Poll |
 |
|
 |
Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 21:35:39
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Savage Minotaur
Chicago
|
This really is impossible to decide. Germany would have dedicated many more troops to Russia instead of concentrating a lot in the west with Britain and France.
Would be a whole different world, though, scary to think, that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 21:54:51
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
What about if the Venezuelans and Canadians, backed by the British Empire, had declared war on the Austrians?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 21:57:56
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Kilkrazy wrote:What about if the Venezuelans and Canadians, backed by the British Empire, had declared war on the Austrians?
Austria wins, because they had Arnold's dad, Herold Schwarzennegar.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 22:01:30
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Oberleutnant
|
halonachos wrote:ArbeitsSchu wrote:You may have missed it, but I pointed out earlier that the Matilda II was immune to all German AT elements apart from the 88. That makes it "pretty good". That effectively makes it a very early "Tiger", except for the pop-gun.
Except for the fact that it was too heavy for the engine it had, took a long time to make(they had to grind away thick parts). It was also twin engine and that meant the crew had to maintain two engines instead of just one. It also meant that one could go out while the other one ran perfectly fine. It lacked High Explosive shells, was slow, and the steering was a bit off. Then later on the TD used by the Germans was replaced and they could engage them at range. Before that it took an anti-aircraft gun.
Insert *List of Tiger/Panther/KonigsTiger problems*.
Reverse the situation. Stick a 2 pounder with no HE on a Tiger, what have you got? Point is you've been somewhat under-rating the vehicle. Seems to me that an armoured vehicle that can only be stopped by a single asset in the entire German army including its tanks can't be all that terrible. even with engineering issues. Yeah, the British Army turned out some poor efforts and only really seems to have got it together when there was no point bothering, but comparatively, the old Duck MK2 was actually pretty good.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally, recent research on my extended family now reveals that members of it worked at both the Vulcan Works (nr Warrington, UK) where they made the MK2, and the Rolls Royce Clan Foundry in Belper, Derbyshire which was heavily involved in the Cromwell tank (and its sister vehicles.) I was quite impressed to learn that!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/01 22:06:14
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 22:11:41
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
The mechanical unreliability of Tigers and Panthers is horribly overplayed. The early production models of both had many problems as the Germans never seemed to do proper trials on their vehicles, but the Tigers and Panthers that began to see action in early 1944 were as mechanically reliable as other tanks of the era. The problem with both was more their production cost than their mechanical reliability (not to suggest they weren't mechanically complex to maintain).
The lack of fuel brought down more Tigers and Panthers than mechanical failure.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 22:34:10
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
In your base, ignoring your logic.
|
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Reverse the situation. Stick a 2 pounder with no HE on a Tiger, what have you got? Point is you've been somewhat under-rating the vehicle. Seems to me that an armoured vehicle that can only be stopped by a single asset in the entire German army including its tanks can't be all that terrible. even with engineering issues. Yeah, the British Army turned out some poor efforts and only really seems to have got it together when there was no point bothering, but comparatively, the old Duck MK2 was actually pretty good.
Except for the fact that the Tiger didn't have a 2 pdr and neither did the Panther then I would be inclined to agree with you. The Matilda had an inefficient weapon and heavy armor, the Tiger had an efficient weapon and heavy armor. Point goes to Tiger in my opinion.
After doing some research I found out that my grandfather maintained P-51s and my great grandfather was part of a TD crew on a half-track. They had a tank come from under a pond next to them.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 22:39:15
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Oberleutnant
|
halonachos wrote:ArbeitsSchu wrote:Reverse the situation. Stick a 2 pounder with no HE on a Tiger, what have you got? Point is you've been somewhat under-rating the vehicle. Seems to me that an armoured vehicle that can only be stopped by a single asset in the entire German army including its tanks can't be all that terrible. even with engineering issues. Yeah, the British Army turned out some poor efforts and only really seems to have got it together when there was no point bothering, but comparatively, the old Duck MK2 was actually pretty good.
