had the tactic sorted. Narrow front with naval and air cover, with Italian air support too, if Italy didn’t go to Africa they could have probably offered naval support, Britain would likely have smaller presence in the Mediterranean, perhaps even reduced to nothing (thought of being outflanked and trapped, or not enough power to hold off the Italian navy) though it would also mean that Britain’s naval fleet at home would be stronger with more ships. But to counter that the German Luftwaffe would have to train hard at hitting ships (they were bad at that, even at Dunkirk not many naval ships sunk by air and those weren’t even moving).

 

Maybe if Germany was patient or focused more or building naval ships long enough for Tirpitz to be placed into service alongside her sister Bismarck and if Germany prioritised and finished the Graf Zeppelin (Germany’s Aircraft carrier) instead of building nothing but U-Boats that would certainly have helped them.

 

And again if Spain got involved, Spain could have offered supporting troops and supplies for an invasion.

 

As for operation overlord almost failing, the Germans had 4 years to build and strengthen the defences all along the coastline of Europe. If sea lion went ahead Britain would barely even have a year to prepare properly. Especially if all the points above were focused on and completed (Tirpitz was completed in feb 1941, Graf zeppelin was almost ready by 1938 but stopped due to the U-boat program, Japan was experienced in beach landings and had the equipment to carry out beach landings.)

 

So in the TLDR part; yes you’re correct if my points are taken individually, but view the points all at once. It was not just one mistake that leads to one losing a war, it’s multiple failures. In Germany’s case, not reigning in their allies before they poke around areas and make things harder for everyone, not asking their allies for help/trading gear, and not prioritising the right equipment at the right time (we see this last point a few times in the war, first the lack of landing craft for operation sea lion, then the lack of winter supplies on the eastern front) 


Pssst. I know who you are. Hail Sithis

YouTube channel: Shadow Akula 96

2nd YouTube channel coming soon: Shadow Drifters

My solo YT will cover various games maybe even some WoT

My other YT, a joint channel with a friend will mostly cover GTA stuff with a few other games here and there.


Cannon x Fodder #88 Posted 21 August 2019 - 07:51 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13486 battles
  • 980
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014

View PostShadow Akula 96, on 20 August 2019 - 02:08 PM, said:

Inexperienced and ill-equipped. I point you in the direction of their allies. They could have asked Japan for training and traded something for a few landing craft. The Germans had the tactic sorted. Narrow front with naval and air cover, with Italian air support too, if Italy didn’t go to Africa they could have probably offered naval support, Britain would likely have smaller presence in the Mediterranean, perhaps even reduced to nothing (thought of being outflanked and trapped, or not enough power to hold off the Italian navy) though it would also mean that Britain’s naval fleet at home would be stronger with more ships. But to counter that the German Luftwaffe would have to train hard at hitting ships (they were bad at that, even at Dunkirk not many naval ships sunk by air and those weren’t even moving).

 

Maybe if Germany was patient or focused more or building naval ships long enough for Tirpitz to be placed into service alongside her sister Bismarck and if Germany prioritised and finished the Graf Zeppelin (Germany’s Aircraft carrier) instead of building nothing but U-Boats that would certainly have helped them.

 

And again if Spain got involved, Spain could have offered supporting troops and supplies for an invasion.

 

As for operation overlord almost failing, the Germans had 4 years to build and strengthen the defences all along the coastline of Europe. If sea lion went ahead Britain would barely even have a year to prepare properly. Especially if all the points above were focused on and completed (Tirpitz was completed in feb 1941, Graf zeppelin was almost ready by 1938 but stopped due to the U-boat program, Japan was experienced in beach landings and had the equipment to carry out beach landings.)

 

So in the TLDR part; yes you’re correct if my points are taken individually, but view the points all at once. It was not just one mistake that leads to one losing a war, it’s multiple failures. In Germany’s case, not reigning in their allies before they poke around areas and make things harder for everyone, not asking their allies for help/trading gear, and not prioritising the right equipment at the right time (we see this last point a few times in the war, first the lack of landing craft for operation sea lion, then the lack of winter supplies on the eastern front) 

Japan had exactly on amphibious assault against militarily defended approach by the time SeaLion was supposed to have taken place and I'm not sure Wake gave them much experience.    

 

As far as Italian and Spanish assistance...Italy could not have gotten their fleet out of the Med to assist Germany.  Blockade of the Med is the easiest blocakde in the world and can be a achievable using a much smaller naval force than the navy attempting to exit or enter.  It's why the British kept so many ships based at Malta and Gibraltar.  They knew if they left the Med, italy would have complete control of it.

