NationStates Jolt Archive

you know the Germans invested a means to turn coal into Fuel. it cost more in time and money but to defend a small area he could have done it.

Yes, the Germans were incredibly advanced. You are correct about the synthetic fuels they had. Did you know they had some of their SdKfz 251 half tracks fitted with Nightvision sighting? Not only was this mounted on vehicles, towards the end of the war individual soldiers had night sights fitted onto their Sturmgewehr 44's (A revelation in itself)

Yes, the Germans were incredibly advanced. You are correct about the synthetic fuels they had. Did you know they had some of their SdKfz 251 half tracks fitted with Nightvision sighting? Not only was this mounted on vehicles, towards the end of the war individual soldiers had night sights fitted onto their Sturmgewehr 44's (A revelation in itself)

too bad cheaper and more numerous won the war. No one could have ever beat the Germans with equal numbers then.

If Britain had been knocked out ofg the war the Soviet Union would just win by itself.

Germany went wrong when they started the war. They could've built up much more before the war started. They also had no need or right to attempt to exterminate the Jewish people.

<snip>

I think the Germans went wrong when they splitted off from the dutch :p

During WW II, the Germans employed a military tactic known as "Blitzkrieg", which was very effective, it captured France in 17 days. By the time the Germans started moving East towards Russia, most of Western Europe was under German control. However, as soon as the Germans started a two front war, things pretty much fell apart for them. Both Britain and the USSR was able to push the Germans back.

Well the problems with starting a two front war are pretty obviuos however despite that they still almost pulled it off.

I think that is where they first went wrong. The Blitzkrieg was the perfect offensive military strategy, but only on one front, not two. They should've captured Britain first, and then go after Russia. Japan, instead of attack Pearl Harbor would've helped out the Germans by forcing Russia into a two front war, Germans on the West, Japan on the East. '

Well a lot of the blitzkrieg had to do with handing out speed to soldiers. It worked great for awhile untill their health started to deterioate because of it. Not to mention France was totally unprepared for war. Also the alliance with Japan was one of convienence they really didn't have much in common as far as ambitions go. Japan didn't give a crap about Russia even if Germany had beat England the Japanese probably would still have gone after America first. America still controlled many islands in the Pacific region Japan viewed as it's right to control.

Japan attacking the USA was more of an axis power mistake. At this time the USA was officially in isolation, with the mentality "Not our problem". Whether or not they would've enter the war if Britain was captured is up to debate. However, for the time the USA was not interested in getting into another World War, thus there was no reason for Japan to attack them, except to be a total dick.

F.D.R. wanted America to enter the war, but knew he would never get suport unless America was attacked. He pushed the Japanese as hard as he could to get them to declare war. Bassically F.D.R. continually slapped the Japanese in the face to get them to attack so he could get America involved.

The third and final mistake the Germans made was that towards the end of the war, instead of stepping up their military strength, Hitler diverted all of the effort into killing as many Concentration/Death camps detainees as possible. Comon, you'll have plenty of time to ethnically cleanse the world once you control it. Hitler should've divert attention away from the camps and to the military, not the other way around.

It wouldn't have mattered once the English and Americans got a foothold in France. However it would have been nice if he had done as you said enough innocent people died because of him. The bitter bastard wanted to take as many jews as he could with him.

Hitler was a great leader, and for awhile was a great military strategist, but somewhere along the way, he screwed things up and it all went to Hell. Sometimes I wonder what it would've been like if he contiuned the one front war instead of starting a two front war with Britain and Russia.

I like not to think about that possibility, but I can tell you what destroyed his military genuis METH.

Thats a regiment all u do is execute orders, he's not fit to command the whole luftwaffe he has to make all the orders and plans for all of the campaigns.
How the fuck do you plan to get new COs if not from the best of the NCO crowd?

How the fuck do you plan to get new COs if not from the best of the NCO crowd?

Damn pen pushers. :p

It's not like there is a realistic scenario under which the Germans could have won (the only one being Moscow falling in 1941 and the USSR falling to pieces as a result).

Even so, the reason they did so well in the early years was a superior understanding of the possibilities given by new technologies, which came primarily because of the huge amount of independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics) given to the officers and NCOs on the ground, and then up the ladder. Whenever the top commanders constrained the judgement of the people actually in the front lines (which usually included the generals as well), things had a good chance of going wrong. It almost happened in France as well, as the OKW was bitching and moaning about Guderian being so quick and exposing a flank.

Given further tactical developments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgruppe) as the war progressed, the German military could have been hugely more effective even against the superior allied forces. Instead there kept being orders from above to do this or do that with little connection to reality.

But don't get me wrong, that wouldn't have led to Germany winning the war, just to a few more months of agony for everyone involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oADv2ZWozSg
One needs only to look here

No. If the British Isles had been lost or otherwise locked out of American reach, the only way to strike Germany would have been via a transatlantic invasion force. The Americans had enough trouble with the D-day landings (which curiously enough, the British and Canadian landings went off much better). This was with the help of the Royal Navy (IIRC) and local air superiority helping the invasion.

