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.

It was their leadership. Hitler's obsession with the V weapons and that one weapon that would immediately end the war got in the way of a lot of "good enough" solutions in the pursuit of perfection. If they'd followed their original plan to kick off the war in 1944 they might have managed enough success to accomplish most of their goals.

Tyyr wrote:It was their leadership. Hitler's obsession with the V weapons and that one weapon that would immediately end the war got in the way of a lot of "good enough" solutions in the pursuit of perfection. If they'd followed their original plan to kick off the war in 1944 they might have managed enough success to accomplish most of their goals.

Or the Soviet Army would have kicked them in the teeth right from the start.

Thats interesting though. What if...
Germany doesn't start its fun until 1944, but Japan attacks the US in 1941?

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:It was their leadership. Hitler's obsession with the V weapons and that one weapon that would immediately end the war got in the way of a lot of "good enough" solutions in the pursuit of perfection. If they'd followed their original plan to kick off the war in 1944 they might have managed enough success to accomplish most of their goals.

Or the Soviet Army would have kicked them in the teeth right from the start.

Thats interesting though. What if...
Germany doesn't start its fun until 1944, but Japan attacks the US in 1941?

It is an interesting conundrum.. How would Germany develop AND stockpile enough weapons for their plans to kick off in 44, without the rest of us seeing, and puttin a foot down? Japan attacking the US, I think remains somewhat similar, though we wouldn't have as many allies in fighting the war, unless you consider the Japanese attacks on Hong Kong, and threats to Australia/New Zealand.

I doubt the Soviets would have been any more ready in 1944 than in 1941. Stalin appeared to have really bought into the non-agression pact.

And really the original plan was to take Europe, THEN go after Russia. Hitler kicked off the Russian campaign while they were still fighting in Europe.

Thats interesting though. What if...
Germany doesn't start its fun until 1944, but Japan attacks the US in 1941?

You'd have a much more militant and built up US, but a US that is totally preoccupied in the Pacific. I think question #1 is would we have been as into the Manhattan project as we were if the Germans had been quiet until 1944. If we weren't. Then we'd likely have had to have invaded the home islands on the ground and that would have been an ugly brutal grind. We might not have had the forces to do anything about Europe really in 1944. However, once we had the bomb I think things might have settled down very quickly. I'd have to give the whole thing a lot more thought and research than I have so far to give a good comprehensive answer.

ow would Germany develop AND stockpile enough weapons for their plans to kick off in 44, without the rest of us seeing, and puttin a foot down?

This is the 1940's, not the 1990's. We had the Germans snookered into thinking that Patton had an army group ready to invade Pas de Calise, with nothing but radio transmissions and inflatable tanks. There would likely be hints of rearmament but it was a lot easier to keep secrets back in the day.

interesting though, in that with Germany in the war, all of the US efforts are focused on Japan. Thats a lot of carriers...

Well why would we be focused on anything else? It's not like we'd have any reason to be allocating forces to deal with Germany if hostilities hadn't broken out.

I don't think you'd see much radically different in the Pacific. The Pacific was largely the US Navy and Marines vs. the Japanese while Europe was the Army's show. You might see a somewhat more rapid pace of advance without having to dedicate ships to convoys to Europe.

Tyyr wrote:Well why would we be focused on anything else? It's not like we'd have any reason to be allocating forces to deal with Germany if hostilities hadn't broken out.

I don't think you'd see much radically different in the Pacific. The Pacific was largely the US Navy and Marines vs. the Japanese while Europe was the Army's show. You might see a somewhat more rapid pace of advance without having to dedicate ships to convoys to Europe.

We had massive assets supporting Europe, substantially higher than the Pacific Theater. The energy and resources in building those assets could have been used to build more carriers and more invasion fleets.