 

As I stated earlier, Germany's one chance at winning was to keep the US out of the of the conflict.  US naval assistance in 1940 and 1941 allowed GB to maintain a naval presence in the Med.  US occupation of Iceland and Bermuda freed up troops greatly needed by GB.  All of these activities occurred before the US officially entered the war.  In fact, those actions are why germany declared war on the US.  Read their declaration if you don't believe me.



Shadow Akula 96 #89 Posted 22 August 2019 - 12:45 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13248 battles
  • 1,135
  • Member since:
    01-07-2017

View PostCannon x Fodder, on 21 August 2019 - 07:51 PM, said:

Japan had exactly on amphibious assault against militarily defended approach by the time SeaLion was supposed to have taken place and I'm not sure Wake gave them much experience.    

 

As far as Italian and Spanish assistance...Italy could not have gotten their fleet out of the Med to assist Germany.  Blockade of the Med is the easiest blocakde in the world and can be a achievable using a much smaller naval force than the navy attempting to exit or enter.  It's why the British kept so many ships based at Malta and Gibraltar.  They knew if they left the Med, italy would have complete control of it.

 

As I stated earlier, Germany's one chance at winning was to keep the US out of the of the conflict.  US naval assistance in 1940 and 1941 allowed GB to maintain a naval presence in the Med.  US occupation of Iceland and Bermuda freed up troops greatly needed by GB.  All of these activities occurred before the US officially entered the war.  In fact, those actions are why germany declared war on the US.  Read their declaration if you don't believe me.

Because Japan ya know only ever invaded Wake atoll before sea lion’s proposed timeline.... not I dunno invade Korea and China, last I checked both had coastlines. Not to mention several islands in that coastal region also. Yes while most likely not under much fire, I point that a few marine beach landings in the Pacific were initially unopposed, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t trained for them. Everyone starts untrained.

Also must point out that while the tech wasn’t the same, Japan had experience taking islands from WW1 when they seized German-owned islands, again probably not a lot of resistance but still useful for training. 

 

And again with the italians, it is still support if they’re keeping parts of the British fleet occupied even with a blockade. Not to mention blockades have been broken before.  About the British fleet in the Mediterranean, uh the navy was prevented from sending a fleet to Dunkirk to withdraw troops to save ships for the U.K. defence, you really think the command chain would leave ships vulnerable in the Mediterranean when they could be withdrawn and used in the defence of the home islands?  Also notice you lack to mention anything significant about Spain in the reply, so why bother mentioning them in your reply? If Spain got involved how much use would that Mediterranean blockade be? Given that one side of the choke point would be hostile 

 

Also Germany declared war on the US because Japan had declared war on the US and launched the pearl harbour attack resulting in the US declaring war on all the axis powers. Germany wrote whatever they wished in the declaration, in 1939 they claimed some border attack to declare war on Poland. And again if sea lion was only postponed until early 41 whose to say that public pressure hasn’t forced FDR to quit the supply ships to the U.K.? Whose to say that the threat of both the Tirpitz (finished feb 1941) and Bismarck in the sea at the same time, on the same stretch wouldn’t force FDR to stop the naval ships? 

 

You think how you want, but the fact is nobody (not even you or myself for that matter)  will know what would have really happened in the points I made. Sure you can think your counter arguments and I can think mine but we won’t know.

 

as far as this continuing argument is going - I’m out I came here to give my theory not argue in circles. Once again nobody knows how things would have played out. Nobody. Because those events did not play out. 

 

S.A.96


Pssst. I know who you are. Hail Sithis

YouTube channel: Shadow Akula 96

2nd YouTube channel coming soon: Shadow Drifters

My solo YT will cover various games maybe even some WoT

My other YT, a joint channel with a friend will mostly cover GTA stuff with a few other games here and there.


WidowMaker1711 #90 Posted 22 August 2019 - 02:33 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostShadow Akula 96, on 22 August 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

Because Japan ya know only ever invaded Wake atoll before sea lion’s proposed timeline.... not I dunno invade Korea and China, last I checked both had coastlines. Not to mention several islands in that coastal region also. Yes while most likely not under much fire, I point that a few marine beach landings in the Pacific were initially unopposed, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t trained for them. Everyone starts untrained.

