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.

Agreed we're talking about multiple scenarios at the same time.

Are we discussing some sort of German/USSR alliance against the USA wherein WWII never happened (or at least never made it to the invasion of USSR stage); Germany didn't face the USA and somehow managed to conquer all Europe and the USSR; Germany attaclking the USSr with the USA sitting it out and selling everyone burgers and buicks, WHATS GOING ON FRED?

I was talking about if Germany defeated the allies in europe, withdrew from USSR and invaded USA

halonachos wrote:

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.

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.

You may be thumbnailing the tale for shortness, but your list of how you would be able to stop this and defeat that has the ring of propaganda about it. The kind of propaganda that says "We have the Armoured FEAR launcher, thus the Allies will be stopped in Normandy." or "If bombs fall on Berlin, you may call me meier." In any situation where the Germans win in the European theater, they must have either allied with or defeated the whole Soviet Union, They must also have defeated the American armies in Europe, which is a hefty chunk of military. They must also have forced the defeat or surrender of the UK and inevitably some or all of its Dominions. Having done this, the Wermacht now has access to all the facilities, manufacturing capabilities, and materials in those nations, or (in the case of surrender) access to them as allies. A Kriegsmarine with access to the greater part of the Royal Navy becomes a much scarier prospect. (That's the whole reason why the Royal Navy sank the French Navy..because nobody needs the Kriegsmarine getting its hands on one of the largest modern fleets in Europe. ) And that is just a part of it. A Wermacht with access to the manufacturing facilities for the T-34 is going to make one hell of a mess. It goes on. For that matter, if the allies are defeated in Europe, the Wermacht suddenly has access to the facilities used to invade Europe. That's quite a lot of purpose-built landing craft right there.

Or there is the moral angle. Your vast and apparently totally brilliant immune to everything armies in Europe just got annihilated. How many of your voters are suddenly interested in not being at war with the enemy that did that? Especially when its only Europe, and nobody gives a damn about Europe. The complete defeat of the American forces in Europe would almost inevitably mean a huge lose for the administration. Are the voters going to continue to agree to war, or desire to cut their losses and pull out? In fairness, they might get a big revenge thing going on. Who knows? But given that a fair number of American military types were against "Europe First", a massive loss there would just reinforce their position.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

halonachos wrote:

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.

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.

You may be thumbnailing the tale for shortness, but your list of how you would be able to stop this and defeat that has the ring of propaganda about it. The kind of propaganda that says "We have the Armoured FEAR launcher, thus the Allies will be stopped in Normandy." or "If bombs fall on Berlin, you may call me meier." In any situation where the Germans win in the European theater, they must have either allied with or defeated the whole Soviet Union, They must also have defeated the American armies in Europe, which is a hefty chunk of military. They must also have forced the defeat or surrender of the UK and inevitably some or all of its Dominions. Having done this, the Wermacht now has access to all the facilities, manufacturing capabilities, and materials in those nations, or (in the case of surrender) access to them as allies. A Kriegsmarine with access to the greater part of the Royal Navy becomes a much scarier prospect. (That's the whole reason why the Royal Navy sank the French Navy..because nobody needs the Kriegsmarine getting its hands on one of the largest modern fleets in Europe. ) And that is just a part of it. A Wermacht with access to the manufacturing facilities for the T-34 is going to make one hell of a mess. It goes on. For that matter, if the allies are defeated in Europe, the Wermacht suddenly has access to the facilities used to invade Europe. That's quite a lot of purpose-built landing craft right there.

Or there is the moral angle. Your vast and apparently totally brilliant immune to everything armies in Europe just got annihilated. How many of your voters are suddenly interested in not being at war with the enemy that did that? Especially when its only Europe, and nobody gives a damn about Europe. The complete defeat of the American forces in Europe would almost inevitably mean a huge lose for the administration. Are the voters going to continue to agree to war, or desire to cut their losses and pull out? In fairness, they might get a big revenge thing going on. Who knows? But given that a fair number of American military types were against "Europe First", a massive loss there would just reinforce their position.

Well before you went off on your trip there you forgot the OP was that the US never entered the war, so no under that scenario the US and Germany have not fought yet.
You're also presupposing somehow that Germany managed to conquer East Europe, West Europe, and the USSR, and then immediately be able to turn around and build some sort of uber fleet without the US also not building up its fleet.

To the above, no one but Europeans care about battleships. The Japanese proved battleships were not just irrelevant, but vast treasure magnets that were easily disposed of. Let the Germans have the French fleet, even the British fleet, and steam with that hodge podge. We would have turned the Atlantic into a giant Iron Bottom sound with dead Germans.
Seriously.

Frazzled wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

halonachos wrote:

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.

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.

You may be thumbnailing the tale for shortness, but your list of how you would be able to stop this and defeat that has the ring of propaganda about it. The kind of propaganda that says "We have the Armoured FEAR launcher, thus the Allies will be stopped in Normandy." or "If bombs fall on Berlin, you may call me meier." In any situation where the Germans win in the European theater, they must have either allied with or defeated the whole Soviet Union, They must also have defeated the American armies in Europe, which is a hefty chunk of military. They must also have forced the defeat or surrender of the UK and inevitably some or all of its Dominions. Having done this, the Wermacht now has access to all the facilities, manufacturing capabilities, and materials in those nations, or (in the case of surrender) access to them as allies. A Kriegsmarine with access to the greater part of the Royal Navy becomes a much scarier prospect. (That's the whole reason why the Royal Navy sank the French Navy..because nobody needs the Kriegsmarine getting its hands on one of the largest modern fleets in Europe. ) And that is just a part of it. A Wermacht with access to the manufacturing facilities for the T-34 is going to make one hell of a mess. It goes on. For that matter, if the allies are defeated in Europe, the Wermacht suddenly has access to the facilities used to invade Europe. That's quite a lot of purpose-built landing craft right there.

Or there is the moral angle. Your vast and apparently totally brilliant immune to everything armies in Europe just got annihilated. How many of your voters are suddenly interested in not being at war with the enemy that did that? Especially when its only Europe, and nobody gives a damn about Europe. The complete defeat of the American forces in Europe would almost inevitably mean a huge lose for the administration. Are the voters going to continue to agree to war, or desire to cut their losses and pull out? In fairness, they might get a big revenge thing going on. Who knows? But given that a fair number of American military types were against "Europe First", a massive loss there would just reinforce their position.

Well before you went off on your trip there you forgot the OP was that the US never entered the war, so no under that scenario the US and Germany have not fought yet.
You're also presupposing somehow that Germany managed to conquer East Europe, West Europe, and the USSR, and then immediately be able to turn around and build some sort of uber fleet without the US also not building up its fleet.

To the above, no one but Europeans care about battleships. The Japanese proved battleships were not just irrelevant, but vast treasure magnets that were easily disposed of. Let the Germans have the French fleet, even the British fleet, and steam with that hodge podge. We would have turned the Atlantic into a giant Iron Bottom sound with dead Germans.
Seriously.

