PDA

View Full Version : OT: Scenarios Germany could have won the war.



maxpower2
07-18-2005, 11:50 AM
in my opinion germany could have won the war in 1940.

1. if hitler would have let the panzers roll onto the beaches of dunkirk, and not listened to that disgusting fat body goering, they would have either destroyed the BEF or taken most of it prisoner. then hitler would have had a great card to play against churchill.

2. telling the bombers to start hitting london instead of finishing off the RAF. in most books ive read on the subject, at the time the luftwaffe turned its attention onto london, estimates were that the RAF had maybe 8-14 days left of fight in her. by hitting london, it gave the RAF a respite from which to make a comeback and defeat the luftwaffe.

3. not capturing malta. stupid stupid decision. my favorite part of the war to study is north africa. the initial drop should have been at night like the allies did in 44. very poorly executed operation if you ask me. but malta then stayed a rather large sore in rommels bum, who was never properly supported anyways because of russia. could you imagine if hitler gave full support to rommel and he got past el alamein and to the suez? germany would have been able to seiz tons of oil fields and then eventually attack russia from the south. or perhaps invade india and link up with japan in south east asia!

4. invading russia when he did. entirely too early. while making impressive gains, thee were no plans for a prolonged offensive or the brutal winter.

5. stalingrad. enough said. only a foolish commander knows that he is beaten but sticks around anyways. pride kills.

6. insisting the me262 be a bomber. if he hadnt envisioned this "blitz bomber", the worlds first jet fighter probably would have hit the front lines a full year earlier and been able to make a significant dent in the 8th airforce.

7. concentrateing on the pas de calais. both sides knew this was the closest between 2 points. the english knew where they were concentrateing, germany knew they knew. calais is a poor invasion point anyways, much to small a front and lends itself to be cut off too easily.

8. not releasing the tanks on d-day. should have never been a tank reserve near paris at all. should have listened to rommel and let him put them at key poins along the french coast. reducing the time for a counterattack and reducing the risk of allied air attack while getting into posistion.

i have also read that hitlers advisers told him that in order to ensure victory, germany wouldnt be ready to fight such a war until 1945 not 1939!

just a few thoughts, discuss.

Maj_Solo
07-18-2005, 12:15 PM
germany could never have won the war , only prolonged it. Whatever they did they were surrounded by the whole world. Their scientists were ahead in some areas but behind in some critical areas. How would and end of WWII have looked if the U.S. had been forced to form a beachhead in one of the less defended corners and nuke its way to victory. The end of the war would not be in the hands of germany but more if the U.S. determination would be brutal enough.

If unable to fight in europe they would end the pacific war quicker is my guess and then take it from there. A free China could join and free Russia once more ...... it would be a bad war.

Also germany needed to attack russia cause if you make so much noise in europe as germany did, russia was mobilizing and germany knew this. And even if germany got and endless series of free punches on russia germany lost.

And one might think germanys war production was hurt when it probably was out of men and gas it seems to me. Brand new Fw190 and were standing without pilots.

They might say Luftwaffe made this or that error and the corrupt leadership made the wrong decisions in not introducing advanced designs and so on and so on, and not speding resources on the V2 project could have yielded another 100000 fighters or what it was. But even if hurt so badly germany could produce as I said, just wasn't enough men and fuel to fight the world.

Also, look at U.S. 10 support men for each fighting men .... they had fuel and men to fight the war 5 more times, even if disgustingly costly. The end of the war was just about how brutal the will power was in the allied leaders.

I bet stalin would like to have waited 2 - 3 more years and then maybe ... just maybe ... he would have attacked .... but only if Russia was to be awarded richly .... cause I guess they really didn't want to attack cause they had enough land to manage .... and if they would have attack then europe would have looked pretty different.

As it is now, nice ending, back to square one, everybodys home watching TV in the same country their ancestors lived in except in the east were some borders were moved.

It ended ok the war I guess ..... why the what ifs .... some people says that occupation always fails ... so ... shrug

FDNYFAN
07-18-2005, 12:19 PM
His biggest mistake was attacking the U.S.S.R. but thank Kahless he did.

Maj_Solo
07-18-2005, 12:22 PM
he could not have waited. But he was distracted with the balkan campaign, had he started in time as planned he could have won and controled russia ..... for awhile .... at a price ... but the unprofessional speghettiguys (if I am allowed to be sarcastic) mad a mess of it twice I think it was. inferior complex.

Celeon999
07-18-2005, 12:52 PM
just wasn't enough men and fuel to fight the world.

10,8 million men + 700.000 SS men were much more than you need to fight the world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For the part of the fuel. Thats right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. But Chechoslovakia had it. That was the reason for the attack on them.


And even if germany got and endless series of free punches on russia germany lost.


The soviet union was on the edge of total breakdown , disorganized , low morale. The front was only 12 km away from moscow. It was never the idea to conquer the whole country by force. Its much to huge !

Destroying the ideological head of the soviet union (moscow , stalin and the polit bureau) would had been enough to let the entire political system collapse. That was the idea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A new fascistic marionette goverment and then peace negotiations.

Hitler said : "The soviet industrial power is very strong." "But all that is huge is also slow"

"The ideological foundament theyve build their house on is not so stable as it seems."