Also must point out that while the tech wasn’t the same, Japan had experience taking islands from WW1 when they seized German-owned islands, again probably not a lot of resistance but still useful for training. 

 

And again with the italians, it is still support if they’re keeping parts of the British fleet occupied even with a blockade. Not to mention blockades have been broken before.  About the British fleet in the Mediterranean, uh the navy was prevented from sending a fleet to Dunkirk to withdraw troops to save ships for the U.K. defence, you really think the command chain would leave ships vulnerable in the Mediterranean when they could be withdrawn and used in the defence of the home islands?  Also notice you lack to mention anything significant about Spain in the reply, so why bother mentioning them in your reply? If Spain got involved how much use would that Mediterranean blockade be? Given that one side of the choke point would be hostile 

 

Also Germany declared war on the US because Japan had declared war on the US and launched the pearl harbour attack resulting in the US declaring war on all the axis powers. Germany wrote whatever they wished in the declaration, in 1939 they claimed some border attack to declare war on Poland. And again if sea lion was only postponed until early 41 whose to say that public pressure hasn’t forced FDR to quit the supply ships to the U.K.? Whose to say that the threat of both the Tirpitz (finished feb 1941) and Bismarck in the sea at the same time, on the same stretch wouldn’t force FDR to stop the naval ships? 

 

You think how you want, but the fact is nobody (not even you or myself for that matter)  will know what would have really happened in the points I made. Sure you can think your counter arguments and I can think mine but we won’t know.

 

as far as this continuing argument is going - I’m out I came here to give my theory not argue in circles. Once again nobody knows how things would have played out. Nobody. Because those events did not play out. 

 

S.A.96

 

 

You a Wehraboo mate? You've given your theories and had people respond with reasoned responses based on what WAS actually going on in the world in the 1940s but because they didnt agree you've thrown your toys out of the pram. 

 

The Italians were an awful ally for the Germans. Poorly led Army, Navy and Air Force. Their armour divisions are well known for abandoning their vehicles in the face of the ANZACs operating the dreaded BREN .303 Anti Tank Machine Gun. 

 

With allies that are little to no help like the Italians or on the opposite side of the planet with few natural resources of their own the Germans were completely hamstrung from day one.

 

Also learn how the Royal Navy operated in WW2. The Home Fleet wouldnt rely on the Mediterranean Fleet for anything and vice versa. Dunkirk was actually well served with RN ships. They just couldnt get in to the beaches or the mole. Also the Home Fleet was obviously scary enough that it kept the Kriegsmarine bottled up in harbours and fjords for almost the entirety of WW2. Look what happened when Graf Spee came up against 3 aging cruisers in the South Atlantic? Or when Bismarck came up against air power flying obsolete biplanes. Tirpitz never left the safety of the Fjords and still got sunk by air power.

 

Germanys problem was Hitler and his cronies. There was so much in fighting between the services and within in the case of the Heer and SS that they could never quite get it right. After the initial success of blitzkrieg whilst more intelligent voices were calling for restraint Goering boastfully claimed he could destroy the British in Dunkirk by air power alone. He didnt. He then claimed he could wipe the RAF from the skies in the Battle of Britain. Again He didnt. His final boast was that he could supply the surrounded Germans at Stalingrad purely by air. Guess what? He didnt. 

 

Germany MAY have stood a chance if they had stockpiled resources until 1945 and then gone to war WITHOUT Hitler and his cronies. They could have had MANY more soldiers if they hadnt  gone through with the Final Answer. But thats all hindsight. What is true is that in 1939/1940 Hitler needed to have Western Europe including the UK bottled up and compliant before early 1941. He failed and so the 1000 year Reich failed.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Shadow Akula 96 #91 Posted 22 August 2019 - 05:16 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13248 battles
  • 1,135
  • Member since:
    01-07-2017

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 22 August 2019 - 02:33 AM, said:

 

 

You a Wehraboo mate? You've given your theories and had people respond with reasoned responses based on what WAS actually going on in the world in the 1940s but because they didnt agree you've thrown your toys out of the pram. 

 

The Italians were an awful ally for the Germans. Poorly led Army, Navy and Air Force. Their armour divisions are well known for abandoning their vehicles in the face of the ANZACs operating the dreaded BREN .303 Anti Tank Machine Gun. 

 

With allies that are little to no help like the Italians or on the opposite side of the planet with few natural resources of their own the Germans were completely hamstrung from day one.

