Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/12/2002 8:58:55 AM EDT
Would it of been different if Hitler didn't start a second front aganist the Russians?
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 9:01:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 9:32:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2002 9:34:20 AM EDT by DriftPunch]
Originally Posted By Paul: Much much different - I beleive that we would have won it just might have taken addtional years and the use of nuclear weapons on Europe.
View Quote
I disagree. I think we'd have sued for peace. We would have lacked the critical staging area Britan provided (not to mention their intel, technology, and manpower). North Africa would not be suitable for baseing as Gibralter is too vulnerable. No Britan = No strategic bombing = No breaking of German Industry. The atomic threat would have come too late. The big question is whether or not the Soviets could have still pulled it off if Britian folded.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 9:41:14 AM EDT
Nonsense, Hitler had given up on invading Britain long before he turned his attention to the Soviet Union, and only a successful cross-channel crossing under withering RAF attacks and Royal Navy attacks could have possibly led to the loss of British air fields for the USAF. With [u]any[/u] British Airfields from which to operate, the RAF and the USAF could have made Nazi German a smoking ruin. It may have taken just a wee bit longer, but not much! The American arms plants were just too far away to have been targeted, while the German arms industries were located in areas closest to Britain. Eric The(Useful)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 9:44:33 AM EDT
It might have been different if Hitler was not delayed by Mussolini in Greece. Also might have been different if he invaded Russia through the oil rich middle east. The most likely outcome of a Hitler win in the East would have been the destruction of Communism and the resulting US/Germania cold war. The most important factor is IF Hitler took Russia in early 1941 would the US have still gone into the war? Would Japan still attack Pearl? Would Hitler still declare war on the US? Would England end the war with France and Russia defeated? With England coming to terms following the defeat of Russia, the US probably would have fought a solely "pacific war" with Japan. The US would have still continued the development of the Atomic Bomb. But with the European War basically concluded we would have probably still used it against Japan. And it is extremely likely that someone would leak the technology to Germany "Rosenberg (actually Klaus Fuchs) style." The end result being a arms race/cold war with Germania. The real wild card in this scenario is the future of China with Communist Russia no longer in existence.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 9:47:05 AM EDT
Did Germany, Italy, & Japan have what it takes to win WW2? obviously not. -nm. member #00002 in the anybody-but-granholm-for governor organization
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 9:49:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2002 9:52:27 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By John91498: Would it of been different if Hitler didn't start a second front aganist the Russians?
View Quote
If memory serves, you got this all wrong. Hitler swept thru Yugo, Checo and all the other Slavias, THEN took on Russia as the first front. It was the US (OK, a FEW other Allied nations were there too) that gave him a second front, most notably with the invasion of Normany. A VERY important distinction, as you come to see what Hitlers priorities were (destroying Soviet Communism), as well as the Leaugue of Nations priorities (saving Soviet Communism from Hitler.) garandthe(UsefulAndHISTORICALLYACCURATE)man [:D]
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 9:51:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Nonsense, Hitler had given up on invading Britain long before he turned his attention to the Soviet Union, and only a successful cross-channel crossing under withering RAF attacks and Royal Navy attacks could have possibly led to the loss of British air fields for the USAF. With [u]any[/u] British Airfields from which to operate, the RAF and the USAF could have made Nazi German a smoking ruin. It may have taken just a wee bit longer, but not much! The American arms plants were just too far away to have been targeted, while the German arms industries were located in areas closest to Britain. Eric The(Useful)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
As I'm sure you know, Sea Lion was cancelled when Goering failed to knock out the RAF and establish the required air supremecy for invasion. This was a result of switching from radar installations, RAF bases and airplane factories to London as a target. Britain was losing the production/loss ratio war to Germany until the Luftwaffe switched targets. The targets were changed when the Luftwaffe initially bombed London due to error. in reply England bombed Berlin. This pissed off Germany who targeted London again only this time deliberatly in retaliation. This emotional impulse on the part of Germany actually let England begin to replace lost planes and catch up, in fact saving England. Try and keep in mind the Battle of Britain occured before the USAAC even entered the war so they did NOT factor yet.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 9:52:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By nm_man: Did Germany, Italy, & Japan have what it takes to win WW2? obviously not. -nm. member #00002 in the anybody-but-granholm-for governor organization
View Quote
Beat me to it, my thoughts exactly.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 9:55:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By John91498: Would it of been different if Hitler didn't start a second front aganist the Russians?
View Quote
If memory serves, you got this all wrong. Hitler swept thru Yugo, Checo and all the other Slavias, THEN took on Russia as the first front. It was the US (OK, a FEW other Allied nations were there too) that gave him a second front, most notably with the invasion of Normany. A VERY important distinction, as you come to see what Hitlers priorities were. garandthe(UsefulAndHISTORICALLYACCURATE)man [:D]
View Quote
G'man, most people consider unsecured England the "first front" even though it was primarily a air war. Also Hitler only went into the Balkans to rescue Mussolinis butt. He invaded Russia through what "used" to be Poland on the new common border in the center of that former country with Russia. Russia having gained the eastern half of Poland in a secret deal as part of the non agggression pact prior to the start of the European war.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 10:03:59 AM EDT
Actualy, Where Hitler could have done the most damage to England, Would have been if Germany had pressed it's attack and turned the beaches of Dunkirk into a slaughter house for the BEF.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 10:04:10 AM EDT
AUggie - I guess I think of it in the more conventional terms. In warfare, "fronts" ONLY happen on terra firma. Not in the air, not on the sea. As such, the second MAJOR front was Normandy.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 10:22:04 AM EDT
I believe that the USSR had way too many troops under arms in 1941 and would have eventually attacked Germany on their own. IIRC, during the invasion of the Soviet Union, the German Mil. Int. thought they would be facing 175 divisions but had identified 350 by the end of Aug. 1941. Wasn't the B-36 in developement to be used for nuking the continent of Europe from the east coast of the U.S.?
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 10:25:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By nm_man: Did Germany, Italy, & Japan have what it takes to win WW2? obviously not. -nm. member #00002 in the anybody-but-granholm-for governor organization
View Quote
Beat me to it, my thoughts exactly.