Doesn't matter if the Germans and the Yanks have been in combat or not. Still mostly applicable. Is this theoretical US still at war with Japan? Because if it is, then the greater part of all its efforts are going to be on the other side of the world. If the US never got involved in the first place to support the other European powers, then Roosevelt must have failed to convince them that they should. Perhaps in this alternate he dies earlier on? Whatever. Point is that Germany in this timeline has just conquered the whole of Europe, and must have either conquered or have some form of peace with the USSR. If it decides to turn its acquisitive gaze upon the USA, is this theoretical USA suddenly gifted with all the war materials it hadn't produced to not fight in Europe? Or is it actually concentrating all its efforts on Japan, the more obvious and active opponent? Or is it not at war with either? If it is not at war with either then it is probably still lining up all its toy soldiers (or battleships) in neat easy-to-torpedo rows.

I never mentioned Battleships. I mentioned "fleets". Thats the whole thing. Battleships, U-boats, the Admirals Dinghy. Are you seriously trying to suggest that an America NOT at war with anyone in Europe could suddenly go from its peace-time complement to equal to the combined fleets of Germany, the UK, and France as fast as Germany could capture them? This from a nation that was CAUGHT BY SURPRISE in the middle of a GLOBAL war?.

These WW2 What-if scenarios always seem to devolve into Americans proudly declaring how they can kill anything or out-gun everyone regardless of any reality..even when it flies in the face of actual events. "Texas is full of rednecks with guns so nobody could ever invade it." "The Atlantic Fleet we never built will sink the enemy if they invade, and if they do invade then the thousands of tanks we never made to fight in Europe will suddenly exist."

Actually, what I said up there about Roosevelt would make a likely point of divergence. If he dies early, then the key driving force behind supporting Europe against Hitler isn't there. Regular sales of materials might still happen, but lend-lease most likely would not. In order for Germany to win in Europe after that it needs to not declare war on the US, and either reach Moscow, or simply not invade Russia to start with. The former is the better for increasing its striking power against the rest of the world, the latter allows it to expend less of its own resources in holding Russia. Though that still remains academic once the uber-invincible ten foot tall bullet-proof Americans get involved, because they can defeat anything all the time and never die or lose.....

And again you get personal- for what again? You're essentially arguing that Germany conquers East Europe, West Europe, and the USSR, then spends years to build a cross ocean invasion force, something never before possible, and then manages to survive crossing such and invading a country as large as the country that beat them historically ibut is more advanced technologically. Good thing the US just asat around and did anything to its large existing fleet and didn't see the invasion coming, at all.

Who's the one making massive leaps of faith here?

Frazzled wrote:And again you get personal- for what again?

I had no idea that one person's account of his common experience with Americans was a matter of personal significance.

Frazzled wrote:
Good thing the US just asat around and did anything to its large existing fleet and didn't see the invasion coming, at all.

The one in the ocean on the other side of North and South America?

Frazzled wrote:The Japanese proved battleships were not just irrelevant, but vast treasure magnets that were easily disposed of.

Is that why we kept building them? Because they were irrelevant?

No, battleships have uses. They are remarkably effective at attacking and protecting shipping, supporting amphibious landings, and defending those lovely but vulnerable aircraft carriers by being both massive gun platforms, and tempting damage sinks.

Frazzled wrote:And again you get personal- for what again? You're essentially arguing that Germany conquers East Europe, West Europe, and the USSR, then spends years to build a cross ocean invasion force, something never before possible, and then manages to survive crossing such and invading a country as large as the country that beat them historically ibut is more advanced technologically. Good thing the US just asat around and did anything to its large existing fleet and didn't see the invasion coming, at all.

Who's the one making massive leaps of faith here?

Incorrect. I'm working off other peoples postulations that Germany somehow "wins" WW2. I also never suggested it would take them "years" to do anything, or that they would be building a purpose-built fleet. What I did postulate is that if they had successfully conquered Europe without American involvement, they would have access to amongst other things a great deal of the Naval ability of the subject nations, be it merchant or military, and the various industrial and military assets of those nations..in much the same way that they kept and used French and Czech assets, and the substantial Soviet ones they captured. So at this point we have a Greater German Reich with potentially the entire assets of Europe at hand, and potentially those of the British Empire as well. If the USA and Canada could get convoys one way, then I'm pretty sure that they could go back the other way. And I think I already mentioned about landing in friendly ports, thus avoiding having to "invade" by sea. None of that is particularly "Leap of faith", but logical progression. The only leap is the one someone else made by suggesting that Germany might win the war.

Also I'm not sure where you get "more advanced technologically" from. The USA had a larger industrial base than any single European nation which was unmolested militarily. Doesn't make it more advanced. US military technology mostly worked on their being more of it, not on being particularly advanced. What advancement there is relies on starting the war in 41, and the lessons learned from several disastrous engagements with veteran formations. (Same as happened in the first war.) Its not unlikely that in THIS 1944, the US is still fielding the Grant as its main tank, having never needed to develop the Sherman. (Given that the Grant is actually superlative at jungle combat, if the US were fighting the Japanese it might have favoured the Grant above any other design, based on the lessons learned.) For that matter, the doctrine used by the untried US Army might need a bit of a look at as well. If the rest of Europe fell for Blitzkrieg even after seeing it demonstrated in Poland, why would the USA have "got it"? As for "not seeing it coming"....need I remind you of Pearl AGAIN? Totally saw that one, didn't you....

Basically if you aren't in the war from 41, you can't lay claim to all the stuff that got done for Europe without a very good reason for having it.

A better scenario allowing a German victory starts with an event during the 1930's. If the Business Plot had come to fruition (rather then being stillborn) the American fascists might have never have allied against the Nazis, or possibly even sided with the Nazis. Without American manufacturing the British would have needed to rely on Commonwealth output (again assuming that they were not allied with the Nazis). In that scenario the British could not have held out.

Kilkrazy wrote:What if the Germans and Russians had teamed up against the USA?

We would be speaking one of the two languages...

Germany didn't put a lot of ship building towards battleships and several of Germany's battleships were sunk without allied help. Germany's main focus of ship building was put towards U-boats which are very ineffective transports for troops. Couple that with the development of sonar and other anti-uboat technologies and we have the ability to sink them.

There are wrecks of u-boats off of the eastern shore of the united states if you want to test that concept.

If the US feared an attack and didn't aid the British or any other ally we would have the necessary equipment to fend off an attack. We produced more aircraft than the russians and germans combined and were able to produce fantastic short range fighters along with other long range bombers and fighters.

The P-51 was used in Europe where there was an ability to land if something happened. The P-38 was used in the pacific theater as the wide stretch of ocean necessitated long range fighters.

I don't get how people often forget that unlike Europe, we have two oceans surrounding us and it takes days if not weeks and months to cross. Is it easy to secure, no but it's not easy to cross either. Hurricanes don't really hit Europe, but they sure as hell hit the Atlantic and the east coast of the United States and often occur during the spring and summer. So we have the potential damage to ships at sea during the warmer seasons.

After that we have the fact that major military bases and stations line the east and west coast. Past the coasts there are mountains and then a series of flatlands that comprise what is known as 'tornado alley'.

So we have natural barriers that aren't exactly the friendliest things to meet. We also have large fleets and superior air power which prevent ground forces from landing. After that we still have a formidable amount of ground forces that should be able to mop up any remaining troops.