"The Wehrmacht just needs to kick the door in with a fast mighty strike and it will collapse before they can even make plans for raising their industrial power"

"The critical factor is time" "It needs to be fast, fast fast and again fast"

But them came the russian winter.... Minus 50 degrees celsius are more than man and machine equipt for an fast summer war can take. And the dream of a quick war freezed to death"



But heh , thats of no meaning anymore. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It didnt worked out as planned and so all other plans for britain and the quick peace negotiations with the USA also failed.

Huckebein_UK
07-18-2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by maxpower2:
in my opinion germany could have won the war in 1940.

That's all well and good with hindsight, but there are a few holes:


2. telling the bombers to start hitting london instead of finishing off the RAF. in most books ive read on the subject, at the time the luftwaffe turned its attention onto london, estimates were that the RAF had maybe 8-14 days left of fight in her. by hitting london, it gave the RAF a respite from which to make a comeback and defeat the luftwaffe.

The achievement of total air superiority was the Luftwaffe's aim, yes. However, that was only of any value if an invasion was to be attempted. Very few genuine plans were made for Seelowe - most German Generals did not think it feasible at that time. Also, the RAF was only the first obstacle. Getting rid of it was designed to then allow the Luftwaffe to protect the Kriegsmarine from the Royal Navy; no easy task in itself, I'm sure you'll agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Besides all that the Luftwaffe would have had to grind itself into the dust to entirely wipe out Fighter Command, based on the relative loss rates the two forces were suffering at the height of the battle. It would no more have been able to effectively attack the RN than the RAF would have been able to stop it. Both forces would have re-built in parallel, and then you just get BoB II. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


4. invading russia when he did. entirely too early. while making impressive gains, thee were no plans for a prolonged offensive or the brutal winter.

Had to be done sooner rather than later, whilst the Red Army was reeling from the effects of Stalin's purges and Soviet industry was asleep. Mussolini's ****-up in the Balkans was the main factor that meant that the invasion was, in the end, too late to succeed.



5. stalingrad. enough said. only a foolish commander knows that he is beaten but sticks around anyways. pride kills.


Could have gone either way for long periods of time. Victory would have opened the way for the same kinds of conquests of the Caucasus and the Middle East that Rommel would have had had he broken through Africa. The Soviet encirclement surprised the VIth Army and von Paulus was never given any other option. Stalingrad was a very well-won victory for the Soviets, it wasn't a ****-up by the Germans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


6. insisting the me262 be a bomber. if he hadnt envisioned this "blitz bomber", the worlds first jet fighter probably would have hit the front lines a full year earlier and been able to make a significant dent in the 8th airforce.


A far-too-long held belief that is, in fact, entirely myth. Adolph Hitler did insist that all early-production Me 262s be built as A-2a light-bombers. First off, considering that the Allied Invasion of Western Europe was excpected at any time, the Germans needed a plan to push it back. The best way to do this is by reacting rapidly and catching the troops on the shores. The best way to do this is to pin them to the shoreline with repeated air attack. No Luftwaffe machine of the day would have been able to take a payload in under the extremely heavy Allied air umbrella (the Allies had had air superiority in Western Europe for some months), and survive, let alone repeatedly. None, that is, except, just aybe, a jet. Only a turbojet-powered aircraft would have the performance required to evade Allied fighters. Here was the '262, 'ready' for production, and more than capable of lifting a substantial bomb load, as assured by Willy Messerschmitt himself. Hitler ordered it done, in an entirely tactically sound decision.
In the event, the order was ignored by RLM authorities who wanted jet fighters asap! Hitler was absolutely furious when, a mere fortnight before the 6th June, he was informed that none of the Me 262s built so far were able to carry bombs; it was being built exclusively as a fighter. Bomber-variant production began at that point, no earlier.
Then, even though several dozen Me 262A-1a (fighetr) examples had been constructed, problems with the Junkers JUMO 004 turbojet production meant that they were without engines for a long time, and never entered service until, iirc, mid-July anyway.
Hitler's edict delayed '262A-1as entering frontline service by a maximum of two months or so, no more. That was not long enough for them to have any more effect than they eventually did anyway, due to the severe restrictions placed on serviceability figures, caused by engine unreliability.
The aircraft that the Luftwaffe should have had in '43 was Fw 190D. The reason the fitting of an inline engine to the Fw 190 wasn't pursued earlier was an unwillingness to interrupt Fw 190A production; perfectly sensible to people at the time, but a mistake with hindsight. Fw 190Ds in 1943 would have caused horrific problems, since it would have been completely and utterly superior to almost all Allied fighters at the time.


7. concentrateing on the pas de calais. both sides knew this was the closest between 2 points. the english knew where they were concentrateing, germany knew they knew. calais is a poor invasion point anyways, much to small a front and lends itself to be cut off too easily.

Hindsight. What idiots they'd have looked if they'd blocked Normandy up and we'd hopped over into Calais!



8. not releasing the tanks on d-day. should have never been a tank reserve near paris at all. should have listened to rommel and let him put them at key poins along the french coast. reducing the time for a counterattack and reducing the risk of allied air attack while getting into posistion.

Hindsight. Although they probably should have released the Panzers earlier, only one side knew that Normandy wasn't a diversion.


i have also read that hitlers advisers told him that in order to ensure victory, germany wouldnt be ready to fight such a war until 1945 not 1939!