View Quote
Well, with any conflict, whether it be a war, a sport, or a game, there's always that one element that can determine the eventually outcome. Determination, momentum, and shear bravery can mean the difference between winning or losing. I think Hitler COULD of won. I'm just glad he didn't.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 10:32:03 AM EDT
North Africa. The British and Germans were fighting there for quite some time. The US/Britian also invaded Sicily and Italy. I would say the second front was Britian, because it encompassed the Battle of Britian, the battle of the Atlantic, and the North African campaign. However the Allies faced 1% of German forces in North Africa. The USSR and Germany had 10 million me a piece lined up across from each other, throughout 1943, on the Eastern Front. Driftpunch, we never "broke German industry", In fact the had some of their highest production of the war in 1944. They had more planes than pilots, and not enough fuel for the pilots the had. SteyrAug, the planes weren't what was in danger of stopping the RAF. Their airfields were what needed to be repaired. Their planes, IIRC, were thin but adequete, radar stations were also doing ok because the Luftwaffe stopped bombing them becuse their BDA's said they were not damaging them. The turning point, according to some...... Was Churchill using the Royal Navy to destroy the French Naval Forces that were to be returned to France and turned over to the Germans after the fall of France. The RN gave them the option of, 1) Declare themselves as part of the "Free French". 2) Surrender to the RN. 3) Die. The French Navy was docked in North Africa when the RN appeared. They couldn't decide what they would do before the deadline. It was a slaughter. Basically, the entire French Navy was sunk and 15,000 sailors were killed. The US took that as a sign of British resolve. Also U-boat attacks were picking up, and US citizens were being killed by them.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 10:35:37 AM EDT
The Germans might have been able to "win". But luckily for us the Italians were their ally.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 10:47:22 AM EDT
I saw Das Boot. They didn't seem to be that bad of people.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 11:25:56 AM EDT
Actually, I think the major failure of the Luftwaffe was NOT bombing the radar stations that England had. The Home Chain radar system gave early warning, and allowed England to scramble fighters to intercept incoming aircraft with great efficiency. The Germans didn't know what the English radar capacity was. In fact, before the war, the Germans sent one of the Zeppelin airships on the first electronic surveillence missions in history to try to determine if the Brit's had radar or not. Unfortunately, they were listening to the wrong band, and did not detect the radar signal from England's facilities. Fatal mistake. :) (all gleaned from the History Channel. God I love the History Channel!)
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 11:29:47 AM EDT
Well...I've been down this path many times before. My $.02: All of the speculation posted so far centers around battles and campaigns and strategies by the axis and allies. What if Hitler this...what if Tojo that...what about the "second front"...what about the Sovs? My thesis is quite simple and based on a lifetime of study of WW II (Useless history major in college.): Once the United States was committed to the cause of democracy, Hitler and the Japanese had no chance [B]WHATSOEVER[/B]...NONE...NOT A PRAYER! (Flame suit on!) The reasons are simple: -American is an island with friendly allies north and south. '40s enemies had no chance to get to use to hurt our industrial base or hurt our population. -American had a large population. This allowed us to raise an armed force of over 10 million and retain a large industrial force at the same time. -America had a huge and [relatively effective] educational system. This meant that our armed forces and civilian industrial force was well educated to invent, design, and build the high-tech weapons of war. -America had a relatively large navy and sufficient shipbuilding capacity to put ship bottoms in the water far faster than the enemy could sink them. America's warships after the war started were technological wonders filled with the latest high tech weapons and radars. -America had a wonderfully effective INTEL system. -America had virtually all of the naturaly resources needed to build the Arsenal of Democracy. -America had the best industrialists in the world. Capitalists who knew how to run businesses...for peace or war. The shift over from building cars to planes and tanks was virtually seamless. The United States produced more tanks, more planes, more rifles, more ships, more bombs, more of EVERYTHING than ALL of the other nations, both Axis and Allies did put together! For example, I seem to remember the Japanese produced...say 8,000 Zeros throughout the war. We produced 15,000 P-47 Thunderbolts alone! We also put 15,000 P-51s in the air, 12,700 B-17s, plus 10,000 P-38 Lightnings, 9,600 P-39 Aircobras (We gave 4,770 of those to the Russkies.), plus thousands of A-20s, B-26s (both types), B-25s, C-47s, B-29s, and 30,000 Sherman tanks...plus the hundreds of thousands of trucks, jeeps and the like. -The Navy was something like 1,600 combatants in 1945, not counting the transports and such...(275 total now!). So...geography, size, resources, population, education, national will, national unity, all of these are the reasons the Axis had NO chance. Extend the war? Sure. If things had gone poorly for us at certain points...we certainly would have had to fight another year or two...but in the end we would have prevailed. Think of this...near the end, the USN had about 15 Essex class Fleet carriers in Japanese waters pounding the hell out of Japan. This doesn't count the Jeep carriers, or the smaller escort carriers. Also about 10 battleships...plus dozens of cruisers and hundreds of destroyers, subs and smaller craft. The carriers carried over 1,000 planes! The USAAF had hundreds of B-29s in the Marianas...with Mustangs by the hundreds on Iwo as escorts. Better stop...I could blather all day on this shit....[;D]
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 11:56:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2002 11:59:17 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Well Mr. LWilde, I agree with most of your theory. But there are parts that I disagree with. -America as the arsenal, shipyard, training base, and impeneterable fortress of Democracy. Yup. - Our ships weren't neccesarily that much better than other nations. Except, we are "tinkerers" our ships had better mechanicals and damage control than any other nations. Sinking a US warship was a major task. - We didn't create the best weapons. The Germans did. Me-262, V-1, V-2, type XXI subs, to name a few. They also made guided bombs. They made a lot of really advanced weapons. I guess in the long run we made the one that trumped the rest, the A-bomb. - Intel system? We were probably very good versus the Japanese. But the British ruled the intel game in Europe. - FYI Russia produced a butt load of tanks. something like 49,230 of the various versions of the T-34. They also produced a whole bunch of super heavy tanks. Not to mention assault guns, SPA, and artillery. They also developed a very effective air force including what was regarded in many circles as the best CAS tactics. They didn't have a strategic air force. I think they did that for several reasons. Germany's industry wasn't very accessible to them. They knew the US/GB had tons of long range bombers. A difference in philosophy, we wanted to kill the tanks at the factory, they wanted to kill them in the field(along with the crew). If Germany hadn't attacked Russia, we would have had to have face a Luftwaffe that was 3-4 times as large as what we did. If Germany didn't have the US/GB to worry about more of their resources could have been used to pursue the land war. Instead of U-boats, or air defense against US/GB bombing. I think in the long run w/o the US, Russia would have prevailed. It would have been a more costly victory, but a victory none the less. w/o Russia, the US would have prevailed. It would have been a more costly victory, but a victory none the less. Now if Stalin and Hitler had stayed allies, the rest of the world would have had some real trouble. And I suppose that would mean the Italians AND French would have been on our side [:)]