If we did get involved and got our butt's kicked, sure the germans would be veterans and have all of the advantages of fighting in European terrain. Oh wait, that's European terrain. Who lives and trains in the United States, American forces so we have the advantage of knowing our terrain and knowing how to fight in it.

A german or russian soldier invading the east coast would have problems with the marshs and swamps in the east while American troops who may have lived there their entire lives outmaneuvered them using hit and run tactics.

German forces would cross the west coast only to face mountains and after the mountains a desert and they would have to change tactics and gear accordingly.

We're not like Europe with its almost homogenous selection of terrain, we're kind of mixed up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ arbeits, you do realize that the sherman was in use in 1942 right? That meant it was researched and developed in 1941 or previous.

Actually, it was designed in 1940 and saw production in 1941. I guess we did learn from example after all.

I love the fortress mentality demonstrated several times in this thread, in which America is some sort of invincible castle that no-one could ever possibly hope to touch or contest with.

halonachos wrote:
We're not like Europe with its almost homogenous selection of terrain, we're kind of mixed up.

Wait, what? Have you ever actually seen Europe?

ArbeitsSchu wrote: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."

I don't think you really get the strategic time frames it takes to build the infrastructure needed to construct and maintain a a fleet of ships. You measure these things in decades. In the meantime the US would be quite capable of responding as it saw fit.

You also missed, or more likely chose to ignore, the point I made about the ludicrous supply chain involved in landing in some South American port and then driving up through central America. Despite having an absolutely immense productive capacity, the US was significantly reduced in the amount of men and material it could bring to the European theatre because of it's distance from the front. The Germans had nowhere near that level of production, and the US wasn't also engaged in war with it's most powerful neighbours.

The only sensible conclusion is that any German attack, even with a decade or more of planning time, was doomed to complete failure.

So the general assumption is: Germany wouldn't win even if they wait longer, build up their forces and pick their enemies one by one?

Toastedandy wrote:I was talking about if Germany defeated the allies in europe, withdrew from USSR and invaded USA

Then we're talking about a USA and a Germany with massively different military capabilities than the one's that actually existed, and we need to acknowledge that.

Why not ask 'what if German production was 100% greater than it was, allowing them a fully motorised army, and twice the number of tanks and aircraft?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:You may be thumbnailing the tale for shortness, but your list of how you would be able to stop this and defeat that has the ring of propaganda about it. The kind of propaganda that says "We have the Armoured FEAR launcher, thus the Allies will be stopped in Normandy." or "If bombs fall on Berlin, you may call me meier." In any situation where the Germans win in the European theater, they must have either allied with or defeated the whole Soviet Union, They must also have defeated the American armies in Europe, which is a hefty chunk of military.

In any situation in which the Germans win in the European theatre, they must have had a vastly superior military to the one they had in reality. You can't escape this. You need to put it up front, and state 'if the German military was twice as powerful as it really was, enough to defeat the Allies in Europe, could it have then affected a seaborne invasion of the US?"

Even then the answer is 'probably not, because it's a really long way to go, even if you have a navy worth a damn'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:To the above, no one but Europeans care about battleships.

First up, it makes no sense to talk about Europeans and naval power. The only nation in Europe putting serious resources into naval power was Great Britain. The German efforts were a silly sideshow at best.

Second up, the Japanese and US were also spending considerable resource building battleships. Yamamoto? The entire fleet in Pearl Harbour? Everybody was committed to battleships, because everyone thought a battleship was able to dominate a sealane in a way nothing else could. It came as a massive surprise to the British, US, Germans and Japanese when battleships proved so vulnerable to aircraft - no-one realised how ineffective ship based guns would be against aircraft. It was one of those revelations that comes out of fighting in an entirely new combat environment.

The Royal Navy was a step behind the Japanese and US as they had even less acceptance of naval airpower, but even then they had carrier born Spitfires due for deployment in 1942.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:I love the fortress mentality demonstrated several times in this thread, in which America is some sort of invincible castle that no-one could ever possibly hope to touch or contest with.

There's a weird thing going on in this thread where people are choosing to see the basic realities of geography and distance as if they were arrogant nationalistic assumptions.

They're not. The national character of the US doesn't matter. It remains a near impossible thing to travel across the Atlantic and invade a developed country with a population of 140 million people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:So the general assumption is: Germany wouldn't win even if they wait longer, build up their forces and pick their enemies one by one?

That's right. Because the British had already defeated the (already very slim) chance of German invasion long before they received aid from the US, just by maintaining their aircraft strength in the Battle of Britain. Then the Soviets proved they had enough power to defeat the Germans by themselves.

Ketara wrote:I love the fortress mentality demonstrated several times in this thread, in which America is some sort of invincible castle that no-one could ever possibly hope to touch or contest with.

Until you build something called ICBMs its accurate. Even with ICBMs you can't really invade the US, or either of the Americas for that matter. Europeans grossly underappreciate the Latin American countries, which is especially humorous considering most of those countires are growing economically. Its part of the joke of the Red Dawn movies.

halonachos wrote:Germany didn't put a lot of ship building towards battleships and several of Germany's battleships were sunk without allied help. Germany's main focus of ship building was put towards U-boats which are very ineffective transports for troops. Couple that with the development of sonar and other anti-uboat technologies and we have the ability to sink them.

There are wrecks of u-boats off of the eastern shore of the united states if you want to test that concept.

If the US feared an attack and didn't aid the British or any other ally we would have the necessary equipment to fend off an attack. We produced more aircraft than the russians and germans combined and were able to produce fantastic short range fighters along with other long range bombers and fighters.

The P-51 was used in Europe where there was an ability to land if something happened. The P-38 was used in the pacific theater as the wide stretch of ocean necessitated long range fighters.

I don't get how people often forget that unlike Europe, we have two oceans surrounding us and it takes days if not weeks and months to cross. Is it easy to secure, no but it's not easy to cross either. Hurricanes don't really hit Europe, but they sure as hell hit the Atlantic and the east coast of the United States and often occur during the spring and summer. So we have the potential damage to ships at sea during the warmer seasons.

After that we have the fact that major military bases and stations line the east and west coast. Past the coasts there are mountains and then a series of flatlands that comprise what is known as 'tornado alley'.

So we have natural barriers that aren't exactly the friendliest things to meet. We also have large fleets and superior air power which prevent ground forces from landing. After that we still have a formidable amount of ground forces that should be able to mop up any remaining troops.

If we did get involved and got our butt's kicked, sure the germans would be veterans and have all of the advantages of fighting in European terrain. Oh wait, that's European terrain. Who lives and trains in the United States, American forces so we have the advantage of knowing our terrain and knowing how to fight in it.

A german or russian soldier invading the east coast would have problems with the marshs and swamps in the east while American troops who may have lived there their entire lives outmaneuvered them using hit and run tactics.

German forces would cross the west coast only to face mountains and after the mountains a desert and they would have to change tactics and gear accordingly.

We're not like Europe with its almost homogenous selection of terrain, we're kind of mixed up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ arbeits, you do realize that the sherman was in use in 1942 right? That meant it was researched and developed in 1941 or previous.