I've never read that, although you may be right. However, think of the state a fully-Stalinised Russia would have been in by then, purges over and Army rebuilt! Secondly, Hitler officially didn't start WWII, we did. He could have withdrawn from Poland, true, but he gambled on us not keeping our promise to the Poles. We did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Once we have declared war on them, they have no choice but to fight.

Nice thread though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jpr21b
07-18-2005, 01:56 PM
wow, you guys sound pissed that germany didnt win! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I get the same feelings sometimes about the United States Civil War and the Confederate Army.

It's like rooting for the underdog or something, same human feeling.

Pappy44_6
07-18-2005, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Maj_Solo:
germany could never have won the war , only prolonged it. Whatever they did they were surrounded by the whole world. Their scientists were ahead in some areas but behind in some critical areas. How would and end of WWII have looked if the U.S. had been forced to form a beachhead in one of the less defended corners and nuke its way to victory. The end of the war would not be in the hands of germany but more if the U.S. determination would be brutal enough.


The US wouldn't have had the bombs had they not captured those German scientists. The Germans actually weren't that far away from producing their own nuke.

jpr21b
07-18-2005, 02:27 PM
yeah, i LOVE watching history channel and histories mystories, and discovering how crazily advanced those germans were in the early 1940's.

Its almost scary how much stuff they engineered that actually become todays modern technology.

blue_76
07-18-2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by jpr21b:
wow, you guys sound pissed that germany didnt win! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

i'm sure most here are glad germany lost the war.. we're simply exploring the aspects of what could've made germany win or prolong it at least.
in my opinion, one thing could've made a drastic change and that was the atomic bomb, germany came very close to building it.

jpr21b
07-18-2005, 02:38 PM
jeez, the nuke, rocket technology, night vision...what the heck did the nazi's not do first! I just recently went to france and the normandy area, and was just amazed everywhere I went how incredible it was that we made it through the area fast enough to get to Berlin before the soviets got it.

If anything, video games like these help reinforce that act of courage and, in most cases, luck.

Huckebein_UK
07-18-2005, 02:48 PM
Eh? The Soviets got to Berlin first, by a mile!

Germans were the first to effectively use rockets and night-vision, yes, but radar, sonar, jet-engines, ground-mapping radar, ECM, proximity fuses, etc., etc. were all war-winning technologies, and we got 'em first. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jpr21b
07-18-2005, 02:53 PM
yeah, but I bet you a million bucks that some german scientist defected that information to us.

Albert Einstein anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

KillerBotter
07-18-2005, 03:35 PM
The only way Germany wins the war is by not allying itself to Japan. Make it known across the world that Japan is not their friend, even help other countries fight Japan. The alliance with Japan insisted that Germany declare war upon the US when the US declared upon Japan. Then the US declared upon Germany. The second that happened the war was over. No matter what the war, the US does not give up if it has the political will to win, which it did. The only reason the US has even lost a war (Vietnam) was because the French put us in a lousy position at the beginning of it. The second the US joins a war on your side you can consider yourself the winner. No one in the US wanted to declare war on Germany. There was too much German blood in the government and in the majority of the population. Not to mention millions invested in both Germany and Britain. Had Hitler taken the mainland of Europe, called it a day and built up for a huge invasion of Britain and then taken the chance years later. He might've won. Unfortunately he was an arrogant meglomaniac, I won't be as dumb.

Maj_Solo
07-18-2005, 05:39 PM
If they had fuel why did their tanks stop ..... was it because germany didn't know what 'support meant' ..... if it were they had fuel but didn't know the importance of getting it to the front then I might agree with you, in the end germanys forces were unbalanced .... some neat equip but not a real force with sustainable fighting ability, neither in the air or on the ground, they needed some freebies on the enemy or everything would grind to a halt and everyone in their vicinity was so nice to them as to allow the freebies ...

Maj_Solo
07-18-2005, 05:47 PM
**** talk about morale .... hi hihi ... how wasn't that in the german army and at the same time fresh ski troops came in from eastern russia ..... who has ever been able to attack and hold russia ..... hell, the russians themselves have problem holding anything except old authentic old russia.

If the germany was the strongest why didn't they win huh??????? As Dr. Phil says (don't laugh) I don't listen on what you say I listen to what you do ..... or another phrase from him "based on results" .... da da da .... well, there the russians came and ****ing blew the under equipped germans in the head knowing basic things as not to put grease in the rifle mechanism besides a million other things .... the ******ed russians won ... so .... as Dr. Phil says .... based on results ... who was the ****** ........

but I do feel bad about the 26 million russians that died .... life was just way way way oo cruel on them ....

Maj_Solo
07-18-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Huckebein_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by maxpower2:
in my opinion germany could have won the war in 1940.

That's all well and good with hindsight, but there are a few holes:


2. telling the bombers to start hitting london instead of finishing off the RAF. in most books ive read on the subject, at the time the luftwaffe turned its attention onto london, estimates were that the RAF had maybe 8-14 days left of fight in her. by hitting london, it gave the RAF a respite from which to make a comeback and defeat the luftwaffe.

