Something I forgot - the Germans didn’t have a bomb heavy enough to penetrate the deck armour of British battleships, so they couldn’t have destroyed the Home Fleet from the air even if they’d have wanted to.
Hi
1st post
Interstiing site and good discussion here.
Could germany have won WW2?
NO
Not a chance. In 1945 one of the german cities would have been hit by an atomic bomb.
End of war…
No what if at all in my opinion.
Maybe. The other alternative (if Germany had done very well, say taking the UK somehow and managing a stalemate in Russia) would be for the US to go for a large scale attack instead with roughly 200 weapons some time in 1947. This has actually been gamed out by someone who used to targeteer nuclear weapons for the US government, and written up as a superb piece of alternate history ( http://p074.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm24.showMessage?topicID=51.topic - be warned that the denizens of that board have much less patience than is common around here and several of you would get banned in a heartbeat if you post there like you do here). In it, German civilization is effectively destroyed in the space of about two hours - and the terrifying bit is that he actually gives the Germans more chances than they would plausibly get in real life while restricting the US to technology they actually built by 1947 (the Germans are much less restricted). Something like 80% of the German population is killed in the strike.
Shows up the paradox really - the better Germany does in WW2, the worse the final outcome is for them. If they do too well, they get totally destroyed.
I kinda doubt that the Americans would have used the A-bomb on the Germans. Not unless we really had to. You have to remember that we treated German POW’s better than we treated normal American Japanese citizens. Hell even better than we treated African-Americans. Most Americans considered the Japanese kind of a joke untill Pearl Harbor. But even after that a somewhat of inferior race. Dont forget that anti-semitism wasnt in Germany and Japan alone. It was present in all countries but thankfully to a lesser degree.
BDL
Wasn’t having a go at the Yanks, merely spreading education. The British invented a range of tanks known as Hobart’s Funnies (the guy who ran the programme was Colonel Hobbart), based on Sherman and Churchill chassis, which would have made tha Americans lives on Omaha a lot easier - Spigot tanks firing a 270mm naval depth charge to take out gun emplacements, fascine tanks dropping large bundles of wood in trenches to allow gun tanks to cross, flail tanks to beat the ground with large chains mounted on a drum in front of the tank and detonate land mines. There were others but I’m doing this off the top of my head. The Americans were offered all of these and rejected them, with fatal results on your beaches. Had you had the Special Tanks like we did, you would have cleared the beaches much faster.
There has been a lot of debate about the US use of the 79 armoured div (Hobart was a Maj Gen ex Indian army). Although the designs were there the downer vehicles were not. I have seen written document, which suggests that they would not have been able to make them even if they could. The main problem with Omaha beach was that the tanks were launched too early and were pushed down coast by the current and swamped. If they had taken them closer, a mile instead of 6, they would have had a major effect on casualties. But all in all the US was not overly enamoured with the funnies. A lot of the designs are still in use today.
Bridge layer (go back to WW1)
Mine plough (go back to WW1)
Carpet layer but now on a truck
Fascines on the side of vehicles (go back to WW1)
The AVRE went out in the mid 80s (flying dust bin)
The flamethrowers came in two types the one on churchills (crocodile) and the wasp on bren carriers.
The Churchill provided most of the chassis for fighting vehicles and the valentines most of the bridge vehicles. The DD was originally for valentines but changed to Shermans in the same way that the crab had moved from matilda to Shermans.
Cheers for that 2nd of Foot, I knew that the Yanks had launched their tanks too early, didn’t know Hobart had been a General though :shock:
[quote=“Gen_Sandworm”]
I kinda doubt that the Americans would have used the A-bomb on the Germans. Not unless we really had to. You have to remember that we treated German POW’s better than we treated normal American Japanese citizens. Hell even better than we treated African-Americans. Most Americans considered the Japanese kind of a joke untill Pearl Harbor. But even after that a somewhat of inferior race. Dont forget that anti-semitism wasnt in Germany and Japan alone. It was present in all countries but thankfully to a lesser degree.[/quote]
I dont believe for 1 minute that the US wouldnt have used the A Bomb on Germany if it was ready in time. After all, the allies bombed the heck out of german cities with no regard for casualties. The same analogy that would save allied lives in an assault on Japan would have worked for an assualt on Germany. No the Nazis were pure evil and much more so than the japanese, so it would have been used. And, if it saved 1 allied life, why not! War is hell.
Maybe. The other alternative (if Germany had done very well, say taking the UK somehow and managing a stalemate in Russia) would be for the US to go for a large scale attack instead with roughly 200 weapons some time in 1947. This has actually been gamed out by someone who used to targeteer nuclear weapons for the US government, and written up as a superb piece of alternate history ( http://p074.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm24.showMessage?topicID=51.topic - be warned that the denizens of that board have much less patience than is common around here and several of you would get banned in a heartbeat if you post there like you do here). In it, German civilization is effectively destroyed in the space of about two hours - and the terrifying bit is that he actually gives the Germans more chances than they would plausibly get in real life while restricting the US to technology they actually built by 1947 (the Germans are much less restricted). Something like 80% of the German population is killed in the strike.
Shows up the paradox really - the better Germany does in WW2, the worse the final outcome is for them. If they do too well, they get totally destroyed.[/quote]
An excellent what if and very well written, thanks for that link. I was compelled to read it. Some inaccuracies but very good nonetheless.
What, out of curiosity? I’ve yet to catch Stuart being mistaken in anything, and that is quite a record, so if he’s made a mistake I’m very curious as to what it is.