Actually, it was designed in 1940 and saw production in 1941. I guess we did learn from example after all.

Again you're populating the theoretical alternate with real world examples. Yes, in reality Germany neglected its Navy and concentrated on U-Boats designed expressly to hunt shipping. But we aren't discussing what they DID, but what they might have/could have done. If a war aim of the Reich is the conquest of the USA as opposed to the USSR, then obviously things would move differently, be designed differently, and so forth. Likewise, U-boats as used were for hunting and killing ships and thus are useless for troop carrying. Its amazing how things designed for a specific purpose can be really bad at something else. Whitley bombers are rubbish for paratroops...so some bright spark found a better plane for the job. IF Germany decided that under-sea transportation was on the cards, then U-boats would have been designed and built with that purpose in mind, and been much better at it, Maybe not superlative, given the limitations of the concept, but purpose-built nevertheless.

"If the US feared an attack and didn't aid the British or any other ally we would have the necessary equipment to fend off an attack. "

See that first part? That there is your fatal flaw. You have to be aware of the possibility to defend against it, and I remind you again that the almighty USA was attacked and taken BY SURPRISE in the actual war, suffered great damage and very nearly lost its ability to war-fight effectively in the Pacific. Lets take a look at Germany...who managed to attack Russia by surprise and very nearly win the day despite the fact that Germany had been openly advertising its hatred of Bolshevism and desire for lebensraum. Not the greatest basis for a surprise and yet they caught the Russians with their pants down. We are talking about the same nation that, even on its last legs, embattled from all sides, and apparently completely crushed, managed to surprise the US Army by attacking through the Ardennes FOR THE THIRD TIME in two wars. So excuse me If I do not credit the USA with an amazing ability to predict when it is going to be attacked.

As for your "terrain" defense...quite obviously you've never seen Europe, or the terrain in it. Nor were you paying any attention to how the German military operated very well in all manner of terrain, a lot of it quite unpleasant. Who hasn't got mountains? Never heard of a Gebirgsjager? the Deutsche AFRIKA korps? And clearly you aren't aware of the sheer variety of terrain in the USSR either. You're being ridiculous. ALL of the terrain in the USA exists elsewhere. Not to mention the fact that invading and conquering a nation does not mean wading through the bayou pointlessly for days. Would someone invading the UK head for London, or the empty wilds of Cumbria? Lets not forget that the swamp-dwelling GI's with their local knowledge have probably not been up a mountain either. Besides, even with your vast terrain experience, the USA managed to fail to equip its soldiers on several occasions for bad weather, even had trouble giving its troops a hot meal in wintertime... Why would your quartermasters be any better up a mountain in Nevada?

I'll remind you again as well that if convoys can travel one way, then there is no physical reason why they cannot travel in the other. (And in fact they did do that, bad weather notwithstanding.)

By all means, argue against the likelihood of a successful invasion, but please do try and do it sensibly, by actually considering the possibilities.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote: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."

I don't think you really get the strategic time frames it takes to build the infrastructure needed to construct and maintain a a fleet of ships. You measure these things in decades. In the meantime the US would be quite capable of responding as it saw fit.

You also missed, or more likely chose to ignore, the point I made about the ludicrous supply chain involved in landing in some South American port and then driving up through central America. Despite having an absolutely immense productive capacity, the US was significantly reduced in the amount of men and material it could bring to the European theatre because of it's distance from the front. The Germans had nowhere near that level of production, and the US wasn't also engaged in war with it's most powerful neighbours.

The only sensible conclusion is that any German attack, even with a decade or more of planning time, was doomed to complete failure.

No, I "get it". What I was arguing was the relative speeds of acquirement compared between having to "build" your fleets vs just pinching them. And that's just the military element. A merchant fleet can be acquired virtually over-night, simply by moving into the ports of a given nation. If Nation X already HAS a navy, and you capture it intact, you can double or even triple your strength without having to build a thing.

I hadn't particularly covered the problems inherent in continuous supply because I've been busy dealing with this constant magical ability for the US to have all the the things it had in 44, after 4 years of warfare and development, in an alternate 1940/41 or even 44 where it hasn't been at war, or gifting the US military-industrial complex with amazing powers of foresight it provably did not have, or ignoring the fact that war materials can be transported across the Atlantic. Until people stop applying this uber-future-soldier patriotic rubbish to it, then the rest is pretty pointless.

Anyway, if one really wants to nail the USA, then Alternate Hitler could do this: capture Moscow (nearly happened) and capture Egypt/Suez (also nearly happened), force the UK to capitulate, and then go through Russia towards China, take India, then Burma, join up with Japan and have a crack that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, try this instead: Clearly it is possible to ship war materials across the Atlantic. Europe contains enough shipping to match or surpass that used in the real convoys (much of it being the same ships, but in different hands.) So REALISTICALLY what stops the Kriegsmarine (supplemented by at least two other European navies, possibly more) from transporting war material TO the Americas? Lets assume this is an alternate 41, where the UK has been taken, and Russia is still an ally.

No, I "get it". What I was arguing was the relative speeds of acquirement compared between having to "build" your fleets vs just pinching them. And that's just the military element. A merchant fleet can be acquired virtually over-night, simply by moving into the ports of a given nation. If Nation X already HAS a navy, and you capture it intact, you can double or even triple your strength without having to build a thing.

I hadn't particularly covered the problems inherent in continuous supply because I've been busy dealing with this constant magical ability for the US to have all the the things it had in 44, after 4 years of warfare and development, in an alternate 1940/41 or even 44 where it hasn't been at war, or gifting the US military-industrial complex with amazing powers of foresight it provably did not have, or ignoring the fact that war materials can be transported across the Atlantic. Until people stop applying this uber-future-soldier patriotic rubbish to it, then the rest is pretty pointless.

Anyway, if one really wants to nail the USA, then Alternate Hitler could do this: capture Moscow (nearly happened) and capture Egypt/Suez (also nearly happened), force the UK to capitulate, and then go through Russia towards China, take India, then Burma, join up with Japan and have a crack that way.

(Edited as the original post sounds more hostile than meant.

Wait where did they amass a surprise merchant fleet from? I'm getting confused. So now Germany not only has defeated all of Europe, defeated the UK, USSR, and magically appeared with a merchant fleet substantially larger than what was around (it was the US merchant fleet that enabled an invasion, not the British merchant fleet). Meanwhile the US did nothing during this time, while Germany magically amalgamated these disparate countries?

So what happened, did they discover the Ark of the Covenant or something. I mean sure if Springtime for Hitler Germany is able to conquer Europe, Asia, and Africa, the US might have a problem, but er...really? I mean the USSR did in fact kick the crap of Germany. It wasn't even close.
If in an alternate scenario Hitler doesn't go after the USSR but somehow trusts them enough not to deploy his entire army, you're saying they are able to build a carrier based battle fleet faster than the US, plus an invasion fleet, and that they can support a logistics train thousands of miles long? This, the country that never won a naval battle, never had an aircraft carrier or even cared about them, vs. the USA which literally went apeshit naval combat wise 1941-1945?

When does this joy occur?

If its after 1944, what keeps their fleet from being nuked by a pissed off Doolitle? Frankly if the Germans have uber powers WHERE THE HELL IS SUPERMAN?