Now the other side thats interesting. if Europe goes freakout in 1944, does the Wehrmacht make it out of Germany?
*Germany arming, but so is the USSR at that time. the longer the delay the more recovery the USSR has from its officer progroms.
*France and Britain began arming as well. it may be that they don't arm until shortly before 1944 however.
*What does Italy do? Do they continue to get involved in Africa, forcing the UK to get involved. WOuld we see Italy knocked out of the war, before it even started?
*1944, might have seen the end of the US / Japan War. Does Germany want to pick a fight, with would be a fully rearmed USA, with great expertise in shipping armies greater than DDAY as a matter of routine across thousands of miles? WOuld the US itself get involved like it did before it entered the war historically, or take great efforts to stay out of another conflict.

In WWII the agreement between the major allies was to focus on Germany first (as it was an existential threat to the UK and USS) and hold off the Japanese until Germany was defeated.

It is perhaps telling that even though the Pacific Front was allocated a lower priority that from 1942 on the US Navy and Marines were pushing the Japanese back without any real pause.

The full weight of the USA, British, French, Chinese, Australians and Canadians being applied vs Japan would have probably wrapped them up in 1944, maybe even 1943.

Of course, that assumes the Japanese were stupid enough to attempt initiating a war with those powers while they weren't mostly preoccupied with a war in Europe.

True, but the war in the Pacific was decided in 1942, largely with extant assets. While the industrial muscle we had aimed at Europe could have been turned on Japan in this scenario I think the question is, "Why?" You could increase the pace of attacks with a larger force and in general just over whelm the Japanese more than we did but I don't think you'd see as major a mobilization to fight just Japan as we did Germany and Japan simultaneously.

The good news in that scenario is that we'd still have some in the tank to crank up to go after Germany, BUT... would we still be embroiled on the home islands, China? Without nukes to end Japan how long could the war have dragged on and what kind of resources would it have consumed?

Now the other side thats interesting. if Europe goes freakout in 1944, does the Wehrmacht make it out of Germany?
*Germany arming, but so is the USSR at that time. the longer the delay the more recovery the USSR has from its officer progroms.

Sure, but the kick in the ass that got the Russians moving were the Panzers crashing through their border. Even then, they spent the better part of a year having their asses handed to them before halting the Germans and starting the push back. With the ability to bring more forces to bear on the Russians, and having made the transistion from the Pz III/IV into purely the IV would the Russians be able to successfully hold back the Germans? The Germans had two key failings, not finishing off Moscow and it's rail yards, and splitting their forces in the Caucus to hit Stalingrad instead of taking the oil fields. With more forces available, no distractions in the west they might have just pulled it off. I don't think they take over the entirety of Russia that that point but I think they could have dragged them to the table and made them accept a peace.

*France and Britain began arming as well. it may be that they don't arm until shortly before 1944 however.

For sure, but again. They don't get a promise to be good from Hitler only for him to violate it immediately. Given several years of Germany not being total dicks they're going to have no more of a leg up on the Germans than they did when Germany started out in 1939.

*What does Italy do? Do they continue to get involved in Africa, forcing the UK to get involved. WOuld we see Italy knocked out of the war, before it even started?

I can't really comment on that. Germany and Italy's relationship isn't something I ever paid much attention to. Can't really rule out Il Duce being stupid enough to start a war without Germany backing him up. If he did, and the Brits went in aginst the Italians Germany could have to worry abou the Brits having a ready made foothold on Europe in Italy when the proper war started.

*1944, might have seen the end of the US / Japan War. Does Germany want to pick a fight, with would be a fully rearmed USA, with great expertise in shipping armies greater than DDAY as a matter of routine across thousands of miles? WOuld the US itself get involved like it did before it entered the war historically, or take great efforts to stay out of another conflict.

Well that's really the $64,000 question and to me it comes down to the question of whether or not we had the bomb and used it to end the war. In Spring of 1944 we were still a bit more than a year away from setting off Trinity. So likely the US would have invaded the home islands with all the carnage that entails. So, by Spring of 1944 would that invasion be wrapping up? Dragging on as a bloody meat grinder? What about China and Japan's holding elsewhere? Without the nukes to firmly state, "ENOUGH," would the Japanese have committed cultural suicide by US Marines? Honestly if the war in the Japanese home islands was dragging on I don't think the US would be all gung-ho to charge into Europe. HOWEVER, I think Roosevelt would have been more than willing, after Poland and the low Countries, to sign up with England and France as a mutual defense thing which might have brought the Germans to a screeching halt right there. Then again I am way out on the end of a long string of maybe's right there so don't take that as gospel, just a train of thought.