 

Also learn how the Royal Navy operated in WW2. The Home Fleet wouldnt rely on the Mediterranean Fleet for anything and vice versa. Dunkirk was actually well served with RN ships. They just couldnt get in to the beaches or the mole. Also the Home Fleet was obviously scary enough that it kept the Kriegsmarine bottled up in harbours and fjords for almost the entirety of WW2. Look what happened when Graf Spee came up against 3 aging cruisers in the South Atlantic? Or when Bismarck came up against air power flying obsolete biplanes. Tirpitz never left the safety of the Fjords and still got sunk by air power.

 

Germanys problem was Hitler and his cronies. There was so much in fighting between the services and within in the case of the Heer and SS that they could never quite get it right. After the initial success of blitzkrieg whilst more intelligent voices were calling for restraint Goering boastfully claimed he could destroy the British in Dunkirk by air power alone. He didnt. He then claimed he could wipe the RAF from the skies in the Battle of Britain. Again He didnt. His final boast was that he could supply the surrounded Germans at Stalingrad purely by air. Guess what? He didnt. 

 

Germany MAY have stood a chance if they had stockpiled resources until 1945 and then gone to war WITHOUT Hitler and his cronies. They could have had MANY more soldiers if they hadnt  gone through with the Final Answer. But thats all hindsight. What is true is that in 1939/1940 Hitler needed to have Western Europe including the UK bottled up and compliant before early 1941. He failed and so the 1000 year Reich failed.

You’re a special kind of speshal ain’t ya. It is you lot having a fit claiming “REEEE THAT CANT HAVE HAPPENED REEEEE” how do you know? Again I point to the fact NOBODY knows what COULD have or could not have happened. Those events never played out.

 

oh and respond if you like this is my last visit to this thread. 


Pssst. I know who you are. Hail Sithis

YouTube channel: Shadow Akula 96

2nd YouTube channel coming soon: Shadow Drifters

My solo YT will cover various games maybe even some WoT

My other YT, a joint channel with a friend will mostly cover GTA stuff with a few other games here and there.


WidowMaker1711 #92 Posted 22 August 2019 - 07:39 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostShadow Akula 96, on 22 August 2019 - 05:16 PM, said:

You’re a special kind of speshal ain’t ya. It is you lot having a fit claiming “REEEE THAT CANT HAVE HAPPENED REEEEE” how do you know? Again I point to the fact NOBODY knows what COULD have or could not have happened. Those events never played out.

 

oh and respond if you like this is my last visit to this thread. 

 

Well the invasion of the UK WOULD have failed. That is well known as they war gamed it post war with German Generals and the British Chiefs of Staff. The Home Fleet would have defeated the Kriegsmarine in the English Channel. The RN and RAF WERE deemed strong enough by both sides to defeat any and all Luftwaffe attacks on the Home Fleet.

 

Production of Fighters for the RAF ramped up in 1939 under Minister of Production Lord Beaverbrook. He also centralised maintanence for the RAF. 

 

The Germans failed to ramp up aviation production until AFTER Barbarossa and all maintanence was on a unit by unit basis. 

 

The RAF and USAAF also centralised Photo Reconnaisance to a central location unlike the Luftwaffe. 

 

The British had turned ALL the German Agents before 1941. 

 

So everything AFTER the shutdown of Sea Lion would have followed as it did.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Cannon x Fodder #93 Posted 22 August 2019 - 07:41 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13486 battles
  • 980
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014

View PostShadow Akula 96, on 22 August 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

Because Japan ya know only ever invaded Wake atoll before sea lion’s proposed timeline.... not I dunno invade Korea and China, last I checked both had coastlines. Not to mention several islands in that coastal region also. Yes while most likely not under much fire, I point that a few marine beach landings in the Pacific were initially unopposed, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t trained for them. Everyone starts untrained.

Also must point out that while the tech wasn’t the same, Japan had experience taking islands from WW1 when they seized German-owned islands, again probably not a lot of resistance but still useful for training. 