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 11:59:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2002 12:15:05 PM EDT by smarty_pants]
"Did Germany, Italy, & Japan have what it takes to win WW2?" Yep! they just did not want to[rolleyes] The Germans had to hit the USSR,hey could not make ground anywhere eles and knew they had to cover their butts. The key is Japan,if we had gone after the Japs the way some at the time wanted we would have beaten the them befor the Russias made their come back. We would have crushed the Germans in six months,with their fatherland wide open. We could have gones up via Italy like we did and a 2nd front from the east. The only way they could have won is if we did not beat the Japs in time,I guess thats why things whent the way they did. It was a very big risk,but I think it would have payed off.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 12:14:25 PM EDT
No. "What it took" was men and resources. The Japanese ENTERED the war short on the materiel/OIL front, heck, that's why they said they needed to fight, to get that stuff. They started off at a deficit which only got worse. Germany was also an island of sorts, there weren't enough Germans to get the job done. (yes, I am fully aware of the German "recruitment" of captured peoples.) Several anecdotal perspectives: In one of Ambrose's books on the aftermath of D Day, a German officer got lost avoiding an air attack only a few days after D Day. He ran straight into an allied supply depot, basically just stuff stacked on the side of the road. They drove for about a mile (IIRC) along the stacks. The officer declared flatly "we cannot beat these Americans. They were not here a week ago, and now look at all of the materiel they have managed to deposit in Fortress Europe. I haven't seen this much kit in my entire career, even during peacetime." During Barbarrosa, same thing happenned, except it was concerning men. General Hadler wrote in his diary, 11 Aug: "we reckoned on about 200 enemy divisions (total). Now we have already counted 360." Germany was stretched thin, then bled white. Absent stopping at some artificial point, then trying appeasement instead of fighting, this was going to end the way it ended. Even WITH our lend lease crap, look at how the Russians fought, and WON. Entire training regiments ordered to attack without ANY weapons. They had the manpower to fight this way, and that's all they needed.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 12:26:25 PM EDT
I read a similar anecdote in an Ambrose book. I believe it took place during the Battle of the Bulge when the Germans overran a number of American positions. They found a cake that had been mailed to a soldier from his family in America. Upon seeing this, a German officer commented that the war was lost; how could they compete with an enemy that had the resources to send [i]cake[/i] across an ocean during wartime? FWIW, I think one of Germany's biggest mistakes was switching focus on bombing airstrips in England to bombing cities. As SteyrAug pointed out, it was only done out of Hitler's rage at the bombing of Berlin. While it extracted a terrible toll on British cities, it gave the RAF a much-needed respite to rebuild airstrips and catch up on fighter production. Had Germany won the Battle of Britain, Britain would have had to sue for peace (at best), and America would have lost the forward staging area necessary for D-Day. The other big mistake was breaking the treaty with Stalin. Germany should've waited until Europe, including Britain, was cleaned up before taking on Russia and its tremendous resources in men and raw materials. All Germany really needed was some sane, strategic planners in charge of their war effort and things could've been a lot different. Thank God Hitler was running the show instead.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 12:28:24 PM EDT
If they never attacked Russia, and Stalin stayed out of it......We would not have won the war, in the since of final victory. At best we would have sued for Peace in Europe, and still kicked the hell out of the Japs. There were far to may American POW's in Germany to Drop a NUKE, not to mention the surrounding countries that would have had fall out. IMHO, Nuking Europe was really not in the cards for those reasons, and I am sure there're others. Just look at the facts, not to take anything away from any USGI's in WWII (Both my Grandfathers served in Europe, only one came home, the other is Buried in Belgium.) The MASSIVE and I mean Massive battles the Germans had w/ the Russians, allowed us to overpower the undermanned, however well equipped (Panther Tank -VS- Sherman.. No Contest) Wermarchet (sp?). I do understand we had Air "superiority" but we can not determine if we would have had it, under different circumstances. I mean, Hell, The Germans had functioning Jet fighters and "ICBM's" (V2) by wars end. If we were not able to harass the Germans to death (By day "The Mighty Eight" and night "British" Bombings) Who's to say how far along those programs would have gone...There's just no way to say. If the full German Military might was put against our Boys in full force, we would have been up the creek, big time. Again, not that our Boys did not fight like Grizzly Bears, they were just our classed, in-terms of equipment. There is not one, that I know of, recorded battle in all the WWII (European Theater) that the US army was able to defeat the Germans when the odds were numerically even. We were able to "win" because we had 100 Tanks to there one, and that because ALL the German resources were tied up in Russia. Just look at the Battle of the Bulge, we barley held on, thank God the Weather Broke (Air power), and that was a small fraction of what was sent into Russia. The Russians lost 20+ Million people during WW II, We, the USA lost 1/40 of that, ~500K can you image, I can not! Keep in Mind, all this time we are fighting the Germans, without the Eastern Front, we are in a Dog fight w/ the Japs. That's our second Front, that the Germans would not have had. Something to think of??
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 12:36:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson: All Germany really needed was some sane, strategic planners in charge of their war effort and things could've been a lot different. Thank God Hitler was running the show instead.
View Quote
There's ALOT of truth to that. My reading of WW2 has me CONVINCED that Hitler cost Germany the war. Maybe they wouldn't have won without him, but they SURE weren't gonna win with him. The blunders and tactical errors the little twerp made are mind boggling. Further, not being one to beleive in luck... America had AMAZINGLY good fortune. Among others, the fact that germany's premier tactician, Rommel, was in Berlin, schmoozin' the wife on the day we invaded Normandy. Luck? I don't think so. I think Someone was on our side.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 12:39:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By eswanson: All Germany really needed was some sane, strategic planners in charge of their war effort and things could've been a lot different. Thank God Hitler was running the show instead.
View Quote
There's ALOT of truth to that. My reading of WW2 has me CONVINCED that Hitler cost Germany the war. Maybe they wouldn't have won without him, but they SURE weren't gonna win with him. The blunders and tactical errors the little twerp made are mind boggling. Further, not being one to beleive in luck... America had AMAZINGLY good fortune. Among others, the fact that germany's premier tactician, Rommel, was in Berlin, schmoozin' the wife on the day we invaded Normandy. Luck? I don't think so. I think Someone was on our side. Lets put it this way, Thank God Hitler was INSANE. IF he had any idea of what he was doing it may have been a very differant outcome
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 12:42:18 PM EDT
Whoops, Sorry Garandman, I did not mean to ad your post to mine, just gettgin started here and all. Lets put it this way, Thank God Hitler was INSANE. IF he had any idea of what he was doing it may have been a very differant outcome
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 12:45:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By eswanson: All Germany really needed was some sane, strategic planners in charge of their war effort and things could've been a lot different. Thank God Hitler was running the show instead.