The full weight of the USA, British, French, Chinese, Australians and Canadians being applied vs Japan would have probably wrapped them up in 1944, maybe even 1943.

Of course, that assumes the Japanese were stupid enough to attempt initiating a war with those powers while they weren't mostly preoccupied with a war in Europe.

The Chinese were beat before Japan ever hit Pearl Harbor. I really have trouble imagining the French and British doing much in the Pacific. It was a carrier war in support of amphibious invasions. Logistics maybe, along with perhaps some airbases but the heavy lifting in the Pacific was done by carriers and marines. What was the state of British and French amphibious forces in 1941? Austrailia was already doing all the could to help out in the Pacific.

The nukes didn't defeat Japan and there is even some debate as to how much they hastened Japan's defeat. It is quite likely that the Japanese would have surrendered before an invasion force could be landed had nuclear weapons not been available.

Of course those who orders the use of the atomic bombs had no way of knowing this, so even if you can prove the bombs weren't necessary to end WWII, this doesn't make them the perpetrators of some nuclear war crime.

Frazzled wrote:Yes, if its carrying the Bomb, which also what they were trying for.

The likelihood of the Nazis developing a working bomb has been greatly exaggerated in the last couple of decades, to try and make the end of the war more exciting.

Even if the Nazis had a bomb, they weren't going to stick it on a prototype aircraft and fly it over the Atlantic. They would have stuck it on a conventional bomber and dropped it over their real enemy, Moscow.

The answer lies in, as you said, the Nazi high command being cuckoo crazy. While at the same time the various weapons development team were not, and would have been quite happy to keep quiet about the impracticality of their various weapons, knowing the alternative was to be handed a Mauser and shipped off to the Eastern Front.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:The battlefield that birthed the battle rifle is very, very different from the one that gave us the assault rifle. Heck, even now we're seeing more and more carbines being issued to troops in urban fighting as the battlefield continues to evolve. Good thing or not long term we'll see, and the difference between an M4 and an M16 is nothing like the difference between an M16 and an M1 Garand.

Well, yeah, the battlefield has continued to evolve, hence the M4 giving soldiers a smaller rifle, at the cost of range that it was considered was largely unnecessary.

And now we're in a new tactical environment, and with improvements in body armour, and an increase in small unit operations meaning the assumption of support is no longer valid and you are seeing units fighting engagements at greater than 300m. Leading to new calls for a return to a larger calibre round, or a designated marksman to have a weapons firing a larger round, or even returning to a longer barrel M-16.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:I doubt the Soviets would have been any more ready in 1944 than in 1941. Stalin appeared to have really bought into the non-agression pact.

Stalin had plans to invade Germany some time around 1944. There's a lot of talk that it would have been sooner, but the Winter War showed how woefully unprepared his military was.

And really the original plan was to take Europe, THEN go after Russia. Hitler kicked off the Russian campaign while they were still fighting in Europe.

Hitler had two enemies, France and Russia. The French because they were French, and the Russians because they were Communist and full of the 'low peoples', and therefore right for Lebensraum. After the fall of France the only surviving power in Europe is Britain, which Hitler was never interested in occupying, you could even claim he was something of an Anglophile. The British were not a meaningful threat to Hitler when Barbarossa began, and wouldn't be until the US joined the war.

sebster wrote:Stalin had plans to invade Germany some time around 1944. There's a lot of talk that it would have been sooner, but the Winter War showed how woefully unprepared his military was.

It's abit unfair to say they were unprepared they did happen to run into the world's greatest sniper ever, in the history of all snipers... seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4 Simo Hayha made the Soviets look stupid.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:It's abit unfair to say they were unprepared they did happen to run into the world's greatest sniper ever, in the history of all snipers... seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4 Simo Hayha made the Soviets look stupid.