Except for the fact that the Tiger didn't have a 2 pdr and neither did the Panther then I would be inclined to agree with you. The Matilda had an inefficient weapon and heavy armor, the Tiger had an efficient weapon and heavy armor. Point goes to Tiger in my opinion.
After doing some research I found out that my grandfather maintained P-51s and my great grandfather was part of a TD crew on a half-track. They had a tank come from under a pond next to them.
I had to read that last line twice before I realised what you were saying. A Tank "submerged in a pond".
|
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 22:58:34
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General
|
Germany would have lost. Europe just would've been a lot more red in the end.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 23:01:21
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche
|
That sounds about right...
|
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/01 23:05:55
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Oberleutnant
|
Anyway, the best way for the Germans to win WW2 is to not invade Poland. Instant win because it never starts. Do it a little later on in the "Thousand Year Reich".
|
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/02 01:08:30
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
LordofHats wrote:Not just that but their relatively crappy armor. Armor was sacrificed for speed to quickly ambush and attack enemy tanks, but even before the Germans lost the ability to amasss tanks for breakthroughs the idea of finding some German tanks strolling around by their lonesome was slim, and the TD's were not well intigrated into a combined arms force (their entire concept was based of the idea of aggressively pursuing and destroying German tanks. McNair failed to realize that German tank breakthroughs went supported by artillery, aircraft, and mechanized infantry all things he failed to take into consideration when designing the concept. True, but similar lightly armoured designs were found among the Germans with the Marder and Hetzer tank destroyers, and they had considerably more success. In part this is due to Germany being on the defensive more, but also because the gun was considerably more capable against allied tanks. The armor really came to be a big problem in Western Europe it where the idea of being able to roam around at speed and kill tanks became even more dubious due to terrain. I don't argue against the rationale for a TD doctrine, just that the one McNair and Bruce developed was not one that had been well thought out or integrated into an armed force. Yeah, that's fair. Firefly's were developed for use with Cruiser tanks, as the standard Cromwell lacked the firepower to deal with Tigers and Panthers. The idea was that they'd cruise with the Cromwells, but of course the opportunity to employ cruisers rarely came (the Firefly was really just a stop gap for the Comet and other heavy cruisers). And the British did have Tank Destroyers, as their doctrine didn't have tanks fighting tanks but supporting infantry and cruising. They had their share of M10's, and upgraded them later in the war with 17 pdrs to create the Achilles. Yeah, attaching your limited numbers of more capable tank destroyers to your regular tank units was a much more effective strategy in hindsight. Mind you, a far better strategy is for all your tanks to be capable of taking out enemy tanks at range, but you fight with the army you have, not the army you want, as the saying goes. British and US armor doctrines really just through around different names but functionally were more or less the same. The suffered the same problem against German armor, in that their standard tanks often ended up having to fight them because there were never enough tank destroyers and because you often didn't have time in an advance to simply wait for a TD to stroll up and kill that panzer that's in your way. It seems it was fairly common WWII for highly specialised equipment requiring organisational co-ordination to be properly deployed to almost always fail. I think that was one of the big lessons of WWII, just because you can build a clever vehicle, doesn't mean you'll be able to co-ordinate it's effective use in combat. Which, as you pointed out, is one of the things leading to the MBT. Automatically Appended Next Post: Doctadeth wrote:One of my Military history magazines conjectured that if the USA hadn't intervened in WW2, Japan would have pretty much captured Asia and part of Australia. Australia is pretty easy to land on, and without the carriers the USA had, the allies would have had a tough time trying to match the japanese air capacity in the pacific. I have a really hard time figuring out how they might have invaded Australia. I mean, if you can't supply 1,500 troops in the North of Indonesia, how do you think they would have managed to supply an even greater force heading further South? I guess in part the supply difficulties were due to Japanese defeat in the Timor Sea, but even without that they were never particularly capable of supplying their land forces, armies in China had been regularly going without fully supply for years by that point. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:What if the Germans and Russians had teamed up against the USA? They would have spent a long time trying to figure out how to cross an ocean, I suspect. Automatically Appended Next Post: purplefood wrote:A German Blitzkrieg through Canada and into North America may have worked fairly well if combined with an attack from the south by Mexico at the same time... That supply line is horrendous. I'm not sure what forces the USA had to protect itself against a land invasion however. Ocean. Automatically Appended Next Post: purplefood wrote:That sounds about right... I'd been saying it for six pages...