View Quote
There's ALOT of truth to that. My reading of WW2 has me CONVINCED that Hitler cost Germany the war. Maybe they wouldn't have won without him, but they SURE weren't gonna win with him. The blunders and tactical errors the little twerp made are mind boggling.
View Quote
Yeah, but the hypothetical, to me, means same war, same objectives, maybe different timing, etc, but I'm asuming Germany would want Europe from the Channel to as far east as they could occupy. Not enough Germans, not enough German stuff. It could have gone a lot worse for us, NO DOUBT. But the outcome was a forgone conclusion. What do you think would have gone different assuming it wasn't Rommel's wife's birthday? Not a knock, a question. I believe that the panzers would have been knee deep in the conflict at about D plus 2 hours, but other than that, I think we were coming in, one way or another.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 12:54:26 PM EDT
Hey Citadel, Got myself a brand spanking new M1A. [:D] A standard with the black stock. Can't wait till the 10 days are over. Also, my girlfriend and I are flying out to Vegas on Saturday for a whole week of gambling, relaxing, strip clubs, booze, clubs, and the whole nine yards. That 3k didn't last very long. [:D]
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 1:00:43 PM EDT
The Japs had no channce. Their navy and air force was first rate, but once they lost that advantage they did not have the modern weapons, industria base, raw material, or population to win the war. Italy, well, lets just say that when they tried to invade Albania they were stopped at theborder for 2 hours by the border guards due to a lack of proper paerwork to cross. It is impossible to ever say what would have happened in history, but consider the following. The Germans were in no way able to finnish off the English at dunkirk. The Battle of Brittian should have been won by the Germans, but it is inconsiquential since few of the landing craft needed were ever built, there simply wqas no real desire to invade. Hitler thought of the English as Germanic people and had a "softer view" of them. German industrial out put INCREAESED until the factories were over run by the allies. Bombing had argueably no effect other than to draw their fighters into battle and through attrition wear down the fighter pilot base. The U.S. could have out produced them as they did not problem, but a landing would have been imposible without most of the German army in Russia. Most German weapons advancements were in responce to the better weapons of the Soviets. The Americans and British had FEW weapoons better than the Germans. Anyway, when the Germans did have the weapons of less capability they were more successfull. (in that time period) The Germans lacked did not lack the raw materials for a war with the western allies. Only with the drain in resources from Russia did they have a problem. There would have been a long stalemate at any rate, depending on the length, the German super weapons would have been more common in service possibly giving them a better defensive capabitlty. Again increaseing the stalemate. The Germans had what it took to wwin the war, but they had a huge idiot incharge posibly negating many advantages mentioned above. It is common knowledge that the Russians were preparing to attcak wetsern Europe once they had all weakened themselves in war, so that creates another scenario to consider. BUT, would they have done it???? The Germans were develping FAR superior aircraft and had a bomber capable of bombing New York. Neither side would have been able to launch these bonb raids without unacceptable losses. Stalemate again. Rommel was not even close to being Germanys best tactician, I have already explained in other post about it being irelivant about Rommel bing in Berlin on D-Day, that is American propaganda not reality. In the end, my opinion was it would have taken a nuke to BEAT the Germans. The Americans fought mostly second fought German units or first rate units that were under strength and under constant air attack. A direct attack would have been disaster for the Allies had the Germans not been so tied don in Russia. Hitler started the war too soon. His generals asked for more time, but he didn't listen as usual. Hence they lost. They could have won, they had it in them, but their leadership failed them.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 1:02:48 PM EDT
The Germans had several technological advantages that could have severely prolonged the war, which were mostly squandered by Hitler. If they wouldn't have screwed around with jet fighters, trying to make them into bombers, they could have fielded large numbers of them 1-2 years earlier than they did (maybe mid-1943); this could have drastically shifted the balance in the air war and could have cost us air superiority and the subsequent degradation of Germany's industrial capabilities (yes, I know that production increased under the heaviest bombing; think how much more it would have increased with no bombing). This would have pushed the invasion back a year or two and may have allowed the Germans to hold their own in the East. Hitler's steadfast refusal to use chemical weapons pissed away their greatest advantage. The Germans developed modern nerve gases, and the Allies had nothing similar or any protective measures or even idea that this stuff existed. US and Soviet advances in this vile field all came from stuff stolen from the Germans after the war, and the Germans had a lot of it. If the Germans would have used it during the Battle of Britain, on the Eastern Front or Normandy, the war might have ended right there. Of course, there are several lesser issues that could have made things worse for us but would not have had a major impact, like the whole "sturmgewehr" issue, but thankfully Hitler was such an idiot that he saved the lives of thousands of Allied troops. Despite all that, the Germans lacked the sea power to project their strength. Their failure to break out of Baltic and dominate the Royal Navy allowed us to pour supplies into the theater. The Kriegsmarine was also totally incapable of stopping the US shipment of war materials to the Soviets. If the Germans could have stopped that flow, the Russians would have failed abjectly. The commies always glossed it over, but a majority of their weapons were US manufactured. I once heard that HALF of the Soviet tanks at Kursk (the largest armored battle, ever) were of US manufacture. The germans also lacked the two things that Ambrose has cited as being the major American ground combat strengths; our robust logistics, and our artillery. Most of the Germans logistics was still horse-drawn, but the US (and Brits, and Soviets, and everyone else on our side) were moving beans and bullets with an endless train of rugged, simple and reliable American Deuce-and-a-halfs. And while the Germans had excellent artillery pieces, their fire control system was no match for the excellent mobile call-for-fire system that smashed German Units all through Europe. Artillery does the majority of the killing on modern battlefields, and our system for getting steel on target was (and still is) the finest available. The Germans could not have won, but the war could have dragged on for several more years.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 1:12:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87: What do you think would have gone different assuming it wasn't Rommel's wife's birthday? Not a knock, a question. I believe that the panzers would have been knee deep in the conflict at about D plus 2 hours, but other than that, I think we were coming in, one way or another.