 

And again with the italians, it is still support if they’re keeping parts of the British fleet occupied even with a blockade. Not to mention blockades have been broken before.  About the British fleet in the Mediterranean, uh the navy was prevented from sending a fleet to Dunkirk to withdraw troops to save ships for the U.K. defence, you really think the command chain would leave ships vulnerable in the Mediterranean when they could be withdrawn and used in the defence of the home islands?  Also notice you lack to mention anything significant about Spain in the reply, so why bother mentioning them in your reply? If Spain got involved how much use would that Mediterranean blockade be? Given that one side of the choke point would be hostile 

 

Also Germany declared war on the US because Japan had declared war on the US and launched the pearl harbour attack resulting in the US declaring war on all the axis powers. Germany wrote whatever they wished in the declaration, in 1939 they claimed some border attack to declare war on Poland. And again if sea lion was only postponed until early 41 whose to say that public pressure hasn’t forced FDR to quit the supply ships to the U.K.? Whose to say that the threat of both the Tirpitz (finished feb 1941) and Bismarck in the sea at the same time, on the same stretch wouldn’t force FDR to stop the naval ships? 

 

You think how you want, but the fact is nobody (not even you or myself for that matter)  will know what would have really happened in the points I made. Sure you can think your counter arguments and I can think mine but we won’t know.

 

as far as this continuing argument is going - I’m out I came here to give my theory not argue in circles. Once again nobody knows how things would have played out. Nobody. Because those events did not play out. 

 

S.A.96

For someone assuming to know a lot about this time frame, you evidently haven't done your research.  Please kindly point where Japan, Pearl Harbor, and US declaration of war on Japan are mentioned in Germany's declaration of war against the US.

 

Quote

MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES:

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United Statespublicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearneyand the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President RooseveltGermany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941.

 

 

To address your other comments, which again show your lack of knowledge on this topic.  The Italian navy had 8 capital ships, 30 cruisers and around 50 smaller vessels including destroyers at the outbreak of the war.  The British navy had twice as amny capital ships and cruisers along with a carrier in the Med.  They ket this fleet in the med to protect their primary fuel supply route.  They had a smaller fleet around the home isles and several ships in the pacific.  This force steucture was by design.  The British navy needed to protect both their fuel routes from their refinery in abadan and the oil fields in Iran.  This route ran through the suez canal. It's why italy wanted it and the british kept the majority of their fleet in the Med.

The British also needed to protect their food and other supplies an island nation cannot produce on their own.  Even having the largest navy at that time, they didn't have enough ships to do both.  That's where the US navy and its actions...https://www.usni.org...Iceland...comes in.

On the other hand you have Germany.  Germany had no real surface navy to speak of.  They had three battleships, one of which was eventually turned into a carrier.  About a dozen crusisers, and a lot of destroyers and torpedo boats.  They didn't have the transport  capacity to move men and material amphibiously at the beginning of the war.  Could they have won the war though?  Yes, but not by invading GB.  Their only chance at winning would have been forcing a GB surrender which they could have done.  A land invasion into Greece to take the suez canal.  A treaty with the US to end US hostilities in the Atlantic prior to the US officially joining the war.  And ending the blitz.  Prior to Hitler ordering the bombing of cities, the luftwaffe was dping an excellent job of rendering the RAF impotent.  By ending their targeting of RAF bases, they have the British some breathing  room.

Before you get all snarky about this and try to question my knowledge, I wrote paper on this very topic in college.  While I don't remember every minor detail (total number of troops here, number of ships there, how much fuel reserves were in Britain, etc...) I remeber enough to shut down every argument you've made so far.



janbonator #94 Posted 23 August 2019 - 06:49 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15402 battles
  • 111
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View PostXenith_Inc, on 13 July 2018 - 12:04 PM, said:

Not invade other countries, build up Germany's economy to the point where it was the strongest in Europe, create an alliance of European countries to jointly negotiate favourable trade deals with countries outside, with Germany as the strongest economy at the head, create a mono-currency that all member nations need to join, which ultimately benefits you as you have a stronger work ethic and economy than your partners, who you internally out trade and out compete, they go bankrupt, forgive their debt for large portions of their territory.

 

..and that's what they did. They call it the EU. The Fourth Reich.

 

Operation Sealion was never going to work. Surface fleet was too small, air superiority not complete, intelligence was not good and the time of the year was not correct. I guess they could've postponed it until 1942, but I don't think it would've changed much. It took the Allies years to invent and build up equipment for an amphibious invasion of such scale, and by the time they did they had total air and sea superiority. Meanwhile, the Red Army was deployed in a posture that looked more like an army ready for an offensive rather than defense in depth, which lead to massive encirclements when Barbarossa commenced. It would've taken a lot of guts just to leave them there and hope they don't get any ideas while Germany would be trying to invade Britain.