Well, the Soviets made the Soviets look stupid

Still, Simo Hayha was all kinds of amazing.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

sebster wrote:Stalin had plans to invade Germany some time around 1944. There's a lot of talk that it would have been sooner, but the Winter War showed how woefully unprepared his military was.

It's abit unfair to say they were unprepared they did happen to run into the world's greatest sniper ever, in the history of all snipers... seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4 Simo Hayha made the Soviets look stupid.

That changed later of course.

The nukes didn't defeat Japan and there is even some debate as to how much they hastened Japan's defeat. It is quite likely that the Japanese would have surrendered before an invasion force could be landed had nuclear weapons not been available.

Yes, quite likely that the people who were busy stockpiling small arms and training children how to fight with spears were all ready to give up. Japan was defeated at Midway, everything after that was just convincing them of that fact. The bombs were the final exclamation point that demonstrated we were more than willing to give them their cultural suicide, but they weren't going to get the chance to take hundreds of thousands of US Marines with them.

Stalin had plans to invade Germany some time around 1944. There's a lot of talk that it would have been sooner, but the Winter War showed how woefully unprepared his military was.

Not really seeing how anyone would put any credence on it being sooner. I suppose you could have Stalin just go for it but from the standpoint of being ready to roll earlier than 1944 I'm not seeing it. If anything throwing his army against Hitler's in 1942 or 1943 would have likely seen a repeat of the Winter War. The Russian officer corps mindset prior to Barbarossa wasn't one that was ready to take on the Germans with any real chance of winning.

After the fall of France the only surviving power in Europe is Britain, which Hitler was never interested in occupying, you could even claim he was something of an Anglophile. The British were not a meaningful threat to Hitler when Barbarossa began, and wouldn't be until the US joined the war.

Yes, but after the fall of France they kicked off the Battle of Britain, were still fighting in North Africa, and were busy trying to keep Britan from being supplied from the sea. A lot of resources were still tied up in the West when Barbarossa kicked off.

The most interesting part of Simo's story is the guy used iron sights, no scope.

Tyyr wrote:Not really seeing how anyone would put any credence on it being sooner. I suppose you could have Stalin just go for it but from the standpoint of being ready to roll earlier than 1944 I'm not seeing it. If anything throwing his army against Hitler's in 1942 or 1943 would have likely seen a repeat of the Winter War. The Russian officer corps mindset prior to Barbarossa wasn't one that was ready to take on the Germans with any real chance of winning.

That's the point. Stalin overestimated the speed of reform in his army, and underestimated the impact of the Great Purge. The Winter War showed him how poorly his army was performing, and led to adjustments in his planning for how long it'd take for Soviet forces to be capable of defeating the Nazis.

Yes, but after the fall of France they kicked off the Battle of Britain, were still fighting in North Africa, and were busy trying to keep Britan from being supplied from the sea. A lot of resources were still tied up in the West when Barbarossa kicked off.

The resources committed into other theatres of war were pretty minimal relative to the force deployed in Barbarossa. There were 4.5 million troops deployed by the Axis in Operation Barbarossa. In comparison, at full strength at that time the Axis forces in North Africa were around 100,000, and originally about 75% of them were Italian (and so unlikely to be otherwise deployed in Barbarossa, and even less likely to be of any use in the campaign). The Battle of Britain impacted Hitler's forces more, as around 1,500 planes were destroyed, leaving him with only 5,000 odd aircraft at the beginning of Barbarossa.

But ultimately, the Nazis had incredible success in the early stages of the war, but still lost, because Soviet industrial capacity, and a more efficient war machine, just allowed them to out produce, and overwhelm the Nazis.

The most interesting part of Simo's story is the guy used iron sights, no scope.

He killed a hell of a lot of Russians as a submachine gunner too. Just an incredible thing for one guy to be so stupidly good at war.

Tyyr wrote:It was their leadership. Hitler's obsession with the V weapons and that one weapon that would immediately end the war got in the way of a lot of "good enough" solutions in the pursuit of perfection. If they'd followed their original plan to kick off the war in 1944 they might have managed enough success to accomplish most of their goals.