The achievement of total air superiority was the Luftwaffe's aim, yes. However, that was only of any value if an invasion was to be attempted. Very few genuine plans were made for Seelowe - most German Generals did not think it feasible at that time. Also, the RAF was only the first obstacle. Getting rid of it was designed to then allow the Luftwaffe to protect the Kriegsmarine from the Royal Navy; no easy task in itself, I'm sure you'll agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Besides all that the Luftwaffe would have had to grind itself into the dust to entirely wipe out Fighter Command, based on the relative loss rates the two forces were suffering at the height of the battle. It would no more have been able to effectively attack the RN than the RAF would have been able to stop it. Both forces would have re-built in parallel, and then you just get BoB II. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


4. invading russia when he did. entirely too early. while making impressive gains, thee were no plans for a prolonged offensive or the brutal winter.

Had to be done sooner rather than later, whilst the Red Army was reeling from the effects of Stalin's purges and Soviet industry was asleep. Mussolini's ****-up in the Balkans was the main factor that meant that the invasion was, in the end, too late to succeed.



5. stalingrad. enough said. only a foolish commander knows that he is beaten but sticks around anyways. pride kills.


Could have gone either way for long periods of time. Victory would have opened the way for the same kinds of conquests of the Caucasus and the Middle East that Rommel would have had had he broken through Africa. The Soviet encirclement surprised the VIth Army and von Paulus was never given any other option. Stalingrad was a very well-won victory for the Soviets, it wasn't a ****-up by the Germans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


6. insisting the me262 be a bomber. if he hadnt envisioned this "blitz bomber", the worlds first jet fighter probably would have hit the front lines a full year earlier and been able to make a significant dent in the 8th airforce.


A far-too-long held belief that is, in fact, entirely myth. Adolph Hitler did insist that all early-production Me 262s be built as A-2a light-bombers. First off, considering that the Allied Invasion of Western Europe was excpected at any time, the Germans needed a plan to push it back. The best way to do this is by reacting rapidly and catching the troops on the shores. The best way to do this is to pin them to the shoreline with repeated air attack. No Luftwaffe machine of the day would have been able to take a payload in under the extremely heavy Allied air umbrella (the Allies had had air superiority in Western Europe for some months), and survive, let alone repeatedly. None, that is, except, just aybe, a jet. Only a turbojet-powered aircraft would have the performance required to evade Allied fighters. Here was the '262, 'ready' for production, and more than capable of lifting a substantial bomb load, as assured by Willy Messerschmitt himself. Hitler ordered it done, in an entirely tactically sound decision.
In the event, the order was ignored by RLM authorities who wanted jet fighters asap! Hitler was absolutely furious when, a mere fortnight before the 6th June, he was informed that none of the Me 262s built so far were able to carry bombs; it was being built exclusively as a fighter. Bomber-variant production began at that point, no earlier.
Then, even though several dozen Me 262A-1a (fighetr) examples had been constructed, problems with the Junkers JUMO 004 turbojet production meant that they were without engines for a long time, and never entered service until, iirc, mid-July anyway.
Hitler's edict delayed '262A-1as entering frontline service by a maximum of two months or so, no more. That was not long enough for them to have any more effect than they eventually did anyway, due to the severe restrictions placed on serviceability figures, caused by engine unreliability.
The aircraft that the Luftwaffe should have had in '43 was Fw 190D. The reason the fitting of an inline engine to the Fw 190 wasn't pursued earlier was an unwillingness to interrupt Fw 190A production; perfectly sensible to people at the time, but a mistake with hindsight. Fw 190Ds in 1943 would have caused horrific problems, since it would have been completely and utterly superior to almost all Allied fighters at the time.


7. concentrateing on the pas de calais. both sides knew this was the closest between 2 points. the english knew where they were concentrateing, germany knew they knew. calais is a poor invasion point anyways, much to small a front and lends itself to be cut off too easily.

Hindsight. What idiots they'd have looked if they'd blocked Normandy up and we'd hopped over into Calais!



8. not releasing the tanks on d-day. should have never been a tank reserve near paris at all. should have listened to rommel and let him put them at key poins along the french coast. reducing the time for a counterattack and reducing the risk of allied air attack while getting into posistion.

Hindsight. Although they probably should have released the Panzers earlier, only one side knew that Normandy wasn't a diversion.


i have also read that hitlers advisers told him that in order to ensure victory, germany wouldnt be ready to fight such a war until 1945 not 1939!


I've never read that, although you may be right. However, think of the state a fully-Stalinised Russia would have been in by then, purges over and Army rebuilt! Secondly, Hitler officially didn't start WWII, we did. He could have withdrawn from Poland, true, but he gambled on us not keeping our promise to the Poles. We did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Once we have declared war on them, they have no choice but to fight.

Nice thread though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To make seal├┬Âve you need transport capacity, not toy ships, otherwise the English would cut them up piece meal when they landed, every strategy gamer knows this, it has all to come across the channel at once .... every strategy gamer knows this and every professional also .... a ferry route will not do .... it is all at once and then you ferry in reinforcements and for that you need ~~~sufficient~~~ airsuperiory, not necessarily TOTAL superiority, a bridgehead that is not reinforced is dead, and if the initial blow is not heavy enough it is dead also ..... the germans could perhaps have done it if they focused ... but they were stuck with what they had .... nothing .... so just like a bully .... they could make some noise for awhile until the others organize .....

Maj_Solo
07-18-2005, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Huckebein_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by maxpower2:
in my opinion germany could have won the war in 1940.