Frazzled wrote:

No, I "get it". What I was arguing was the relative speeds of acquirement compared between having to "build" your fleets vs just pinching them. And that's just the military element. A merchant fleet can be acquired virtually over-night, simply by moving into the ports of a given nation. If Nation X already HAS a navy, and you capture it intact, you can double or even triple your strength without having to build a thing.

I hadn't particularly covered the problems inherent in continuous supply because I've been busy dealing with this constant magical ability for the US to have all the the things it had in 44, after 4 years of warfare and development, in an alternate 1940/41 or even 44 where it hasn't been at war, or gifting the US military-industrial complex with amazing powers of foresight it provably did not have, or ignoring the fact that war materials can be transported across the Atlantic. Until people stop applying this uber-future-soldier patriotic rubbish to it, then the rest is pretty pointless.

Anyway, if one really wants to nail the USA, then Alternate Hitler could do this: capture Moscow (nearly happened) and capture Egypt/Suez (also nearly happened), force the UK to capitulate, and then go through Russia towards China, take India, then Burma, join up with Japan and have a crack that way.

(Edited as the original post sounds more hostile than meant.

Wait where did they amass a surprise merchant fleet from? I'm getting confused. So now Germany not only has defeated all of Europe, defeated the UK, USSR, and magically appeared with a merchant fleet substantially larger than what was around (it was the US merchant fleet that enabled an invasion, not the British merchant fleet). Meanwhile the US did nothing during this time, while Germany magically amalgamated these disparate countries?

So what happened, did they discover the Ark of the Covenant or something. I mean sure if Springtime for Hitler Germany is able to conquer Europe, Asia, and Africa, the US might have a problem, but er...really? I mean the USSR did in fact kick the crap of Germany. It wasn't even close.
If in an alternate scenario Hitler doesn't go after the USSR but somehow trusts them enough not to deploy his entire army, you're saying they are able to build a carrier based battle fleet faster than the US, plus an invasion fleet, and that they can support a logistics train thousands of miles long? This, the country that never won a naval battle, never had an aircraft carrier or even cared about them, vs. the USA which literally went apeshit naval combat wise 1941-1945?

When does this joy occur?

If its after 1944, what keeps their fleet from being nuked by a pissed off Doolitle? Frankly if the Germans have uber powers WHERE THE HELL IS SUPERMAN?

I'm not sure what it is you aren't getting about this "game". Its quite easy. By changing the outcome of certain events, you change the direction of other events. In the postulated alternative, Germany can lay claim to the combined shipping of THE WHOLE OF EUROPE and possibly even a substantial amount of shipping from around the world. America isn't the only place that builds boats y'know. That is still a substantial amount of shipping. Its even possible to postulate from that a situation where the combined resources of Europe and the whole British Empire are set against the USA. So, moving on from the fact that plenty of tonnage is available, what comes next? A destination. One option is to land in an allied nation and use that as a springboard. That shortens the supply lines substantially. In the same way that the UK served as a giant "carrier" for D-Day (today no less, 6th June) its possible that some area over the pond could do similar. There is no need to commit to a seaborne invasion. Hell, if the Dominion goes over to the Reich, then there's that whole "Canada" bit to land in.

So what does that leave? The Navy. So what is the complement for US Navy ships in the Atlantic in 41? How "powerful" is the navy? How many carriers does it have in the western seas?

Also, you're probably forgetting that the reason why Germany failed to reach Moscow is because the operation began too late, and ran straight into the Russian Winter. Not because the Russians were winning battles. They only started doing that after the fact. Thus it was actually very close. And the postulation was that the peace between the USSR and Germany stays in place, and perhaps becomes a shared military experience akin to the one that flattened Poland. And we are still talking about a USA that very nearly lost the opening strike of its war, and was only a day or so from losing its Pacific war-fighting ability. But yeah, I forgot that America wins at everything even when it loses regardless of what happens so this is all futile. We could postulate a 1940 where the USA never existed at all, and America would still "win" somehow. "Braveheart" history where America wins in the war between Scotland and England.

So Germany is able to conquer Britain even though it didn't, and the USSR in 1941, even though it couldn't, and is able to immediately turn around and try to invade the US, even though the US had four carriers, a battlefleet, and Germany doesn't?

Does this lead to the later history books noting that "shortly after the maritime disaster in the Atlantic the coup occurred that led to the end of Hitler's reign."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Also, you're probably forgetting that the reason why Germany failed to reach Moscow is because the operation began too late, and ran straight into the Russian Winter. Not because the Russians were winning battles. They only started doing that after the fact. Thus it was actually very close. And the postulation was that the peace between the USSR and Germany stays in place, and perhaps becomes a shared military experience akin to the one that flattened Poland. And we are still talking about a USA that very nearly lost the opening strike of its war, and was only a day or so from losing its Pacific war-fighting ability. But yeah, I forgot that America wins at everything even when it loses regardless of what happens so this is all futile. We could postulate a 1940 where the USA never existed at all, and America would still "win" somehow. "Braveheart" history where America wins in the war between Scotland and England.

Mmm...no (and again with the attacks - what are you jealous or something because we have good food and you're stuck with haggis?)
You've launched about 27 different scenarios. Pick one.

It can't be 1941 unless Germany never attacks the Soviet Union. To be effective, they would have had to have peace with Britain. They couldn't conquer Britain in that time (again, reality already occurred-Germany had no chance). A Peaceful Britain in no way means they're merchant fleet is available and if so, so what? Its a target. A nonpeaceful Britain means the British Navy is continuing to kick Germany's ass, which means the odds are even less so.

So ok, Germany builds a massive troop fleet in a year. Unless you push time back further and state they planned to invade the USA several years earlier they still have no carriers (carriers aren't troop ships. They take years to build and the German navy itself thought WWII was going to be several years later). So the German High Fleet of Bismark, Tirputz and some pocket battleships is leading this adventure? Lets even give them a few extra batteleships.

In the Atlantic they meet four aircraft carriers, and by meet I mean US torpedo and dive bombers sink them all, hundreds of miles out of sight. If they are stupid and the transports keep going or they are too far out then the battleships get the transports, like the Japanese tried to do (and almost succeeded) at Leyte Gulf. This assumes the british fleet also doesn't crash the Lets Bash A Bosch party. Inversely lets say the Germans have uber stealthy powers and somehow cross before the US Navy finds out. Thats even worse for Germany. It leaves an invasion force utterly stranded with transports and protective battleship screen sunk near the coast or maybe a nice Conga line of sunk German ships all the way back to Europe as the US Atlantic and Pacific fleets kick the crap out of them.

Its not America Hurr! Its simple logic. Since Napoleon, no nation has been able to launch a major seaborne invasion without a nearby base. The Germans are completely and utterly unprepared to do so. It wasn't their plan and you have to go back multiple years for them to do so. Unfortunately the further you go back the more unlikely it is as Germany becomes beset by its own difficulties. Although the US was woefully unprepared for a land war 1930-1941 it xould do so for the same reason Britain could. It had a bitchin fleet.

NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND FOR SOME REASON THAT THE REASON AMERICA JOIND THE WAR WAS BECAUSE WE KNEW IF WE DIDN'T THAT THE AXIS WOULD WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! DO ANY OF YOU KNOW HOW STRONG THE NAZIS WERE, THEY COULD HAVE POSSIBLY WON EVEN WITH AMERICA FIGHTING. HITLER MADE MANY BAD DECISIONS, AND DIDN'T LISTEN TO HIS GENERALS BECAUSE OF HIS PRIDE OF NAZI GERMANY AND DIDN'T FALLBACK!!!!!

TheHappySpaceMarine wrote:NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND FOR SOME REASON THAT THE REASON AMERICA JOIND THE WAR WAS BECAUSE WE KNEW IF WE DIDN'T THAT THE AXIS WOULD WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! DO ANY OF YOU KNOW HOW STRONG THE NAZIS WERE, THEY COULD HAVE POSSIBLY WON EVEN WITH AMERICA FIGHTING. HITLER MADE MANY BAD DECISIONS, AND DIDN'T LISTEN TO HIS GENERALS BECAUSE OF HIS PRIDE OF NAZI GERMANY AND DIDN'T FALLBACK!!!!!

Finally! A measured and reasonable voice on this thread!

TheHappySpaceMarine wrote:NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND FOR SOME REASON THAT THE REASON AMERICA JOIND THE WAR WAS BECAUSE WE KNEW IF WE DIDN'T THAT THE AXIS WOULD WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! DO ANY OF YOU KNOW HOW STRONG THE NAZIS WERE, THEY COULD HAVE POSSIBLY WON EVEN WITH AMERICA FIGHTING. HITLER MADE MANY BAD DECISIONS, AND DIDN'T LISTEN TO HIS GENERALS BECAUSE OF HIS PRIDE OF NAZI GERMANY AND DIDN'T FALLBACK!!!!!

Yea but how do you really feel?

Frazzled wrote:So Germany is able to conquer Britain even though it didn't, and the USSR in 1941, even though it couldn't, and is able to immediately turn around and try to invade the US, even though the US had four carriers, a battlefleet, and Germany doesn't?

Does this lead to the later history books noting that "shortly after the maritime disaster in the Atlantic the coup occurred that led to the end of Hitler's reign."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Also, you're probably forgetting that the reason why Germany failed to reach Moscow is because the operation began too late, and ran straight into the Russian Winter. Not because the Russians were winning battles. They only started doing that after the fact. Thus it was actually very close. And the postulation was that the peace between the USSR and Germany stays in place, and perhaps becomes a shared military experience akin to the one that flattened Poland. And we are still talking about a USA that very nearly lost the opening strike of its war, and was only a day or so from losing its Pacific war-fighting ability. But yeah, I forgot that America wins at everything even when it loses regardless of what happens so this is all futile. We could postulate a 1940 where the USA never existed at all, and America would still "win" somehow. "Braveheart" history where America wins in the war between Scotland and England.

Mmm...no (and again with the attacks - what are you jealous or something because we have good food and you're stuck with haggis?)
You've launched about 27 different scenarios. Pick one.

It can't be 1941 unless Germany never attacks the Soviet Union. To be effective, they would have had to have peace with Britain. They couldn't conquer Britain in that time (again, reality already occurred-Germany had no chance). A Peaceful Britain in no way means they're merchant fleet is available and if so, so what? Its a target. A nonpeaceful Britain means the British Navy is continuing to kick Germany's ass, which means the odds are even less so.

So ok, Germany builds a massive troop fleet in a year. Unless you push time back further and state they planned to invade the USA several years earlier they still have no carriers (carriers aren't troop ships. They take years to build and the German navy itself thought WWII was going to be several years later). So the German High Fleet of Bismark, Tirputz and some pocket battleships is leading this adventure? Lets even give them a few extra batteleships.

In the Atlantic they meet four aircraft carriers, and by meet I mean US torpedo and dive bombers sink them all, hundreds of miles out of sight. If they are stupid and the transports keep going or they are too far out then the battleships get the transports, like the Japanese tried to do (and almost succeeded) at Leyte Gulf. This assumes the british fleet also doesn't crash the Lets Bash A Bosch party. Inversely lets say the Germans have uber stealthy powers and somehow cross before the US Navy finds out. Thats even worse for Germany. It leaves an invasion force utterly stranded with transports and protective battleship screen sunk near the coast or maybe a nice Conga line of sunk German ships all the way back to Europe as the US Atlantic and Pacific fleets kick the crap out of them.

Its not America Hurr! Its simple logic. Since Napoleon, no nation has been able to launch a major seaborne invasion without a nearby base. The Germans are completely and utterly unprepared to do so. It wasn't their plan and you have to go back multiple years for them to do so. Unfortunately the further you go back the more unlikely it is as Germany becomes beset by its own difficulties. Although the US was woefully unprepared for a land war 1930-1941 it xould do so for the same reason Britain could. It had a bitchin fleet.

Seems to me that you're again missing the point of points of divergence. Those would be the points where an event could have gone either way, and are often balanced on the finest of turns. Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean it couldn't happen. That is the whole point and purpose of the exercise. Here is an example. Hitler, on the eve of Fall Gelb, decides that he has in fact pushed it a bit too far, and doesn't invade Poland. Thus no mutual defence treaties are triggered, no conflict begins with France or the UK and so on and so forth. Something as minor as that can change events substantially.

Taking something you said: Germany itself thought the war would be later. Indeed the OKW did not desire war and did not think they were ready for war. What if they could have made a more convincing case to Adolf? The whole game changes completely then, because a Germany unmolested has a much longer time period in which to prepare for.. well anything it cares to really. A more sensibly timed invasion of the USSR perhaps. Or even the time needed to create greater parity in warships. If we assume that the US still gets attacked by Japan, why would other nations not "learn" the usefulness of the carrier? Especially seeing as European nations HAD carriers as well. Its not as if Europe didn't know about them.

I'm still not buying US preparedness for a conflict, given how close the US came to having no pacific fleet at all. What is to say that Germany might not devise some piece of military cunning to divest the US of its Atlantic protection? Japan nearly did on the other seaboard. Its not a massive jump to suppose a hook over Iceland, starting from Norway. Of course this is assuming that the US actually has four carriers in the Atlantic at the right time anyway.

Hitler, on the eve of Fall Gelb, decides that he has in fact pushed it a bit too far, and doesn't invade Poland. Thus no mutual defense treaties are triggered, no conflict begins with France or the UK and so on and so forth. Something as minor as that can change events substantially.
***Ok so its 1938/39 or after 1941? 1938 they have no force to speak of. 1941 see below.