View Quote
Exactly. The panzers would have made that beach into blood red swiss cheese. I think the Panzers would have been there AT H-hour, not H-hour plus 2. Rommel would have sene to it, in spite of the scattered Airborne drops. Which is another thing we had going for us (Luck? I think not) - the scattering of the Airborne sticks all over Normandy, due to darkness, German fire, etc. German officers had NO WAY to know how to respond, cuz there were reports of drops everywhere. Not a concentration of Allied Airborne.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 1:15:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By obershutze916: The Japs had no channce. Their navy and air force was first rate, but once they lost that advantage they did not have the modern weapons, industria base, raw material, or population to win the war. Italy, well, lets just say that when they tried to invade Albania they were stopped at theborder for 2 hours by the border guards due to a lack of proper paerwork to cross. It is impossible to ever say what would have happened in history, but consider the following. The Germans were in no way able to finnish off the English at dunkirk. The Battle of Brittian should have been won by the Germans, but it is inconsiquential since few of the landing craft needed were ever built, there simply wqas no real desire to invade. Hitler thought of the English as Germanic people and had a "softer view" of them. German industrial out put INCREAESED until the factories were over run by the allies. Bombing had argueably no effect other than to draw their fighters into battle and through attrition wear down the fighter pilot base. The U.S. could have out produced them as they did not problem, but a landing would have been imposible without most of the German army in Russia. Most German weapons advancements were in responce to the better weapons of the Soviets. The Americans and British had FEW weapoons better than the Germans. Anyway, when the Germans did have the weapons of less capability they were more successfull. (in that time period) The Germans lacked did not lack the raw materials for a war with the western allies. Only with the drain in resources from Russia did they have a problem. There would have been a long stalemate at any rate, depending on the length, the German super weapons would have been more common in service possibly giving them a better defensive capabitlty. Again increaseing the stalemate. The Germans had what it took to wwin the war, but they had a huge idiot incharge posibly negating many advantages mentioned above. It is common knowledge that the Russians were preparing to attcak wetsern Europe once they had all weakened themselves in war, so that creates another scenario to consider. BUT, would they have done it???? The Germans were develping FAR superior aircraft and had a bomber capable of bombing New York. Neither side would have been able to launch these bonb raids without unacceptable losses. Stalemate again. Rommel was not even close to being Germanys best tactician, I have already explained in other post about it being irelivant about Rommel bing in Berlin on D-Day, that is American propaganda not reality. In the end, my opinion was it would have taken a nuke to BEAT the Germans. The Americans fought mostly second fought German units or first rate units that were under strength and under constant air attack. A direct attack would have been disaster for the Allies had the Germans not been so tied don in Russia. Hitler started the war too soon. His generals asked for more time, but he didn't listen as usual. Hence they lost. They could have won, they had it in them, but their leadership failed them.
View Quote
I agree with almost everything you said...However your statement "The Germans were in no way able to finish off the English at Dunkirk." I don't completely agree w/...Fat Boy (Herman Goring) convinced Hitler to let the "Air force" can't spell anything in German. finish off the job. If Hitler had just sent in the troops, they war basically just sitting there, they would have CRUSHED the Brits..it would have been ugly
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 1:24:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: If the Germans could have stopped that flow, the Russians would have failed abjectly. The commies always glossed it over, but a majority of their weapons were US manufactured. I once heard that HALF of the Soviet tanks at Kursk (the largest armored battle, ever) were of US manufacture.
View Quote
I think the US help to the Soviets was just that, help, it didn't save their tails. I think much of that is cold war propaganda.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 1:36:11 PM EDT
As for the panzers at the beach, everyone should look up a thread from about a week ago about why the navy didn't use battleships on D-Day. Strudle54, I'll explain. At the time, most of the German tank designs were still relatively new. The designs were good, but over engineered in typical German fashion. This caused a great deal of extra repair time for the German tanks. The advance through France had been very fast, but hard fought ad the French and British tanks, on the whole, outclassed the German tanks. The Germans knew they way to win was manouver, thus greater wear in the tanks. The advance was much more hotly contested than the history books tell. Several times German units had to be diverted to assist against a French counter attacks. (Rommel almost got his ass kicked at one point by advancing too fast beyond his supporting infantry and a concentrated French Armor attack on his flank smacked him around pretty badly until more armor could arrive). What am I getting at here? Ther German Armor never had the time to repair and rest, reorganize, etc before Dunkirk. Few of the German tanks had been able to be fully refitted and repaied after Poland, Norway and Denmark. The wear and tear on the complicated designs left the armor in poor shape. It is widely reported that Manstein ordered the armor to stop. He did. The tanks were falling apart. German supply and infantry had not been able to keep up as few infantry units were motorized at this point in the war. The Germans were just in no condition to finish the job due to maintinance. This problem again became eveident after the Balkin campagn when they were again unable to have all maintinance work done by the time of the advance into Russia.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 1:46:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2002 1:52:01 PM EDT by obershutze916]
Driftpunch, the U.S. And England sold the Russians more during the last year of the war (the shortest) than the Germans produced during the whole war. It is arguable that it did save their tails, but I am inclined to say so. The soviet production capacity was nowhere nnear large enough to produce the weapons needed early in the invasion. Later in the war they could have done it themselves, but we bought them the time they needed. As for the U.S. Tanks at Kursk. Yes and no. Most of the Russian tanks at Kursk were American made, BUT not at the battle of Prohkrahova (sp) (the huge tank battle everyone talks about when they talk about Kursk). Those were mostly Russian tanks. BTW, while the fighting was as heavy as all accounts state, tank returns on both sides were very high, therefore LOSSES were not very high in the end for either side. Within a week, most of the tanks lost were back in action. This applies to both sides. The American tanks were used as the reserve during the large counter attack that forced the Germans to withdrawl. The use of inferior American tanks is a reason given by the Germans that they were able to escape without being destroyed. (Just the German view on that, I wasn't there, have to take their word for it.)