That's all well and good with hindsight, but there are a few holes:


2. telling the bombers to start hitting london instead of finishing off the RAF. in most books ive read on the subject, at the time the luftwaffe turned its attention onto london, estimates were that the RAF had maybe 8-14 days left of fight in her. by hitting london, it gave the RAF a respite from which to make a comeback and defeat the luftwaffe.

The achievement of total air superiority was the Luftwaffe's aim, yes. However, that was only of any value if an invasion was to be attempted. Very few genuine plans were made for Seelowe - most German Generals did not think it feasible at that time. Also, the RAF was only the first obstacle. Getting rid of it was designed to then allow the Luftwaffe to protect the Kriegsmarine from the Royal Navy; no easy task in itself, I'm sure you'll agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Besides all that the Luftwaffe would have had to grind itself into the dust to entirely wipe out Fighter Command, based on the relative loss rates the two forces were suffering at the height of the battle. It would no more have been able to effectively attack the RN than the RAF would have been able to stop it. Both forces would have re-built in parallel, and then you just get BoB II. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


4. invading russia when he did. entirely too early. while making impressive gains, thee were no plans for a prolonged offensive or the brutal winter.

Had to be done sooner rather than later, whilst the Red Army was reeling from the effects of Stalin's purges and Soviet industry was asleep. Mussolini's ****-up in the Balkans was the main factor that meant that the invasion was, in the end, too late to succeed.



5. stalingrad. enough said. only a foolish commander knows that he is beaten but sticks around anyways. pride kills.


Could have gone either way for long periods of time. Victory would have opened the way for the same kinds of conquests of the Caucasus and the Middle East that Rommel would have had had he broken through Africa. The Soviet encirclement surprised the VIth Army and von Paulus was never given any other option. Stalingrad was a very well-won victory for the Soviets, it wasn't a ****-up by the Germans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


6. insisting the me262 be a bomber. if he hadnt envisioned this "blitz bomber", the worlds first jet fighter probably would have hit the front lines a full year earlier and been able to make a significant dent in the 8th airforce.


A far-too-long held belief that is, in fact, entirely myth. Adolph Hitler did insist that all early-production Me 262s be built as A-2a light-bombers. First off, considering that the Allied Invasion of Western Europe was excpected at any time, the Germans needed a plan to push it back. The best way to do this is by reacting rapidly and catching the troops on the shores. The best way to do this is to pin them to the shoreline with repeated air attack. No Luftwaffe machine of the day would have been able to take a payload in under the extremely heavy Allied air umbrella (the Allies had had air superiority in Western Europe for some months), and survive, let alone repeatedly. None, that is, except, just aybe, a jet. Only a turbojet-powered aircraft would have the performance required to evade Allied fighters. Here was the '262, 'ready' for production, and more than capable of lifting a substantial bomb load, as assured by Willy Messerschmitt himself. Hitler ordered it done, in an entirely tactically sound decision.
In the event, the order was ignored by RLM authorities who wanted jet fighters asap! Hitler was absolutely furious when, a mere fortnight before the 6th June, he was informed that none of the Me 262s built so far were able to carry bombs; it was being built exclusively as a fighter. Bomber-variant production began at that point, no earlier.
Then, even though several dozen Me 262A-1a (fighetr) examples had been constructed, problems with the Junkers JUMO 004 turbojet production meant that they were without engines for a long time, and never entered service until, iirc, mid-July anyway.
Hitler's edict delayed '262A-1as entering frontline service by a maximum of two months or so, no more. That was not long enough for them to have any more effect than they eventually did anyway, due to the severe restrictions placed on serviceability figures, caused by engine unreliability.
The aircraft that the Luftwaffe should have had in '43 was Fw 190D. The reason the fitting of an inline engine to the Fw 190 wasn't pursued earlier was an unwillingness to interrupt Fw 190A production; perfectly sensible to people at the time, but a mistake with hindsight. Fw 190Ds in 1943 would have caused horrific problems, since it would have been completely and utterly superior to almost all Allied fighters at the time.


7. concentrateing on the pas de calais. both sides knew this was the closest between 2 points. the english knew where they were concentrateing, germany knew they knew. calais is a poor invasion point anyways, much to small a front and lends itself to be cut off too easily.

Hindsight. What idiots they'd have looked if they'd blocked Normandy up and we'd hopped over into Calais!



8. not releasing the tanks on d-day. should have never been a tank reserve near paris at all. should have listened to rommel and let him put them at key poins along the french coast. reducing the time for a counterattack and reducing the risk of allied air attack while getting into posistion.

Hindsight. Although they probably should have released the Panzers earlier, only one side knew that Normandy wasn't a diversion.


i have also read that hitlers advisers told him that in order to ensure victory, germany wouldnt be ready to fight such a war until 1945 not 1939!


I've never read that, although you may be right. However, think of the state a fully-Stalinised Russia would have been in by then, purges over and Army rebuilt! Secondly, Hitler officially didn't start WWII, we did. He could have withdrawn from Poland, true, but he gambled on us not keeping our promise to the Poles. We did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Once we have declared war on them, they have no choice but to fight.