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2011/06/03 03:57:24
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/02 15:22:52
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
In your base, ignoring your logic.
|
The US had two oceans and a Navy. The closest thing to the English Channel would be the Bering Strait and that goes into Alaska where its really cold.
The issue with sending forces to Mexico is that you're sending them into a desert area and then marching them to Texas where Frazzled lives. You would think that the Daschunds would follow their homeland, but no they're extremely loyal to the american way.
We also have the most warplanes developed which means an aerial invasion wouldn't work(they would be shot down) and a naval invasion wouldn't work(we would sink them).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/02 15:56:28
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Major
far away from Battle Creek, Michigan
|
LordofHats wrote:The mechanical unreliability of Tigers and Panthers is horribly overplayed. The early production models of both had many problems as the Germans never seemed to do proper trials on their vehicles, but the Tigers and Panthers that began to see action in early 1944 were as mechanically reliable as other tanks of the era. The problem with both was more their production cost than their mechanical reliability (not to suggest they weren't mechanically complex to maintain).
The lack of fuel brought down more Tigers and Panthers than mechanical failure.
1944 was too late of course. Had the tanks been reliable in 1942/43 they would have made a huge difference. So their unreliability is hardly overplayed.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/02 15:57:10
PROSECUTOR: By now, there have been 34 casualties.
Elena Ceausescu says: Look, and that they are calling genocide.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/02 16:07:47
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Anyway, the best way for the Germans to win WW2 is to not invade Poland. Instant win because it never starts. Do it a little later on in the "Thousand Year Reich".
Wunderbar!
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/02 16:59:13
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought
Potters Bar, UK
|
halonachos wrote:The issue with sending forces to Mexico is that you're sending them into a desert area and then marching them to Texas where Frazzled lives. You would think that the Daschunds would follow their homeland, but no they're extremely loyal to the american way.
Bwahaha!
i thought that was going to be a factual answer....i was wrong  (well kinda, im not arguing with the Wiener legions)
|
inmygravenimage wrote:Have courage, faith and beer, my friend - it will be done!
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Anonymity breeds aggression.
Chowderhead wrote:Just hit the "Triangle of Friendship", as I call it. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/02 17:26:32
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Texas in 1942 was hot, dry, and had few roads. It did have a lot of people with guns, and as noted, is the dark abode of Frazzled. I kind of think the US would have seen an invasion force coming.
Mexico, having effectively lost 3 wars with the US (independence, 1845, and Pershing's invasion), was not going to invade the US.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/02 23:34:23
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Oberleutnant
|
sebster wrote:
It seems it was fairly common WWII for highly specialised equipment requiring organisational co-ordination to be properly deployed to almost always fail. I think that was one of the big lessons of WWII, just because you can build a clever vehicle, doesn't mean you'll be able to co-ordinate it's effective use in combat.
Which, as you pointed out, is one of the things leading to the MBT.
Fairly common, but not the rule. I can think of quite a few highly specialized pieces of kit off the top of my head that did exactly what they were supposed to do, when they were supposed to do it, and where. Most of them seem to have been from the 79th Armoured. A fair few of them still have modern equivalents. Automatically Appended Next Post: halonachos wrote:The US had two oceans and a Navy. The closest thing to the English Channel would be the Bering Strait and that goes into Alaska where its really cold.
The issue with sending forces to Mexico is that you're sending them into a desert area and then marching them to Texas where Frazzled lives. You would think that the Daschunds would follow their homeland, but no they're extremely loyal to the american way.