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 2:18:59 PM EDT
For Hitler to win in WWII he would have had to start out a little differently. He would still have to sign the Non-Aggression Pact, but instead of actually invading Poland, he should have gone around and attacked Russia first. He could have had Moscow that way. His army got to within a few miles of Moscow and the Russians were barely able to keep him back as it was. This way he could do it before the winter set in, which cost him greatly in the real WWII. Now imagine that he is not at war with the English or French (yet) because he never actually invaded Poland (which started WWII), in fact he could use his propaganda machine to make it seem like he was defending them. So before he ever lets loose on the French or English he already has Russia out of the way. He could then turn his armies full attention to the English and the French and to making sure we (the USA) never set foot on European soil. In this senario we would have crushed Japan, but Hitler would have been ready and waiting for us with jets and missles, etc. I think everybody is right about a cold war with Germania, or maybe a South American war with Germania. Thank god that he never let his generals run the war. Also in light of 9/11 we should give France back to Germany.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 2:49:11 PM EDT
Poland was a semi-legitimate target. Poland was not the reason for the failure of the germans to reach Moscow on time. There were two reasons for that. 1) Italy loosing in the Balkins. The German intervention there set back the time table for the invasion which was scheduled to take place earlier in the year. Again, refer to the post about not having time to finish maintinance on mobile units before the invasion. These were serious factors. 2) Operation Blue. The Russians were concentrating for a HUGE attack at Kharkov aimed at German army group south. The Germans diverted their attack from Moscow to slaughter the Russians in the south. It cost them precious time though. The Germans made it into the sub-urbs of Moscow. One unit even made it within sight of the Kremlin. The temperature droped over 60 degrees in one night. The Germans were at the end of their rope, out of time, beyond their supply lines, and the unexpected temperature drop was the end. Go outside Moscow today. You will see what looks like a train sitting in the open. It is the reminants of the German army still stuck in the mud that literally froze thir vehicles into place.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 2:59:59 PM EDT
If Germany attacked Russia first, they would not have had to wait for Italian troops because Germans would only be in Russia with no other wars. I don't think anybody would have interviened if Russia was lost to Germany. Again Operatian Blue would be out of the question, because Russia would be taken by surprise. Russia is busy attacking Poland (whose whole ary can attack Russia now) while Germany is attacking Russia. With Russia caught off guard, Germany would have conquered it, before winter, and before any other war had been started. Hitler was obsessed with total domination, which was his down fall, he took on too much too fast.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 3:24:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Slave1: If Germany attacked Russia first, they would not have had to wait for Italian troops because Germans would only be in Russia with no other wars. I don't think anybody would have interviened if Russia was lost to Germany. Again Operatian Blue would be out of the question, because Russia would be taken by surprise. Russia is busy attacking Poland (whose whole ary can attack Russia now) while Germany is attacking Russia. With Russia caught off guard, Germany would have conquered it, before winter, and before any other war had been started. Hitler was obsessed with total domination, which was his down fall, he took on too much too fast.
View Quote
I respectfully disagree. Although the Germans were very close to Moscow, and the conventioanl wisdom is that they nearly beat Russia, read "Stalingrad-The Fateful Siege" by A Beevor. Russia was SO BIG, German Generals were AFRAID of how big it was even as they ran through it. THey wrote of a vast ocean of land that they feared would swalow them, and it did. Three million Germans went in during the opening of Barbarossa. What strikes me about the siege of Stalingrad is the bloodthirsty fervor with which the terrorized Russians defended their soil. The stories of machine gunners behind the lines to kill traitors/cowards are true, so why did they fight so hard? It cannot be explained by fear alone. These people would not have given up just because Moscow fell, any more than we would give up if we were invaded and Washington was occupied, did we?
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 4:12:59 PM EDT
I personally think that if the Russians had fallen, after a short resistance, that would have been the end of the fight in the East. Then Japan would have moven in in the Far east with their army, and the few remaining "Faithfull Russians" would have been decimated. Read the accounts of the Russian soldiers that the Germans wrote. The Average Russain was a poor, uneducated pesant. They had little will to fight and only did so because they had a better chance against the Germans. I do agree that the western allies only feed the Russians because they knew who was doing all the dying, and they didn't want it to be them. Russian figues now state that up to 71.4 million soldiers and civilians died from the Russo-Finnich war, to the end of the U.S. supported resistance in the Ukraine in 1948. As always with the Russians, you have to take that whith a grain of salt, but ask any German vet, they will tell you that 20 million was a low number. Anyway, Russia was not taken by surprise in 1941, Stalin knew the exact date and time of the attack, he just squanderd his army. I really have no idea what he was doing early in the war, a boy scout could have lead his army better. Germany never had to wait for Itailian troops to invade Russia. Italians were used by the Germans true, but they were second rate soldiers. The Italians in German service were better than the Italian army under its own command, but they were badly treated and were still poor soldiers. The Finns, Hungarians, and Romanians were far better soldiers than the Italians. Your "What if" version is as valid as any though because no one will ever know what could have happened.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 11:04:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2002 11:06:25 AM EDT by LWilde]
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: - Our ships weren't neccesarily that much better than other nations.
View Quote
Actually, if you do a bit of research, you'll see that they actually WERE that much better than any other nation's ships. Examples: The American battleships designed in the '30s that fought in the war were the best in the world by a fairly wide margin. That may be a shock to fans of Yamato and Bismark...but its true. Damage control was certainly a factor but AAA, gunnery fire control, torpedo protection, speed, armor protection, all played a part. An American BB had hundreds of AA guns including 20 5", 80 40mm quads and over 100 20mm guns. The 5" guns fired variable timed, or VT ammo. NO other country had this. It was one of the war's greatest secrets and first used in January 1943 during the Guadalcanal campaign. The shells have a tiny radar set in them and when they fly by a plane...BOOM! We still use them to great effect. American Essex class carriers were the best in the world. They carried nearly 90 planes and had large magazines for weapons storage. We commissioned about 24 of these ships! A couple of the Japanese CVs (Taiho/Shinano) were larger but they were each a one-off and were sunk before they could even get into combat. American subs were the best [u]offensive[/u] subs of the war. They had the best electronics fits, the longest legs and they carried the most torpedoes of the war (24). They were not as maneuverable as the Type VII & Type IX U-boats but the Japanese ASW was pretty bad anyway. Their biggest problem was their crappy torpedoes. When the Navy finally figured out the three problems with the Mark 14, the sub kills soared. Our newer destroyers were the best in the world too. They were the best mix of all of the best characteristics required of a good destroyer. That is NOT to say that all of the pre-war DDs were great designs...some were real turds. But the Fletcher class and those that followed were the best ever and clearly better than any other class in the entire world. They had the best propulsion plants, using "modular" construction. By dividing the two identical halves of the plant up, our ship designers greatly increased the ability of the main propulsion plant to take damage and keep fighting. They had the best [b]dual purpose[/b] 5" guns and gunnery fire control and AAA battery of any destroyers in the world. This was the best thing American ship designers did during the inter-war years. A Fletcher class DD had five 5" DP guns, three or four, twin or quad 40mm guns and maybe a dozen 20mm. No other navy in the world had as good main battery guns that could engage both surface and air targets. The Gearing class had six 5" and even more light guns. The 5" was coupled with the wonderfully effective Mk-37 radar controlled gun director, the only type of its kind in the world and used on virtually every combatant in the war. Our cruisers were the best for the same reasons since they were really just pumped up destroyers. Our 6" gun light cruisers carried 12 or 15 guns and each gun barrel could fire a round every 20 seconds. That's 45 rds/minute! (Witnesses at the night battles said it looked like the light cruisers were hosing down the Japanese targets...which they were!). Our biggest surface ship deficiency was, like the subs, the torpedoes. The Japanese had the best in the world in the Type 93 Long Lance. All of our ships also have large fuel tanks for long range and at-sea alongside refueling capabilities, very important during underway ops. A carrier battleship or oiler can refuel her escorts while underway. During the war, no nation perfected that capability. Most merely streamed a hose astern of the oiler. Here is a good web site. Take a look at the "World's Best Battleship" and the, "Guns & Armor" link too. I used to work with the physicist who wrote that analysis. [url]http://64.124.221.191/kaigun.htm[/url]
- We didn't create the best weapons. The Germans did. Me-262, V-1, V-2, type XXI subs, to name a few. They also made guided bombs. They made a lot of really advanced weapons. I guess in the long run we made the one that trumped the rest, the A-bomb.