With Britain out of the fight, things change significantly. And let's not forget British intelligence with ULTRA and similar intelligence coups. Without those, it's not likely that Enigma would have been cracked as early as it was, giving Kriegsmarine U boats a much better time of it.

In that war, Britain would have been the key launching point for an invasion into Europe or defending against one.
What about Ireland? I realize they've been neutral, but surely the Irish could see what was happening and where things would go. (Or not.) Maybe they'd do something?

Or at the very least the United States could try invading Britain from Iceland.

Unfortunately, you're probably at least partially right. There's really not many other ways to go about this.



Definitely. Japanese infantry and mechanized troops may have had a lot of spirit, but their equipment was sub par compared to the powers of the time.

That being said, Japanese ships were better than their Russian counterparts by a generation or so in both kit and doctrine. Turning Vladivostok into rubble or just blockading would have been well within their capabilities. They likely wouldn't have been able to make much gains landwise though. Japanese tanks were rubbish, and the Soviet factories were churning out far superior T-34s by the boatload.
That's basically what I see it as. Red Alert III this ain't.



Suppress the RAF, and without the Lancaster bombers, the tallboys wouldn't have been deployed, much less the dambuster brigade, or the constant firebomb raids in industrial Germany. It would have been a bit like America then, with it's production capability mostly unharmed. It's not impossible that they wouldn't have the resources to build such a complex to bombard the Urals.

Although to be fair, the idea behind the Soviet invasion was more blitzkrieg, so stopping to build that wouldn't be likely until they really bogged down.
Well in that case, the way I'd see it is that it'd end up a war of attrition between the Soviet Union and Germany, with constant fighting back and forth, probably for many, many years until someone finally broke due to manpower losses.

Germany would be the first to do that.



Oh take off your McTavish moustache. It's not fooling anyone. :p

:D


That would really depend. The V1 and V2 weapons in use and Blitz on London were a waste of resources. The former because of British counter intel that messed up German targeting and the latter because they didn't do much.

The planned V3 complex on the other hand, would have been capable of launching many times more missiles than the V2 sites, allowing them to saturate London with fire rather than bits and pieces with a handful of missiles every other week.

If they could have pulled it off, a true firestorm engulfing London, it would have been extremely demoralizing to the British people. Churchill would likely be forced to pull a miracle out of his hat or make concessions to Germany.
It's a real question to ponder, I can see.

What I can tell is that obviously neither of us are military historians, so we're probably a little out of our league trying to tackle this.

Still...you might be right. I dunno. It depends upon just how hard Churchill could fight and how much he could inspire...he was tossed out of office as soon as the war was over, so maybe he'd not have been able to hang on to power after all.

.

That would really depend. The V1 and V2 weapons in use and Blitz on London were a waste of resources. The former because of British counter intel that messed up German targeting and the latter because they didn't do much.



The V1's weren't a waste.

They were brilliant, cost effective bombers.

They didn't have a pilot or crew, as opposed to say the ten in a Lancaster.
Many could be built for the price of one bomber.

They forced the british to deploy 2,000 barrage balloons, heaps of anti-airraft guns, and about 20 squadrons of fighters to deal with them.

They were excellent, costeffective weapons.

The V1's weren't a waste.

...

They were excellent, costeffective weapons.

Indeed...

...there's a table on the Wiki page that sums it up very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1#Assessment

For the same casualty rate per ton of explosives as during the Blitz, the Gerrmans used less fuel, less total tonnage of explosives, and lost zero pilots. At the same time, the Allies continued to lose planes and pilots in efforts to stop these weapons.

The V-2, however, was another tale altogether...the Germans could have built another 6,000 fighters or 48,000 tanks for the cost of the V2s that were built, to say nothing of the V2s relative ineffectiveness.

What about Ireland? I realize they've been neutral, but surely the Irish could see what was happening and where things would go. (Or not.) Maybe they'd do something?

Or at the very least the United States could try invading Britain from Iceland.

Unfortunately, you're probably at least partially right. There's really not many other ways to go about this.

Ireland wouldn't have been that great of a Marshaling point for an invasion I suspect, since you'd still have to cross the Channel, and the British Isles (assuming Germany subdued them) would have been far better situated to turn any attempt at crossing, especially from Ireland into a suicide run. You'd have to throw a much bigger force across the Atlantic and hope that you would be able to make a landing far from any resupply.


That's basically what I see it as. Red Alert III this ain't.


Still, you take out Vladivostok, well within Japanese capabilities of the time, you deny Russian access to Lend Lease, delaying any attempt to ramp up wartime production.


Well in that case, the way I'd see it is that it'd end up a war of attrition between the Soviet Union and Germany, with constant fighting back and forth, probably for many, many years until someone finally broke due to manpower losses.

Germany would be the first to do that.

Depends on whether they manage to build better V weapons and atomic bombs. If Germany ever finished work on their proposed Transatlantic bomber in that war of attrition, the factories in the Urals would have been turned to rubble, costing Russia it's production advantage.


It's a real question to ponder, I can see.