Nice thread though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but u know .... it take one hell of an armada to pound at ground troops .... the jet fighters were marginally faster .... my foggy mind say something like 100 km/h, still not fast enough to outrun bullets fired at much higher speeds, so they didn't have planes that were superior and couldn't be shot down buy ground troops, even Russia didn't have that .... mujahedin shot down modern tank busters like Su25 .... no no no .... I like to think that the God **** professionals "on the ground" in the Luftwaffe knew what they were doing like Adolf Ghalland ... a fast jet fighter that could have those critical extra knots of airspeed to give it some seconds alone with the fat B17 ..... and indeed was what happened as the pros in the luftwaffe thought .... pros and politicians .... he he he who has the most brains when it comes to actual fighting ..... hi hi hi

Maj_Solo
07-18-2005, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Pappy44_6:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj_Solo:
germany could never have won the war , only prolonged it. Whatever they did they were surrounded by the whole world. Their scientists were ahead in some areas but behind in some critical areas. How would and end of WWII have looked if the U.S. had been forced to form a beachhead in one of the less defended corners and nuke its way to victory. The end of the war would not be in the hands of germany but more if the U.S. determination would be brutal enough.


The US wouldn't have had the bombs had they not captured those German scientists. The Germans actually weren't that far away from producing their own nuke. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

germany were pretty far in the project but not close enough to complete and no bombs detonated sucessfully which you njeed to do to know you got a god **** working product, and the raw material was not in place completely... U.S. atom bomb project had been going on for ~~~years~~~ .... it was in it's final stages .... germany failed in it's project .... russia got a chock and woke up, making atom bomb the number 1) project without a question making the nation suffer just to make sure the west could not invade without getting punished .... germany did not succeeed and just simply base on what happened ... simply was behind ...... russia and U.S. did succeed at a cost ..... and all the other silly things they competed with after WWII silly bastards ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ghostly_Magicia
07-18-2005, 06:21 PM
I hate it when the Americans biasedly hate the Russians just because of a old cold war issue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Also hate the French just because of a morale and transport problem. The French went to the frontline in Taxis. I love Europe and no ignorance or stupidity there.

Well if the German's had more fuel and more Tigers and Panzers to counter the outnumbering Sherman tanks being produced. Also if the German's produced more U-boats and sink all those full transport ships and get out of there before being spotted woulda helped instead of attacking pointless ships. Those would of helped. Attacking the necessery places and doing it on time. When USA was neutral they helped the Germans with military stuff and the Americans formed the Nazi party since they liked Germany.

My theory is that the German scientists didn't know about the US at war until they saw US troops and tanks and went to America to build the Nuke used once and only once.

Russia made bigger nukes which made USA nukes look like a bomb. I'm not USA bashing but saying what I know and read in books.

(Cant edit so I put it all here, says i'm a guest which I aint and when I try posting I have to relog in)

Maj_Solo
07-18-2005, 06:23 PM
Also, the U.S. is on a much bigger island than the brittish ...

HauptmannCrunch
07-18-2005, 06:55 PM
You'v been playing Axis$Allies, havn't you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

been forced into a peace agreement, Jap

Maj_Solo
07-18-2005, 07:05 PM
he he , no, didn't know about that game .... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .... but I have played Risk http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ha hahahahhahaaaaaa

maxpower2
07-18-2005, 07:16 PM
all great posts.

and my entire original post was meant to be all hindsight.

i think its kinda cool that nobody has argued my theory on dunkirk.


and as far as the games go its all about PANZER GENERAL! pg1 andpg2 were the best. and their modern day one, forget the name. i downloaded it off of somewhere a long time ago.


be cool.

Maj_Solo
07-18-2005, 07:26 PM
Well, in one of the books I read "the luftwaffe war diaries" it seems Hitler didn't want to create massacre and make the English red in the face full of vengance. He was hoping they cave in and be ready to join peacefully .... but that is who Hitler was .... on the political arena quite brilliant .... anybody else would have had their head chopped off rather quickly, but he walked the thin line pretty skillfully .... and he was lucky for a long time ..... then one error after the other followed ...

but maybe it was another book I read that explained what the **** was going on in his head ....

CannonFodda_99
07-18-2005, 07:45 PM
About the atomic bomb. I read in the book "Hirchfeld, Secret Diary of a U-Boat" and it said in the appendix, that the germans were VERY close to having an operational thorium bomb, which is not nearly as powerful and the ones dropped in Japan, but powerful weapons nevertheless. Apparantly there was a theory that the detonation of a nuclear bomb would ignite all the hydrogen atoms in the atmosphere, making earth into a fireball. Hitler heard this theory, and was no longer very keen on the atomic bomb. The americans knew about this as well but were prepared to take the risk, with the possibility of saving many american lives from the invasion of Japan, or total annihilation from this bomb.

Just passing on my interpretation of what this book said.

Cannon

Bubblehead1948
07-18-2005, 07:54 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif I love arguments like this. But getting back to the original premise: Could Germany have won the War? Highly unlikely, unless some sort of peace could have been arranged with England by 1942. (A half-hearted attempt was made from elements within Germany and England, but from outward appearances it was quashed by Churchill) Beyond that, I can make a plausable argument that would stand up in a military war college that Germany was finished as of Jan. 15th, 1942. Anybody want to guess what I'm referring to?

maxpower2
07-18-2005, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Bubblehead1948:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif I love arguments like this. But getting back to the original premise: Could Germany have won the War? Highly unlikely, unless some sort of peace could have been arranged with England by 1942. (A half-hearted attempt was made from elements within Germany and England, but from outward appearances it was quashed by Churchill) Beyond that, I can make a plausable argument that would stand up in a military war college that Germany was finished as of Jan. 15th, 1942. Anybody want to guess what I'm referring to?

russians recapturing kiev?

gabriel_cd
07-18-2005, 11:31 PM
Capture Europe including England, keep the peace with Russia, consolidate and then take it from there. The only way to fight the world is one front at a time...