View Quote
You are only partly correct. [b]Best[/b] is a relative term and not one of the weapons named above had demonstrable effect of the outcome of the war which is the ultimate metric of a weapon system. Like the Scuds in the Gulf War, the V-weapons were great terror weapons designed to get the Allies to waste precious bombing resources on the launch sites. The Me-262 was a very effective fighter, but it required lots of maintenance and the engines had to be changed out often. Our Mustang drivers figured out a way to shoot them down easily by just orbiting their airfields until they come home. A 262 on final is a juicy target. And yes...the A-bomb does trump the others.
- Intel system? We were probably very good versus the Japanese. But the British ruled the intel game in Europe.
View Quote
Yup…agreed.
- FYI Russia produced a butt load of tanks. something like 49,230 of the various versions of the T-34. They also produced a whole bunch of super heavy tanks. Not to mention assault guns, SPA, and artillery.
View Quote
You are correct. Soviet weapons were both numerous and effective...especially the T-34. (I don't like the Moisan Nagant though...I much prefer my Mauser!)
They also developed a very effective air force including what was regarded in many circles as the best CAS tactics.
View Quote
No argument here either. But I'd put our Marine air up against any tactical air force for CAS.
They didn't have a strategic air force. I think they did that for several reasons. Germany's industry wasn't very accessible to them. They knew the US/GB had tons of long range bombers. A difference in philosophy, we wanted to kill the tanks at the factory, they wanted to kill them in the field(along with the crew).
View Quote
OK...agreed. Why spend your precious resources on strategic aircraft if you don't need to?
If Germany hadn't attacked Russia, we would have had to have face a Luftwaffe that was 3-4 times as large as what we did.
View Quote
A moot point and not worth an argument. We would have prevailed anyway, and the A-bomb would have then been used in Germany. Endgame.
If Germany didn't have the US/GB to worry about more of their resources could have been used to pursue the land war. Instead of U-boats, or air defense against US/GB bombing.
View Quote
Again...a moot point. Herr Hitler's decisions don't leave you any wiggle room.
I think in the long run w/o the US, Russia would have prevailed. It would have been a more costly victory, but a victory none the less.
View Quote
Yup.
w/o Russia, the US would have prevailed. It would have been a more costly victory, but a victory none the less.
View Quote
Yup here too...
Now if Stalin and Hitler had stayed allies, the rest of the world would have had some real trouble. And I suppose that would mean the Italians AND French would have been on our side [:)]
View Quote
If...if...if...If a frog had wings.... Rather than do IFs, I prefer to review the facts and learn the whys. We won. The reasons are many. We got our asses handed to us for the first year of the war because we were not ready. Once we geared up...the Axis had NO chance of victory.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 11:15:47 AM EDT
Has anyone read Newt Gingrich's book, "1945"? Scary..... Too bad it seems as if Newt's not going to write a sequel. The book ends in one hell of a cliffhanger...
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 11:30:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:
Originally Posted By Slave1: If Germany attacked Russia first, they would not have had to wait for Italian troops because Germans would only be in Russia with no other wars. I don't think anybody would have intervened if Russia was lost to Germany. Again Operation Blue would be out of the question, because Russia would be taken by surprise. Russia is busy attacking Poland (whose whole army can attack Russia now) while Germany is attacking Russia. With Russia caught off guard, Germany would have conquered it, before winter, and before any other war had been started. Hitler was obsessed with total domination, which was his down fall, he took on too much too fast.
View Quote
I respectfully disagree. Although the Germans were very close to Moscow, and the conventional wisdom is that they nearly beat Russia, read "Stalingrad-The Fateful Siege" by A Beevor. Russia was SO BIG, German Generals were AFRAID of how big it was even as they ran through it. They wrote of a vast ocean of land that they feared would swallow them, and it did. Three million Germans went in during the opening of Barbarossa. What strikes me about the siege of Stalingrad is the bloodthirsty fervor with which the terrorized Russians defended their soil. The stories of machine gunners behind the lines to kill traitors/cowards are true, so why did they fight so hard? It cannot be explained by fear alone. These people would not have given up just because Moscow fell, any more than we would give up if we were invaded and Washington was occupied, did we?