This is strategic thinking. especially if Germany wants a successful revenge (especially against Britain) the nation needs its very own powerful) the preparations should be much better. especially in 1939, Panzer 3 and 4 (which are purposed to be main battle engines) are already in production. in case of Germany, invasion of Poland was stemmed by politics ALONE. why? few years earlier. Germany and Italy did enter the war in Spain (and helped Francisco Franco to form 'a holy catholic republic') they had already learned MANY things when encountering enemies equipped with superior Soviet armor (Soviet did successfully perfected British Vickers 6 ton Mk. E tank, made it deadlier with bigger guns that has longer barrel). and 'maybe' soviet advanced monoplanes. but the follow-up events (which driven by the weaker neighbour. Italy) pushed the expansionisme mindset into German leadership thinking. by that time Italy had annexed some lesser countries in Africa or even Threaten to induce Austria into their belongings (I don't know what did Mussolini plans about Austria. would he restore Habsburg monarchy there?) this forced Germany to annex Austria and.. later, Czechoslovakia much earlier... in the time while army was still under equipped (compared to France, Brits, Soviets, and even Italy). it was a pure gamble. ok it's a superior tactics that earns Germans victory in earlier campaigns. but the war with Britain STILL requires a formidable navy. and Germany NEVER has a comparable size of navy that match ones of the Brits. while advanced weapons require an acual battle reports to make a reasons of development valid (Ex. Tiger (and Big Cat series) panzers =^.^= requires an experiences with stronger Allies armor (Char B1 and Matilda) the basic weapons (and maybe, a semiauto rifle) are already there. so 1944 Kickoff still valid.
suppose that Germany didn't invade Poland until 1944. German armored units could have Panzer 3 and 4 as normal gear and perseves Pz1 and 2 for TRAININGS ONLY as originally planned. while they can have a navy that can brakthrough British naval chain blockades. and support Blitzkriegs against Britania. In addition. Germany can rig Irish politics so the invasions can become easier (Ireland being a springboard to Britania. by that time Irish and Brits are still banes to each other. if Germany successfully exploited this phenomenon. German army can march right to London.
or alternatively. Germany smuggled arms to support rebels in Brits and French colonies and the early campaigns are the 'liberation' of those colonies (especially ones in Africa first, while the Japs do far-east things).. and then drive towards London. UNDER BOTH scenarios. a strong navy is needed.

Lone Cat wrote:

Tyyr wrote:It was their leadership. Hitler's obsession with the V weapons and that one weapon that would immediately end the war got in the way of a lot of "good enough" solutions in the pursuit of perfection. If they'd followed their original plan to kick off the war in 1944 they might have managed enough success to accomplish most of their goals.

This is strategic thinking. especially if Germany wants a successful revenge (especially against Britain) the nation needs its very own powerful) the preparations should be much better. especially in 1939, Panzer 3 and 4 (which are purposed to be main battle engines) are already in production. in case of Germany, invasion of Poland was stemmed by politics ALONE. why? few years earlier. Germany and Italy did enter the war in Spain (and helped Francisco Franco to form 'a holy catholic republic') they had already learned MANY things when encountering enemies equipped with superior Soviet armor (Soviet did successfully perfected British Vickers 6 ton Mk. E tank, made it deadlier with bigger guns that has longer barrel). and 'maybe' soviet advanced monoplanes. but the follow-up events (which driven by the weaker neighbour. Italy) pushed the expansionisme mindset into German leadership thinking. by that time Italy had annexed some lesser countries in Africa or even Threaten to induce Austria into their belongings (I don't know what did Mussolini plans about Austria. would he restore Habsburg monarchy there?) this forced Germany to annex Austria and.. later, Czechoslovakia much earlier... in the time while army was still under equipped (compared to France, Brits, Soviets, and even Italy). it was a pure gamble. ok it's a superior tactics that earns Germans victory in earlier campaigns. but the war with Britain STILL requires a formidable navy. and Germany NEVER has a comparable size of navy that match ones of the Brits. while advanced weapons require an acual battle reports to make a reasons of development valid (Ex. Tiger (and Big Cat series) panzers =^.^= requires an experiences with stronger Allies armor (Char B1 and Matilda) the basic weapons (and maybe, a semiauto rifle) are already there. so 1944 Kickoff still valid.
suppose that Germany didn't invade Poland until 1944. German armored units could have Panzer 3 and 4 as normal gear and perseves Pz1 and 2 for TRAININGS ONLY as originally planned. while they can have a navy that can brakthrough British naval chain blockades. and support Blitzkriegs against Britania. In addition. Germany can rig Irish politics so the invasions can become easier (Ireland being a springboard to Britania. by that time Irish and Brits are still banes to each other. if Germany successfully exploited this phenomenon. German army can march right to London.
or alternatively. Germany smuggled arms to support rebels in Brits and French colonies and the early campaigns are the 'liberation' of those colonies (especially ones in Africa first, while the Japs do far-east things).. and then drive towards London. UNDER BOTH scenarios. a strong navy is needed.