Without England as a base of operations it would have been impossible for the US to do very much.

Russia could have been attacked later.

MacBeth_279
07-19-2005, 01:46 AM
@maxpower2 : Germany could not have won in 1940 by avoiding mistakes happening 1941 to 1944.
Forget Dunkirk - Dunkirk was just a minor battle. Forget some peace with england - there was no peace with Churchill or the british people. I think it's a matter of mentality. Churchill would have fought germany from London, from Aberdeen, from Alexandria, from Delhi or Toronto. He would have found a way to draw the US to fight in Europe. I think the importance of winning the battle of britain is overestimated simply because Germany was so close to win - two times ...

@gabriel_cd: History has shown that the USA could attack a german europe from the south. England was the best possible operational base but not the only one to free europe ...

I don't think that Germany could have defeated Russia in whatever constellation. Germany attacking Russia is like Japan attacking the USA is like Maurice Green competing on a marathon - no chance to win ... Richard Overys "Russias War" shows clearly that the war brought out the best in Stalins regime and russias society. The idea that russia could be defeated by Germany is the same fault in thinking Germany did with view on russias apparent pre-war weakness.

Sunfighter1941
07-19-2005, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by Maj_Solo:
he he , no, didn't know about that game .... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .... but I have played Risk http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ha hahahahhahaaaaaa

I recommend Hearts of Iron 2 for anybody that wants the whole WW2 experence. Not perfect...but by far the best out there just based on how much **** is in that game....and what game now a days comes with a 90+ page manual?! It is one hella complex game though.

It isnt for a gfx buff though, its almost purely a map game kinda like risk.

Us hearts of iron players call axis and allies WW2 for dumbies. =)

here is a picture of my current invasion of the USA as germany after i beat the **** outta the british haha =). You can get really ahistorcal stuff if you start the game in 1936 =D

(one gripe...it is a sad day when even the "most acurate world war 2 sim to date" leaves out the swastika like it never existed)

New Jersey is proving to be quite the hard place to invade =) the USA getting help from Canada of course haha...though i own most of Canada now, though i "liberated" Quebec haha.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/Sunfighter/invasionusa2.jpg

MacBeth_279
07-19-2005, 02:38 AM
Sunfighter: HoI2 is my favourite strategy game as well ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But invading the US in 1943 let me assume a low difficulty setting, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif tststs

Celeon999
07-19-2005, 02:58 AM
yeah, but I bet you a million bucks that some german scientist defected that information to us.

Albert Einstein anyone?

Thats right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



but I do feel bad about the 26 million russians that died .... life was just way way way oo cruel on them ....

That had less to do with life beeing cruel to them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It was more their own political system that was cruel on them. Especially Stalin.

Its strange how many russians still mistify Lenin and Stalin. The most of the other soviet union member countrys are now teaching what a sort of mass murderers they were.

But if you look at russian schools. They only show the glorious fight under stalin in the big fatherland war (WW2).

I recently saw a documentary about a russian school teacher who shows her class both sides of Stalins regime.

She traveled with them to a small village were she lived as child and showed them a monument in the woods that was build above a huge mass grave with over 120 people buried in it.

The people in this grave were murdered by Stalins secret police after it had been "liberated" from german occupation.

The were killed because they hadnt defended their village against the germans. The entire population of the village was killed! Men wimen , children. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Defended with what ? Sticks and Stones http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Its unbelievable how much these both guys killed of their own people. Especially Stalin.

In his year of reign more people were killed (his own people!)under his order that in the war alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

And there are still some fools around in russia that believe those leaders were their heros.

He theyve won the war ! And now look how they are living today and compare this with the standard of life of the loosers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Maj_Solo
07-19-2005, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by gabriel_cd:
Capture Europe including England, keep the peace with Russia, consolidate and then take it from there. The only way to fight the world is one front at a time...

Without England as a base of operations it would have been impossible for the US to do very much.

Russia could have been attacked later.

I would just build the worlds nicest 12 track railway to alaska and then ferry everything over to USSR there and then train the Chinese and move the front from there, and expand the transibirian railway toa 12 track railway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Choooo Choooo!!!

No brittain was not invaded but allied people lived there and needed to be defended which was costly which is what SH3 is about.

As a U.S. general I might actually liked to in piece organize the attack on germany from Africa, land what you need there first and then make a personnel count and eqip count and see if you are ready to make the jump. Also with the allied airpower ... I think it would have been established anyway .... could be possible to on a narrow front through italy advance closer to germanys heart .... then halt and have B17s fly over the alps while on the other hand allied position would be defendable in italy assuming the allied would have followed the usual 3:1 or 4:1 strength ratio before attacking in the first place.

coming from east USSR I think would be better cause the sailing done there from alaska means no bombers had the range and no subs either so they could ferry over there quite undisturbed .... the problem I guess during the was was transibirian railways transport capacity which I gues was not high enough and going that distance by rail I guess is more costly than going the same distance at sea ... but rail is safer.

U.S. had the engineering experience to build railways that cross continents .....