 

As for North Africa and the Middle-East, I'm not sure sending any more boots at the problem would've helped the Germans and Italians. The problem wasn't the troops or their quality, it was supply. The axis forces couldn't improve their supply situation without taking control of Malta and the Mediterranean at large, which they were not equipped to do. In hindsight, the whole North African expedition might have only hindered their war effort and could've tipped the scales in the battle for Moscow, for example - although overall I don't think it would've changed the outcome even if the Wehrmacht had captured Moscow. They'd just managed what Napoleon achieved earlier, i.e. nothing but bloodshed.



mmurdock82abn #95 Posted 23 August 2019 - 08:50 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8391 battles
  • 149
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View Postx Der Meister x, on 10 July 2018 - 03:00 PM, 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. 

 

If Hitler realised a corporal doesn't know how to run a war and actually listened to his generals, they would have won. 

 

Also if he didn't fiddle with the design of the ME262 and insist it be a fighter bomber, win. 

 

The biggest thing he could have done though, is to have declared war against Japan immediately after the pearl harbor attack. That would have kept the USA out of the war in Europe which means win for Germany. 



mmurdock82abn #96 Posted 23 August 2019 - 09:00 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8391 battles
  • 149
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
Also, if he actually defended the heavy water facility, he would have had a nuke first which equals win.

Most of all though, if the arrogant allied forces of WW1 didn't decide to punish Germany for simply coming to the aid of their ally, the austro-hungarian empire due to Russia declaring war upon them, WW2 would never have happened to begin with.

Likewise, if the rest of the allies treated Japan with the tiniest amount of respect and actually shared the spoils of war with them after WW1, they would have never joined the axis in WW2

mmurdock82abn #97 Posted 23 August 2019 - 09:09 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8391 battles
  • 149
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
Perhaps most of all though, instead of rounding up and sending millions upon millions of "undesirables" and sending them to death camps. Instead, welcoming and befriending them into military service with the Reich, things would have been very different. Millions upon millions of more troops to send at his foes.

Cannon x Fodder #98 Posted 03 September 2019 - 02:16 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13486 battles
  • 980
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014

View Postmmurdock82abn, on 23 August 2019 - 09:00 PM, said:

Also, if he actually defended the heavy water facility, he would have had a nuke first which equals win.

Most of all though, if the arrogant allied forces of WW1 didn't decide to punish Germany for simply coming to the aid of their ally, the austro-hungarian empire due to Russia declaring war upon them, WW2 would never have happened to begin with.

Likewise, if the rest of the allies treated Japan with the tiniest amount of respect and actually shared the spoils of war with them after WW1, they would have never joined the axis in WW2

I agree with your statements about the European nations, but you're completely wrong about Japan.  Japan was expansionist before WW1, and they continued their aggressiveness during the inter war years.  They began their invasion of Southeast Asia the same year Hitler came to power.



dcr66 #99 Posted 04 September 2019 - 04:31 PM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 25498 battles
  • 3,379
  • [ONE]
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

Having AH in charge of low level military decisions is the issue on why Germany lost many of the winnable campaigns. AH as the commander in chief needs to know what is going on and should have never micromanaged. 

 

Imagine the following scenarios:

1. Germany got the RAF in strangle hold in Battle of Britain by attacking RAF airfields. It they carried on that task instead of attacking the cities as the revenge for the Berlin air raid; they might be able to pull off the invasion of Britain.

 

2. If there weren't that many split up of forces before attack Stalingrad, Germany might have get the city under control before winter hits and keep the Russians on the east bank of Volga. 

 

3. What if the German naval code was never broken or German realized it was broken and changed their practices.

 

4. What if the late war U-boats were available earlier?

 

5. What if AH allowed ME-262 to develop as a fighter instead of a blitz bomber? The lost of Allied planes over Europe will be very high.


Senior .NET Developer / Team Lead by day. Computer/Console gamer with 30+ yrs of experience by night. WW2 guru for 35+ years. 

 

[ONE]dcr66 in World of Warships. Same clan name and user name as I have in Xbox.


Panthergraf #100 Posted 04 September 2019 - 09:08 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 37485 battles
  • 1,515
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
By 1941, Germany had 12.000 8,8 Flak guns with well trained crews lazing back in the Reich for air defense. Since their impact was more of a psychlogical effect (it took 10.000+ shells to down 1 Bomber), I wonder what these guns would have done in their famous „secondary“ role as anti-tank guns on the eastern front...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users