What I can tell is that obviously neither of us are military historians, so we're probably a little out of our league trying to tackle this.

Still...you might be right. I dunno. It depends upon just how hard Churchill could fight and how much he could inspire...he was tossed out of office as soon as the war was over, so maybe he'd not have been able to hang on to power after all.

Without an actual invasion, forcing capitulation really depends on either making the war too expensive, or too horrific, to continue. Burning London to the ground with a huge bombardment might not have broken the back of their fighting spirit entirely, but it definitely would have demoralized them significantly. If combined with public radio broadcasts asking for a surrender, there's no telling which way it would have gone for Churchill.

The V1's weren't a waste.

They were brilliant, cost effective bombers.

They didn't have a pilot or crew, as opposed to say the ten in a Lancaster.
Many could be built for the price of one bomber.

They forced the british to deploy 2,000 barrage balloons, heaps of anti-airraft guns, and about 20 squadrons of fighters to deal with them.

They were excellent, costeffective weapons.

Mostly cost effective, but much less so once the British started deploying automatic radar gunlaying and proximity fuzes.

They would have needed improvements on the V-1s to make them much more effective after that.

you know the Germans invested a means to turn coal into Fuel. it cost more in time and money but to defend a small area he could have done it.

The Fischer-Tropsch reaction requires too much to have ever been of effective use. It wouldn't have been able to provide the necessary power to fuel an entire war machine. It can hardly fuel an entire country, partially because the production capacity doesn't exist, but also because it is, as you said, more costly.

South Africa used it when they couldn't import any oil and it kept their needs fulfilled, but they could hardly produce enough to satisfy their wants.

During WW II, the Germans employed a military tactic known as "Blitzkrieg", which was very effective, it captured France in 17 days. By the time the Germans started moving East towards Russia, most of Western Europe was under German control. However, as soon as the Germans started a two front war, things pretty much fell apart for them. Both Britain and the USSR was able to push the Germans back.

I think that is where they first went wrong. The Blitzkrieg was the perfect offensive military strategy, but only on one front, not two. They should've captured Britain first, and then go after Russia. Japan, instead of attack Pearl Harbor would've helped out the Germans by forcing Russia into a two front war, Germans on the West, Japan on the East.

Japan attacking the USA was more of an axis power mistake. At this time the USA was officially in isolation, with the mentality "Not our problem". Whether or not they would've enter the war if Britain was captured is up to debate. However, for the time the USA was not interested in getting into another World War, thus there was no reason for Japan to attack them, except to be a total dick.

The third and final mistake the Germans made was that towards the end of the war, instead of stepping up their military strength, Hitler diverted all of the effort into killing as many Concentration/Death camps detainees as possible. Comon, you'll have plenty of time to ethnically cleanse the world once you control it. Hitler should've divert attention away from the camps and to the military, not the other way around.

Hitler was a great leader, and for awhile was a great military strategist, but somewhere along the way, he screwed things up and it all went to Hell. Sometimes I wonder what it would've been like if he contiuned the one front war instead of starting a two front war with Britain and Russia.

Thoughts?
Thoughts:

1) He sucked as a strategist. Big time.
2) In the beginning he let the real strategists do the work. The battle for France was the wonderchild of Guderian and von Manstein. After the initial successes though, he was arrogant enough to get involved more and more in the grand strategy. Combined with 1), this was a main cause of the downfall.
3) When it came to the Marco Polo incident, he decided to side with Japan rather than China (Germany had great relations with both), assuming that Japan would be the better ally against the USSR. Huge mistake. The Japanese were bent on avoiding a war with the Soviets, whereas the Chinese were not only fighting against a communist threat for years in advance, they had manpower which would've exceeded the thin-spread Japanese forces in the Asian theatre.
4) This is somewhat related to 2): He disregarded the great minds in favour of his personal buddies. The junkie Göring was given a military rank above anyone despite doing abso-fuckin-lutely nothing of interest than eliminating other high-ranking officers who gained respect by actually doing something, such as Ernst Udet. Forcing him to kill himself was one of the reasons Germany lost the air battle against GB (the other one was failing to listen to Wever before he died).

Where did the Germans go wrong?November 12th, 1918. Ninety years later, we got Merkel.

Unlikely. Germany wouldn't have had the fuel to field airplanes and much less tanks to defend itself.

Perhaps not indefinately, but again, if he had chosen to only hold those two relatively small territories, he would have the advantage.
Had he done this, many of the countries that did become involved, probably would not have.

I highly doubt the US would have, and even Britian.

Who then, would have stood against them in thier bid for adjascent lands?
Poland? France?

Teutoburg Forest

Germany went wrong when they started the war. They could've built up much more before the war started.
No, they couldn't. Germany was having problems with inflation because it was basically in a war economy from 1936 onwards, and needed the war to keep people shut up.
They also had no need or right to attempt to exterminate the Jewish people.
Aye or gypsies, who died in as many numbers, but live in caravans instead of running banks, which makes this forgotten.

Teutoburg Forest

have you been playing Rome total war again?

have you been playing Rome total war again?

:D and they lost *laughs and points at Varus*