The UK had at least one carrier and likely would have had more by that time. Equipped with the latest US made dive bombers/torpedo bombers and any naval engagement would have been a short one.

Frazzled wrote:The UK had at least one carrier and likely would have had more by that time. Equipped with the latest US made dive bombers/torpedo bombers and any naval engagement would have been a short one.

Indeed, it had a seven carrier lead over the Germans in 1939. In the event of a carrier arms race I'm sure Britain could come up with its own dive and torpedo bombers in the intervening five year gap.

Germany can't build more than two (three?) carriers without breaking treaty with the UK.

George Spiggott wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The UK had at least one carrier and likely would have had more by that time. Equipped with the latest US made dive bombers/torpedo bombers and any naval engagement would have been a short one.

Indeed, it had a seven carrier lead over the Germans in 1939. In the event of a carrier arms race I'm sure Britain could come up with its own dive and torpedo bombers in the intervening five year gap.

Germany can't build more than two (three?) carriers without breaking treaty with the UK.

1. They wouldn't have to. The US had the best in the world, available for friends and neighbors. Frazzled has dreams of TBF Avengers, and screaming Corsairs with the UK mark tangling with Foche Wolfs and making torpedo runs on the Bismark.

2. Wait the UK had seven carriers? Seriously?

Frazzled wrote:1. They wouldn't have to. The US had the best in the world, available for friends and neighbors. Frazzled has dreams of TBF Avengers, and screaming Corsairs with the UK mark tangling with Foche Wolfs and making torpedo runs on the Bismark.

2. Wait the UK had seven carriers? Seriously?

Do they also come with the worlds best time machine to transport them (and the FW 190) back to meet Bismarck? Which furniture are we moving, I'm confused.

Actually it may be six, I think my previous source was counting HMS Illustrious (launched but not commissioned in 1939). But otherwise yes, seriously.

so I see why Karl Haussoffer needs russian alliance. and once the war against Russia broke out. it evoked outcry amongs german commanders. many are shocked and i think the war with Russia is unwise.

1. If Germany did gunrunnings to colonial rebels within British Empire (for instance. India, by the time of WW2. Many indians had enough with the 'barbarian monarches'). will Britain invades Germany outright?
2. What will happen if Britain didn't grant Indian independency after the WW2 ended? will they restore slave systems? will it results in clashes with Russia? (well in real life. India becomes closer and closer to Soviets right after its independency. while not officially declare themselves soviet goons. the two did numerous deals. including the use of Soviet tech and tank designs, and maybe the Indian Armed forces uses ALOT of soviet-style weapons).

George Spiggott wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. They wouldn't have to. The US had the best in the world, available for friends and neighbors. Frazzled has dreams of TBF Avengers, and screaming Corsairs with the UK mark tangling with Foche Wolfs and making torpedo runs on the Bismark.

2. Wait the UK had seven carriers? Seriously?

Do they also come with the worlds best time machine to transport them (and the FW 190) back to meet Bismarck? Which furniture are we moving, I'm confused.

Actually it may be six, I think my previous source was counting HMS Illustrious (launched but not commissioned in 1939). But otherwise yes, seriously.

Well if there is no war in 1938, the Bismark is still about, still ripe for bombing.