Taking something you said: Germany itself thought the war would be later. Indeed the OKW did not desire war and did not think they were ready for war. What if they could have made a more convincing case to Adolf? The whole game changes completely then, because a Germany unmolested has a much longer time period in which to prepare for.. well anything it cares to really. A more sensibly timed invasion of the USSR perhaps. Or even the time needed to create greater parity in warships. If we assume that the US still gets attacked by Japan, why would other nations not "learn" the usefulness of the carrier? Especially seeing as European nations HAD carriers as well. Its not as if Europe didn't know about them.
***Well here’s a problem. If they wait and the US is still attacked by Japan that means the US effectively goes into total war mode earlier than envisioned and far earlier than Germany does. That means you’re getting closer to the timeline when: 1) the US does that whole 15 attack carriers thing-although it might be 25 carriers without worrying about supplying the Western Front; 2) the US has the B29; 3) the US has an interesting toy that goes with the B-29 when you go for the special “Einstein Premium Package.” In the words of the immortal bard: “Shall we play a game?” That’s totally discounting of course Hitler not attacking USSR. |If he waits a year or two and then invades the USSR he faces-again- Britain/France, and a much stronger USSR. All three of those nations were in fact gearing for war and you gave them time to get even stronger. Germany is stronger but now the Rooskies have gobs of T-34s ready to go happy happy funtime. Plus if its past early 1942 it means the USSR can pull its divisions out even more quickly as Japan will already have half its carrier fleet in Davy Jones’ locker. I don’t see how this goes better for the Germans, indeed it might end up with a radioactive Berlin.

I'm still not buying US preparedness for a conflict, given how close the US came to having no pacific fleet at all.
***What are you talking about? At the outbreak of the Pearl Harbor we had four carriers, and 17 battleships. How many did Germany have again? How many did Britain even at that time?

What is to say that Germany might not devise some piece of military cunning to divest the US of its Atlantic protection? Japan nearly did on the other seaboard. Its not a massive jump to suppose a hook over Iceland, starting from Norway. Of course this is assuming that the US actually has four carriers in the Atlantic at the right time anyway.
****I am not presupposing that. That’s the best option for the Germans. As noted, if not that means your invasion force is stranded in the US. Alternatively the German Navy might sally out first to try to eliminate the US Navy. Again they’d have to actually build some carriers first, or they’re just targets. We’d kind of note a few years ahead if the Germans were building carriers, as well as troop transports. I’d think an invasion fleet leaving Germany might get its ass kicked by the UK, thinking they’re heading for the UK.

But lets back off a bit and say the transports get to the US and utterly slip past the Navy. What now? How do you resupply your German divisions when you have carrier planes and B-17s obliterating your supply line? Germany couldn’t resupply the Afrika Korps across the pond, how are they going to resupply across the Atlanta with no air or naval superiority? Can you say Dnieppe Raid X100? And if Germany loses, wouldn’t Uncle Joseph start giving a gander to all those tank divisions he has sitting there, and thinking Berlin’s so beautiful this time of year – lets go on a picnic?

I covered the why of resupplying Afrika several posts ago, why it failed and how it could have suceeded. In fact its a key factor on defeating the UK.

The "Fall Gellb" example isn't about taking on America. Its an example of how something very small can change situations in a massive way.

In fact I already covered a perfectly viable route to an attempted invasion just before people decided that Germans can't handle mountains AND deserts at the same time because Europe lacks terrain.

Oh, and I was referring to the loss of the fleet to Japanese attack, not that there wasn't a fleet to begin with...in that America very nearly lost the whole thing.

As for the rest: Watching Skyline.I'll get back to you with some possibilities afterwards. There is the question though: what does Germany actually need to do to gain aerial superiority?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:No, I "get it". What I was arguing was the relative speeds of acquirement compared between having to "build" your fleets vs just pinching them. And that's just the military element. A merchant fleet can be acquired virtually over-night, simply by moving into the ports of a given nation. If Nation X already HAS a navy, and you capture it intact, you can double or even triple your strength without having to build a thing.

Just pinching a load of boats doesn't make you a naval power. You need to crew and maintain these boats, and organise their effective use. These are all areas of expertise and facilities that take a long time to develop.

Then if you're using them to support a seaborne invasion of a country on the other side of the Pacific, you need to protect these ships. Even if you pinched everybody else's fleets in Europe, and magically created the loyal German sailors to man them, then it'd still be a hell of a task keeping those ships secure from US sea and airpower.

I hadn't particularly covered the problems inherent in continuous supply because I've been busy dealing with this constant magical ability for the US to have all the the things it had in 44, after 4 years of warfare and development, in an alternate 1940/41 or even 44 where it hasn't been at war, or gifting the US military-industrial complex with amazing powers of foresight it provably did not have, or ignoring the fact that war materials can be transported across the Atlantic. Until people stop applying this uber-future-soldier patriotic rubbish to it, then the rest is pretty pointless.

If the Germans are magically given the capability to actually win in Europe, and then begin the decades long process of building a navy capable of supporting a seaborne invasion of the US, then the US would have seen it coming. It wouldn't have been hard to see it coming.

Anyway, if one really wants to nail the USA, then Alternate Hitler could do this: capture Moscow (nearly happened) and capture Egypt/Suez (also nearly happened), force the UK to capitulate, and then go through Russia towards China, take India, then Burma, join up with Japan and have a crack that way.

You're suggesting that Germany builds a tank in Berlin, trains it to Moscow, trains it over the trans-siberian, unloads at Beijing (because feth it, why not pretend China is pacified by the Japanese as well?), puts it on a boat which carries it to Alaska, and then has that tank drive down into Washington state, and through every western coastal city in the US, one by one. Fighting all the way.

Needing about 3 tonnes of supplies per 1,500 men, for non-combat operations, all brought through that same line of supply.

Ok, try this instead: Clearly it is possible to ship war materials across the Atlantic. Europe contains enough shipping to match or surpass that used in the real convoys (much of it being the same ships, but in different hands.) So REALISTICALLY what stops the Kriegsmarine (supplemented by at least two other European navies, possibly more) from transporting war material TO the Americas? Lets assume this is an alternate 41, where the UK has been taken, and Russia is still an ally.

Is it possible, with the facilities available in the 40s, with the nature of conflict in the 40s, to ship enough war materials across the Atlantic? I don't believe the US would have been able to have sustained a war against Germany by itself, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheHappySpaceMarine wrote:NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND FOR SOME REASON THAT THE REASON AMERICA JOIND THE WAR WAS BECAUSE WE KNEW IF WE DIDN'T THAT THE AXIS WOULD WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! DO ANY OF YOU KNOW HOW STRONG THE NAZIS WERE, THEY COULD HAVE POSSIBLY WON EVEN WITH AMERICA FIGHTING. HITLER MADE MANY BAD DECISIONS, AND DIDN'T LISTEN TO HIS GENERALS BECAUSE OF HIS PRIDE OF NAZI GERMANY AND DIDN'T FALLBACK!!!!!

First up, CAPS LOCK is on the far left, the third button up. You will find pressing this button once will make the whole of the internet take you much more seriously.

Second up, your understanding of history is terrible, from the relative forces involved, to the chance of German victory during the war, to the reasons Germany lost the war. I think you need to go back to the start of the thread, and reread the whole thread with the understanding that everyone posting in the thread knows more about WWII than you do. Read their posts, internalise the arguments they've made, and get rid of whatever you presently believe about WWII. You will be more informed than you are now.

Being more informed about something might not get you more friends or more respect, but I think it's worthwhile anyway. Maybe you don't, in which case don't bother... but really, really look into pressin that CAPS LOCK thing, that one I can guarantee will improve your internet experience.