We also have the most warplanes developed which means an aerial invasion wouldn't work(they would be shot down) and a naval invasion wouldn't work(we would sink them).
DAK seemed to work quite well in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria, and those are all pretty "deserty" places. I don't think "desert" in and of itself is enough to stop an invasion of the USA. Texas certainly isn't as inhospitable as the Quattara depression.
I gather the point of going via South America is that troops and such could be landed traditionally in friendly ports, forgoing the need for a D-Day style operation. So the real stumbling block for a theoretical invasion of the USA by "The Nazis" is the transporting. The Atlantic isn't the private boating lake that the Med or the Channel are, and securing it is far from simple.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/02 23:51:22
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/02 23:54:28
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Frazzled wrote:
Mexico, having effectively lost 3 wars with the US (independence, 1845, and Pershing's invasion), was not going to invade the US.
Only 2 of those are wars, and the last one was nearly 100 years prior to the relevant period.
Having lost to the US before was not a determining factor in the lack of willingness in the Mexican state for an invasion of the US. Mexico wasn't going to invade the US because the had nothing to gain by doing so.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 04:03:01
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Fairly common, but not the rule. I can think of quite a few highly specialized pieces of kit off the top of my head that did exactly what they were supposed to do, when they were supposed to do it, and where. Most of them seem to have been from the 79th Armoured. A fair few of them still have modern equivalents.
There's a fair number, for sure, it is a fairly general rule. Automatically Appended Next Post: ArbeitsSchu wrote:I gather the point of going via South America is that troops and such could be landed traditionally in friendly ports, forgoing the need for a D-Day style operation. So the real stumbling block for a theoretical invasion of the USA by "The Nazis" is the transporting. The Atlantic isn't the private boating lake that the Med or the Channel are, and securing it is far from simple.
If you doubt the effectiveness of the US in destroying an enemy's naval lines of supply, look at what the US did to Japanese shipping over the war. And the US had to go to the other side of the Pacific to handle that, imagine what they would have done operating from their own coastal ports?
There's also the point that we're talking about a horrendously long line of supply. I mean, the allies undertook D-Day because moving through Italy was too long a line of supply, so you can imagine how impossible it would have been to cross the Atlantic, land in some South American port and then drive troops all the way up through Central America.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/03 04:08:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 04:16:58
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
In your base, ignoring your logic.
|
Frazzled wrote:Texas in 1942 was hot, dry, and had few roads. It did have a lot of people with guns, and as noted, is the dark abode of Frazzled. I kind of think the US would have seen an invasion force coming. I think that the Germans would've entered Texas only to have Mexico surrender to the US after the Texans invaded Mexico on their own. The German invaders, now hoplessly stranded in America would surrender due to lack of supplies and they would get jobs at local McDonald's restaurants. Germany lack a lot of troop transports that weren't planes seeing as though they focused on U-Boats. Unfortunately for them we developed ships to sink u-boats, and Germany had no long-range bombers that they could use to support their troops immediately, they would need to be stationed in Mexico. Which is cool except for the fact that we're right there with a force of 40,000 tanks and 300,000+ aircraft, completely feasible for Germany to invade. By feasible I mean Germany would prefer schnitzel over chorizo.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/03 04:17:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 10:58:38
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Well, assuming that the Germans waited until the end of WW2 to ally with Australia and Mexico, the US would have had the 40,000 tanks and 300,000 aircraft minus the obsolete, used up and destroyed examples.
Not to mention, no Merlin engines for the P51D.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 11:19:13
Subject: Re:World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
DAK seemed to work quite well in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria, and those are all pretty "deserty" places. I don't think "desert" in and of itself is enough to stop an invasion of the USA. Texas certainly isn't as inhospitable as the Quattara depression.