View Quote
If Hitler had attacked Russia instead of Poland in 1939 three things would/could have happened differently. 1) Britain & France would not have declared war on Germany, yet. Leaving all of Hitler's troops to invade in Russia. Part of why he failed at Stalingrad is because he couldn't match the number of Russians. 2) The Russians would have been caught off guard, with much of it's army in Poland, and probably would have been unable to pull her defenses back before Hitler forced the government to surrender. 3) The people might have rebelled but he would have the upper hand. Also remember that in the Ukraine and Lithuania Hitler was seen as a liberator.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 11:38:53 AM EDT
LWilde, The German navy is my weakest part of German military history, but I would aregue that in my opinion the German battleships/battlecruisers were of better construction than allies ships. I can say little for ships of other classes, but the actions of the Heavy Crusier Prinze Eugen were most impressive. My reason for this conclusion is that the German ship yards were new and were built to more modern spec at the time. The U.S. and especially England had constraints placed on ship building by their older yards. The German ships had better fire control and were able to sustain much more damage than allied ships. (Although a good battleship vs. battleship fight would have been nice to prove this theory)Actual use of the ships is another story thati am sure you know well. Look forward to your imput on my ideas.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 11:50:36 AM EDT
Slave1 I agree that Britain and France most likely would not have declaied war on Germany had Poland been invaded. BUT, remember at that point it was a war of revenge. France would have been attacked at some point bringing Englan into the war. 2)Stalingrad was no lost due to too many Russian soldiers. There were a multitude of reasons, mostly stupidity, but that was not the reason. 3)The Russians would have been cought of guard. Pointless... The germans were in no shape to continue the fight. They needed time to refit and reorganize. This is the problem they ran into when they could not capitalize on Dunkirk. 4) The Russians were ready for the attack but squandered the oportunity. The german inability to press the attack would have made it a mute point. The german weapons were up up to the task at this point either. The Russians would not have surrendered. Lastly, most of the Russians saw the Germans as liberators but the treatment by the Germans changed that. Over a million Russians joined the German side as it was. This would have been the same in your scenario, but with the same outcome. The Einsatsgroupen and Russian propaganda saw to that.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 12:09:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2002 12:12:22 PM EDT by LWilde]
Originally Posted By obershutze916: LWilde, The German navy is my weakest part of German military history, but I would aregue that in my opinion the German battleships/battlecruisers were of better construction than allies ships. I can say little for ships of other classes, but the actions of the Heavy Crusier Prinze Eugen were most impressive. My reason for this conclusion is that the German ship yards were new and were built to more modern spec at the time. The U.S. and especially England had constraints placed on ship building by their older yards. The German ships had better fire control and were able to sustain much more damage than allied ships. (Although a good battleship vs. battleship fight would have been nice to prove this theory)Actual use of the ships is another story thati am sure you know well. Look forward to your imput on my ideas.
View Quote
Read the hyperlink I included. It should change your mind WRT the differences in battleship design and capabilities. For example...Bismark's AP rounds would most likely [b]NOT[/b] have pierced American armor of the South Dakota and later Iowa class. South Dakota was as fast as Bismark and Iowa was fully five knots faster and that is a huge tactical advantage. Both American classes had vastly better gunnery fire control with [b]modern[/b] radar fire control systems. Bismark's primitive gunnery radar system was prone to failure due the shock of the main battery salvos. Her optical gunnery [b]was[/b] very good. Both American classes guns would have penetrated Bismark's armor. Both American classes had vastly better AAA batteries. Both American classes had vastly better damage control systems. Both American classes had totally [b]independent[/b] rudder systems. Hit 'em in the ass...and you don't fatally cripple the ship. Finally, Bismark had a significant weakness in her hull structure aft. When hit with heavy shell fire or torpedo damage aft of turret four (Dora?) the hull structure had a tendency to break completely away! This design flaw was not discovered until well after commissioning. Bismark's hull is in two pieces now because of that flaw. I have an old friend that was a turret officer in New Jersey in the '80s. He told me that is usually took them [b]ONE[/b] ranging round to put salvoes on target...out to 20+ miles! Prince Eugen was a fine ship for her time. American heavy cruisers from Wichita on were clearly superior as were American light cruisers from St. Louis on. I think the German was one of the prettiest ships built in the entire war but beauty doesn't make the ship effective. Prince Eugen wouldn't have had much of a chance up against a Baltimore class...or a Cleveland class light cruiser. She would have been swamped with shell fire pretty quickly. Do you know how Prince Eugen ended her career? More later... Cheers!
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 12:14:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By obershutze916: 3)The Russians would have been cought of guard. Pointless... The germans were in no shape to continue the fight. They needed time to refit and reorganize. This is the problem they ran into when they could not capitalize on Dunkirk.
View Quote
This is my argument exactly, Germany would not have needed to refit & reorganize as they would have only been fighting the Russians, they would not be recovering from anything. The Germans got to Moscow and could not take it,it was winter time and they had been at war with Britain for two years already. Imagine now that all of Hitler's armies are in Russia instead of just the armies he actually sent, it would have been enough to surround and push into Moscow. Once he was in Moscow he could order them to surrender, which they probably wouldn't do. He could then just have them executed as he would pobably do anyway. If he did force a surrender he could have made the Russian military his own, like he did with France. Thus making Poland part of Germany with out ever going to war with Britain & France.
4) The Russians were ready for the attack but squandered the oportunity. The german inability to press the attack would have made it a mute point. The german weapons were up up to the task at this point either. The Russians would not have surrendered.
View Quote
I don't believe that the Russians would have seen this coming. Stalin had signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler and they both were to invade Poland together, which Stalin carried out his part of the bargin. Stalin didn't really start to worry about Hitler until spring of 1940, which would be irrelevent to this senario because Hitler would have invaded in 1939. Even if Hitler didn't control all of Russia, he could have organized his supporters in Russian territories to fight waht was left of the red army (which would have been a lot). He would have killed all the controlling parties in all the states of Russia (he actually did have plans for this) thus causing chaos among troops, citizens, etc. Then as he captured armies he could just kill all the officers (as Stalin did) and make the troops swear loyalty to himself.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 12:41:58 PM EDT
I see your arguement now. It is a valid point. I personally still think the attack would have still failed, but that is just my opinion. As to weather the Russians would have seen it comming.. who knows, they had a great intelegence outfit, but again, it is hard to say. I don't know if your plan to take over part of Russian and use the population for their own use would have worked, but again, who knows. I really don't agree with most of what you say, but you do at LEAST give a good arguement for your opinion. It has made for some deep thinking on my part. "What ifs" are always hard to debate, too many outcomes.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 12:49:00 PM EDT
Hitler was an egomaniac who sought world domination and a Romanesque style empire in his own image. That's a very dangerous position. The Italians were/are fucking pathetic. The Japanese had neither the resources, skills, technical capacity, nor the training to be much more than annoying to America after they screwed up and attacked us. If the Nazis hadn't invaded Russia, maybe. The Italians were never players. The Japanese might have maintained their empire if they hadn't fucked with the big dog.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 12:49:46 PM EDT
LWilde, before I read the link I will say I agree with you in many repects. American AA was FAR more effective. And we all know about the rudder on the Bismark! I went out to see the Mighty Mo' last year.On each side of the ship was a large compas. Each compas was marked Henschel! How about that. A German compass on an American Battleship. As far as the Prinz Eugen, it played a major role in defensive support of the German forces that were decimated in the Pomerania and Memel areas. After the war it was used in the test at Bikini. Sad ending for such a graceful looking ship. I will take a look at your link.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top