TheHappySpaceMarine wrote:NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND FOR SOME REASON THAT THE REASON AMERICA JOIND THE WAR WAS BECAUSE WE KNEW IF WE DIDN'T THAT THE AXIS WOULD WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! DO ANY OF YOU KNOW HOW STRONG THE NAZIS WERE, THEY COULD HAVE POSSIBLY WON EVEN WITH AMERICA FIGHTING. HITLER MADE MANY BAD DECISIONS, AND DIDN'T LISTEN TO HIS GENERALS BECAUSE OF HIS PRIDE OF NAZI GERMANY AND DIDN'T FALLBACK!!!!!

You realise if you hit the caps lock again it turns off?

sebster wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:No, I "get it". What I was arguing was the relative speeds of acquirement compared between having to "build" your fleets vs just pinching them. And that's just the military element. A merchant fleet can be acquired virtually over-night, simply by moving into the ports of a given nation. If Nation X already HAS a navy, and you capture it intact, you can double or even triple your strength without having to build a thing.

Just pinching a load of boats doesn't make you a naval power. You need to crew and maintain these boats, and organise their effective use. These are all areas of expertise and facilities that take a long time to develop.

Then if you're using them to support a seaborne invasion of a country on the other side of the Pacific, you need to protect these ships. Even if you pinched everybody else's fleets in Europe, and magically created the loyal German sailors to man them, then it'd still be a hell of a task keeping those ships secure from US sea and airpower.

I hadn't particularly covered the problems inherent in continuous supply because I've been busy dealing with this constant magical ability for the US to have all the the things it had in 44, after 4 years of warfare and development, in an alternate 1940/41 or even 44 where it hasn't been at war, or gifting the US military-industrial complex with amazing powers of foresight it provably did not have, or ignoring the fact that war materials can be transported across the Atlantic. Until people stop applying this uber-future-soldier patriotic rubbish to it, then the rest is pretty pointless.

If the Germans are magically given the capability to actually win in Europe, and then begin the decades long process of building a navy capable of supporting a seaborne invasion of the US, then the US would have seen it coming. It wouldn't have been hard to see it coming.

Anyway, if one really wants to nail the USA, then Alternate Hitler could do this: capture Moscow (nearly happened) and capture Egypt/Suez (also nearly happened), force the UK to capitulate, and then go through Russia towards China, take India, then Burma, join up with Japan and have a crack that way.

You're suggesting that Germany builds a tank in Berlin, trains it to Moscow, trains it over the trans-siberian, unloads at Beijing (because feth it, why not pretend China is pacified by the Japanese as well?), puts it on a boat which carries it to Alaska, and then has that tank drive down into Washington state, and through every western coastal city in the US, one by one. Fighting all the way.

Needing about 3 tonnes of supplies per 1,500 men, for non-combat operations, all brought through that same line of supply.

Ok, try this instead: Clearly it is possible to ship war materials across the Atlantic. Europe contains enough shipping to match or surpass that used in the real convoys (much of it being the same ships, but in different hands.) So REALISTICALLY what stops the Kriegsmarine (supplemented by at least two other European navies, possibly more) from transporting war material TO the Americas? Lets assume this is an alternate 41, where the UK has been taken, and Russia is still an ally.

Is it possible, with the facilities available in the 40s, with the nature of conflict in the 40s, to ship enough war materials across the Atlantic? I don't believe the US would have been able to have sustained a war against Germany by itself, either.

1) Merchant vessels tend to already be crewed. The small military complement required to make a merchant vessel defensible is more than adequate to ensure it goes where it is sent. For that matter, many merchant seamen will go with whoever pays them anyway. And its not as if Germany is one of these land-locked nations wjhich has a navy consisting of a single patrol boat. They did have a reasonably substantial Navy, and began the war with the intention of making it much bigger. Protecting them I'll get to in a bit.

2) The above process of expanding a navy exponentially by conquest should shave a few "decades" off the time needed to build a fleet. And Germany did have a naval programme involving the construction of surface vessels. The fact that it fell by the wayside later on for various reasons both expedient and ridicuous is neither here nore there. Besides, it shouldn't have been hard to see the Japanese Imperial Navy coming, but somehow the states missed it.

3) Actually I wasn't suggested a Panzer Road Trip to Washington at all. I work on the theory that (like the Skoda plants in Czechoslovakia) a Germany victorious in any given nation would happily turn over local facilities to their own requirements. Thus in the conquest of say..the UK, we might see the creation of something like a Panzer 41 (B for Britain) using the Valentine, or the Matilda or whatever. Failing that, a Works is a Works. If Ford can build the same vehicle on two different continents by license, then Busching-Nagg or Hanomag can too. Likewise if we postulate the fall of Russia, then we see Germany gain access to the production facilities of the T-34. (For that matter, had Stalin not had the great idea to move production facilities wholesale out of the way, then we could easily have seen such a thing occur in reality.)

4) On protecting fleets and extending German air reach: http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-05CVE-Audacity.htm

First Royal Navy Auxiliary Aircraft Carrier which, as German mercantile HANNOVER, was captured on 8th March 1940 when intercepted in the West Indies by HM Cruiser DUNEDIN and HM Canadian Destroyer ASSINIBOINE. She had been laid down for use as a Refrigerated Cargo Ship and had completed build at Bremen in May 1939. The ship was requisitioned by the Admiralty and in November 1940 was taken in hand for conversion as a Ocean Boarding Vessel named SINBAD. However in January 1941 she was selected for deployment as the first mercantile to be converted for use as an escort aircraft carrier. The changes made included removal of existing superstructure to allow fit of a wooden flight deck for the full length of the ship. The work was carried out by Blyth Dock SB and the ship commissioned as EMPIRE AUDACITY on 20th June 1941. Ballast had to be added to ensure stability and this ship was fitted with a new design radar for aircraft warning purposes, Type 79B. The first of this type, which used only one mast had been fitted in HM Battlecruiser HOOD shortly before her loss in May 1941 (See RADAR AT SEA by D Howse.) Six fighter aircraft were to be carried and had to be kept on the flight deck as no hangar was provided. The name was changed to HMS AUDACITY after conversion in order to avoid confusion with other mercantiles entering service after September 1939 either as new or captured vessels used for trade.

Audacity was sunk after a short operational life, but the concept is sound. I postulate it as an obvious short-term solution to the lack of carriers shipped by this alternate Kriegsmarine. And as Audacity was built on a German built boat, it makes it all the more realistic a prospect that a Germany that decides it requires carriers could create them in reasonable time. Also, Germany was quite happy to be innovative with war materials when it wanted to be. Its a reasonably alternate prospect that if Germany had spent less time innovating daftness like huge railway guns that needed 4000 men and a Flak regiment to operate, they might have caused infinitely more damage.

Of course one of the main reasons Germany never operated as an effective Naval power was because Hitler was at best massively disinterested in Ships, hated going on them, and thus neglected them. The Navy lacked a Goering to argue its side effectively, and thus got ignored. Maybe if Hitler had been a seamen in WW1, matters would have been much different? He would have spent the war interfering with Naval operations and thinking he was a Grand Admiral, and refusing to let ships return to port.