North Africa didn't have a hundred thousand rednecks coming to kill you. We know how to deal with invaders. But it does have alll the North Africa problems the Afrika Korps had X10: a logistics nightmare plus constant attacks on your supply lines. Hell they wouldn't have supply lines.
of course if they made it to frericksburg they'd come across Oma's and just go " WTF, are we in Germany?" and start raising crops. Again.
I gather the point of going via South America is that troops and such could be landed traditionally in friendly ports, forgoing the need for a D-Day style operation. So the real stumbling block for a theoretical invasion of the USA by "The Nazis" is the transporting. The Atlantic isn't the private boating lake that the Med or the Channel are, and securing it is far from simple.
***They couldn't cross the British Channel. How they hell are they going to cross the Atlantic? Hey look at all those aircraft flying overhead? I've not seen those before. Oh crap all our battleships just disappeared. Oh its ok here come some more battleships. Oh wait why does one have a Texas flag on it?
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 11:21:01
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
Germans wouldnt of won, they were obviously the bad guys, they never win
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 11:21:54
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Oberleutnant
|
All this theorizing rather fails if we lack a couple of certainties. If we are talking about a German invasion of the USA, at what point does the timeline diverge? At what point does it become "the plan"? I would have thought that if invading the US were a long term central aim, perhaps decided in 38 or 39, then the development of the Kriegsmarine would have taken a different route. Given enough impetus, we are looking at a pattern of development of ships or U-boats or even planes that are intended for this invasion role, in a similar fashion to the way that the allies ended up developing specific invasion materials.
On the other hand, if we are postulating no war in Europe, but simply war declared on the USA, its not hard to postulate an Atlantic "Pearl Harbour", perhaps from Iceland. If the US could be caught by surprise halfway through a global conflict, then they could certainly have been caught out elsewhere. What about if the following occurs: After the invasion of Poland, Hitler keeps his non-aggression pact with Stalin, and continues to receive goods from the Soviets. Instead of starting the war he should have known would end him, just like it ended Napoleon before him, he decides that the USA provides a feasible "lebensraum". No Eastern Front. Even with a failed "Sealion" we are looking at a markedly different process. No Eastern Front could mean a better supplied DAK (or its predecessor), which may well mean a fallen Egypt and Iraq, and a controlled Suez. That sort of pressure might well turn the Turks into an Axis power. At each turn, what Germany needs changes, and its potential shifts. with Suez taken and Middle Eastern oil on tap, Germany has far less fuel issues and greatly increased resources. India is threatened, the UK facing greater supply problems, thus becoming much less of a threat to cross-Atlantic operations. And I haven't even got as far as such concepts as a Troop-carrying U-boat.
Basically, without a feasible starting point, most of this "The Germans only had this and that" argument makes no sense. Different requirements leads to different developments, lead to different situations. Its foolish to collapse a "what if" scenario based on something like "The Kriegsmarine didn't have any troop-carriers" or "The Germans spent all their money on U-Boats." or "The Luftwaffe never developed a long ranger bomber fleet."
|
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 11:22:27
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Kilkrazy wrote:Well, assuming that the Germans waited until the end of WW2 to ally with Australia and Mexico, the US would have had the 40,000 tanks and 300,000 aircraft minus the obsolete, used up and destroyed examples.
Not to mention, no Merlin engines for the P51D.
Thats ok. We had shooting stars coming into production.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 12:07:42
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Not without the Frank Whittle patents.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 12:13:16
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Kilkrazy wrote:Not without the Frank Whittle patents.
That never stopped us before...
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 13:03:43
Subject: Re:World War II victor
|
 |
Oberleutnant
|
Frazzled wrote:DAK seemed to work quite well in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria, and those are all pretty "deserty" places. I don't think "desert" in and of itself is enough to stop an invasion of the USA. Texas certainly isn't as inhospitable as the Quattara depression.
North Africa didn't have a hundred thousand rednecks coming to kill you. We know how to deal with invaders. But it does have alll the North Africa problems the Afrika Korps had X10: a logistics nightmare plus constant attacks on your supply lines. Hell they wouldn't have supply lines.
of course if they made it to frericksburg they'd come across Oma's and just go " WTF, are we in Germany?" and start raising crops. Again.