What you have to remember is that had Hitler defeated the UK in 1940 he is unlikely to have declared war on the US in 1941, remember the US still had no particular reason to get involved in Europe even after Pearl Harbour. So it is possible that Hitler could’ve held onto Europe and not had to fight the US. Had that happened who knows the outcome?
Robert Harris has written a very interesting book alongthe lines called Fatherland.
Its remarkable, unfortuantely the NAZI’s won the war and failed to mention the Holocaust to their good citizens - telling them they ahd deported all jews to Madagascar I beleive. Through the course of the book the truth is discovered etc etc…
Jolly good read.
What, out of curiosity? I’ve yet to catch Stuart being mistaken in anything, and that is quite a record, so if he’s made a mistake I’m very curious as to what it is.[/quote]
I suppose it has been debated to death over there. However his suppositions are absolute and all the US technology is war based. The US wouldnt have developed 1/2 the aircraft they did, nor the electronic technology if they hadnt gone to war.
Also, german Jet engine technology is taken as an absolute and that they struggled to improve power output. If the Germans had taken over the UK, they would have had access to some excellent UK engine technology both Jet and piston.
Again, they would also have had access to British long range bombers, such as the excellent Lancaster.
Finally, the USA is presumed to have all the time in the world to assist the USSR, which conveniently has no Stalin now, and bring about a change in the German priorities.
As I said, bloody good piece of fiction, no more, as events in real life shape events further along the chain. Without USA going to war in 1941, there would be no A-Bomb or B36 in 1947.
the war was like it was.To have different ressults,there should be different alliances,we know the most powerfull countries in ww2 were germany,urss,england and the usa. the important things are the relations with other countries,it isn`t the same fighting at the side of china as fighting at side of uruguay.
Oh, it’s absolutely a piece of fiction. However, he’s done a good job of convincing me that it’s the most likely course of events following a successful Halifax-Butler coup in June 1940.
The US rearmament is precipitated by the shock of Germany taking over all of Europe in a few weeks in 1940 - the US had after all fought a war with Germany only 25 years before, and the “Neutrality Patrol” was all but fighting German U-boats by the time the UK would have capitulated in this alt-hist. This (supposedly) precipitated US rearmament on a large scale (as latter happened after Pearl Harbour). The major difference is in the type of weaponry produced - the only bombers built are the B-29 (obselete) and B-36, while the USN gets a lot of carriers.
With German jet technology, the major problems were access to strategic metals (particularly nickel) which would not have been helped by a UK capitulation, and the fact that many people working on them weren’t very good engineers. I’m not sure that this would have been improved after the capture of the UK, given the “not invented here” mentality sure to prevail.
Finally, Stalin was supposedly killed in the siege of Moscow - he shaved off his moustache and fought as a Private. This explains his appearance as a saint in the sequel The Great Game…
And yes, they are addictive. I need more!!!
<Good thing he’s currently doing Anvil of Necessity then!>
Germany could have most certainly won the war. Luckily they didn’t. If they hadnt tried to go start something over in Russia, then they probably could have had a much better shot at winning. But the soviet army and the harsh russian winters made the German Russian conflict tilt to the Soviet side, alot.
I think germany lost because of italy intervention :lol: ,they needed lots of help of german troops,so,they delayed the germans attacks at other fronts.
Without a doubt. I just read an excellent book on the the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain. It went into detail about how close the War Cabinet was to capitulating and suing for peace during the Battle of France. The only thing that stopped it was Churchill.
The US was so sure that GB would fall that they began making arrangements via Canada to make sure the Royal Navy was not turned over to Germany like the French fleet.
Letting the Luftwaffe finish off the British at Dunkirk was a major blunder. It allowed hundreds of thousands of combat seasoned troops escape to fight another day.
The Luftwaffe basically eliminated the RAF fighter command before they accidentally bombed London. This bombing prompted GB to bomb to Berlin which got Hitler so upset he started bombing population centers in merry old england. This strengthened British public opinion against Hitler and really put an apathethic public behind continued resistance.
If GB capitulated, there would be no need to invade. Htiler gets western Europe. The USSR gets eastern europe. Let’s remember that USSR got half of Poland with the non-agression pact.
No need to invade USSR or if they do, no two-front war.
And lets remember that the US did not declare war on Germany until after Hitler, for a change, kept his word on the Japan alliance and declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. The US then declared war on Germany. No direct US invlovement, no GB in the alliance, no allied victory.
WW2 does not escalate and we would call it something else. Feel free to pick a name for the 1939-1940 conflict that ended with a British deal.
Check the figures in my post mate, we had more fighters in November 1940 than in July 1940 - Fighter Command was stronger by the end of the battle than at the end.
The biggest obstacle to Germany winning the war were the Nazis themselves, especially Hitler with his constant meddling into the affairs ofg the military. But on the other hand, without the Nazis the war would have never started.
Jan
Well, materials are one thing. I don’t dispute the RAF had more planes/. The biggest RAF problem was dead/wounded pilots and unusable runways. The constant early attacks on RAF airfields were preventing sortees for the defense. After the runways were cratered, the Germans started realizing the radar was killing them and were targeting that on off days for the airfields. Then they got away from that and went for civvie targets. There’s no way the Germans could have won regardless. They had the pilots but the aircraft losses were killing them. They lost more pilots as well since many were shot down over GB (had more trained though due to Spain and Poland). No runways, no radar and no pilots for GB equals a draw in the Battle of Britain Would the Germans invade? Unlikely. Would the Brits sue for peace? Hmmmmm. Makes you think about it.