I gather the point of going via South America is that troops and such could be landed traditionally in friendly ports, forgoing the need for a D-Day style operation. So the real stumbling block for a theoretical invasion of the USA by "The Nazis" is the transporting. The Atlantic isn't the private boating lake that the Med or the Channel are, and securing it is far from simple.
***They couldn't cross the British Channel. How they hell are they going to cross the Atlantic? Hey look at all those aircraft flying overhead? I've not seen those before. Oh crap all our battleships just disappeared. Oh its ok here come some more battleships. Oh wait why does one have a Texas flag on it?
Rampant patriotism aside, citizens with private weaponry do not an Army make. (I once got told straight-faced that the entire US military couldn't defeat "Kentucky" because Kentuckians are 'ornery. I assume that Kentucky has a substantial surface-to-air deterrent and a healthy business in anti-tank weaponry.) I take "American citizens have guns and 'tude" defenses with a pinch of salt. Assuming that the US was invaded, I think its quite clear that Germany would have treated the population with exactly the same brutality as everywhere else, and treated francs tireurs and Resistance with brutal force.
I did qualify that desert in and of itself isn't a war winner. It makes it harder certainly, as would any extreme environment, but it isn't a defense on its own.
Bear in mind that crossing the Channel in an invasion planned at a moments notice in improvised transport against the undefeated and fully operational Home Fleet using an under-strength Kriegsmarine is a very different kettle of fish to crossing the Atlantic to a friendly coast-line. Its a different situation, and not really comparable. How easy or hard it is depends as much on when this attack occurs as anything else. If there is peace with America at the time, then its a lot easier. If there is peace with the UK then its about as difficult as a Strength Through Joy holiday cruise. It gets progressively harder during hostilities.
See what I mean about how daft this gets if you don't have a firm starting point?
|
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 13:15:12
Subject: Re:World War II victor
|
 |
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
If USA sent an entire generation too europe, and lost, who exactly would stop the German military just landing and doing whatever they wanted. USA was fighting a war on 2 fronts.
A few people with guns and a gungho attitude wouldnt be able to do a thing to a veteran military, thats just blind, foolish patriotism. The US would of lost, plain and simple.
No amounts of ifs, buts or coconuts would change that. If europe fell, america would follow. And even if they didnt invade, america would be financially ruined with extensive campaigns defending their allies. USA is not by any means invulnerable, it relies on its allies, it needs its allies.
Eventually, I would see China getting involved against Japan en masse, possibly ally with USA, but likely wouldnt of
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/03 14:59:31
Subject: World War II victor
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
In your base, ignoring your logic.
|
Kilkrazy wrote:Well, assuming that the Germans waited until the end of WW2 to ally with Australia and Mexico, the US would have had the 40,000 tanks and 300,000 aircraft minus the obsolete, used up and destroyed examples.
Not to mention, no Merlin engines for the P51D.
We had other planes besides the P-51(which was made only to escort bombers on long-distance trips). That and we had the P-51 before the Merlin engine, its just that the Merlin engine allowed the P-51 to climb to higher altitudes.
There's a reason we had P-51A, P-51B, P-51C, and P-51D(the D was the first to use the Merlin engine), we had plenty of other planes and the ability to rapidly manufacture tanks and still had room to train the crews.
We also had P-38's(which were also long range) and P-47's.
China would ally itself with the US seeing as though we were already helping them. America would not be ruined economically, we made money by selling arms to our allies and some of them paid in gold. The question was if Russia and Germany were allies and if they were allies chances are WW2 didn't happen, although if europe fell and we didn't send troops we would still last as resistance fighters fought the germans and we waited for the germans to try to ship forces over. We would be able to stop their troops in their aircraft or in their boats before they reached the shore, and even if some did make it we would still be able to bomb them.
If Europe fell we would've been just fine.
|
|
 |
 |
|