Maj_Solo
07-19-2005, 03:53 AM
So, sunfighter, you tried Operational Art Of War ???? Try the Barbarossa campaign there and you get a head ache .... it is all about supplies, have captured Leningrad and for awhile held Moscow just berely for a couple of rounds and then the army withered away without supplies and then they can not defend themselves and then the units are always on the retreat and totally out of balance and it is just one long run towards germany. OPART I think is pretty good, same engine can be used to play any war at any tactical level cause they simulate the firing of each weapon .....

So in OPART "a century of warfare", you have all wars that have happened in 100 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maj_Solo
07-19-2005, 03:59 AM
I know the russian peolpe was squeezed between two maniacs .....

comparing living standards ..... it is not that easy ....

U.S. like Sweden was not bombed. So they could contiue running their industry at max pace and also feed europes rebuild.

Russia was badly damaged and many dead. How could they rebuild eastern europe, and after the war having to get into another arms race that made it decades before the russian civilians got it better.

I don't think you can compare how the two sides were able to handle post war europe.

ndladis
07-19-2005, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by Celeon999:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> yeah, but I bet you a million bucks that some german scientist defected that information to us.

Albert Einstein anyone?

Thats right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



but I do feel bad about the 26 million russians that died .... life was just way way way oo cruel on them ....

That had less to do with life beeing cruel to them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It was more their own political system that was cruel on them. Especially Stalin.

Its strange how many russians still mistify Lenin and Stalin. The most of the other soviet union member countrys are now teaching what a sort of mass murderers they were.

But if you look at russian schools. They only show the glorious fight under stalin in the big fatherland war (WW2).

I recently saw a documentary about a russian school teacher who shows her class both sides of Stalins regime.

She traveled with them to a small village were she lived as child and showed them a monument in the woods that was build above a huge mass grave with over 120 people buried in it.

The people in this grave were murdered by Stalins secret police after it had been "liberated" from german occupation.

The were killed because they hadnt defended their village against the germans. The entire population of the village was killed! Men wimen , children. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Defended with what ? Sticks and Stones http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Its unbelievable how much these both guys killed of their own people. Especially Stalin.

In his year of reign more people were killed (his own people!)under his order that in the war alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

And there are still some fools around in russia that believe those leaders were their heros.

He theyve won the war ! And now look how they are living today and compare this with the standard of life of the loosers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won╬"×t be the man who will defend Stalin, ( Lenin is something different), but many historians do agree that he was the right man for the right period. Which means that though Stalin had many vices he had at least one quality. He let his Generals enough space to do what they though it was best at each situation. Something that German Generals would definitely envy.
Russian communist Party gave enough ideology to transform this war to what Russians refer to as the ╬"×╬"×Great Patriotic War╬"×╬"×. And to be honest, most of the resistance in Balkans was carried out by people who had the same ideas. They used the same methodology and formed strong armies who fiercely fought the Germans. ( See Tito or Greek E.A.M army).
Regarding to the retaliation to several areas from the Red army, the opinions on this matter are more or less formed by the political views of the bystanders. What can be described as mass-murder for the others is a retaliation toward to those who didn╬"×t fight the occupation forces. It may be wrong but this is usually what war brings out from people: Their worst character. There are enough horror stories from every side with same characteristics. ( Russia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Italy etc).
I have seen the documentary World at War and it mentions that for every 100 Russians war prisoners only 3 manage to survive at concentration camps as they regarded of an inferior race by the Nazi╬"×s. So according to this, from the 26.000.000 Soviet victims we may extract the fact that only a fraction was due to Stalin╬"×s retaliation habits.
They have right to believe that that Stalin was a hero during the WWII era because he acted as a true leader. And they also should believe that he was a bloody Dictator during any other era.

Celeon999
07-19-2005, 05:22 AM
He let his Generals enough space to do what they though it was best at each situation.

What space ? The only space he left them was "be succesful or put a gun in your mouth."

Most of his generals were replaced or killed after the war on his order. He was very paranoic and saw betrayal everywhere.


So according to this, from the 26.000.000 Soviet victims we may extract the fact that only a fraction was due to Stalin╬"×s retaliation habits.


It were about 28,7 million confirmed executions by the secret police under direct order from josef stalin since his reign and until his death.

(mostly political opposers , jews , tchetchnians , ukraninians ... )

He wasnt the right leader. At no time.

ndladis
07-19-2005, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Celeon999:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He let his Generals enough space to do what they though it was best at each situation.

What space ? The only space he left them was "be succesful or put a gun in your mouth."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He did nothing of this kind during the war. He really was psychotic person who always though that conspiracies were en route to overthrown him but he let his Generals to do their work during the war. He even brought back Generals from exile in order to help.
After all, if the Germans manage to win this battle, his reign would end.




Most of his generals were replaced or killed after the war on his order. He was very paranoic and saw betrayal everywhere.

See above


So according to this, from the 26.000.000 Soviet victims we may extract the fact that only a fraction was due to Stalin╬"×s retaliation habits.



It were about 28,7 million confirmed executions by the secret police under direct order from josef stalin since his reign and until his death.

(mostly political opposers , jews , tchetchnians , ukraninians ... )

He wasnt the right leader. At no time.

Yes he did so, but the war casualties is something different from political prosecution, exile, executions and other methods Stalin used.
The numbers I╬"×ve heard are 30.000.000 people but its irrelevant.
But as a fact we have 26.000.000 people/soldiers died because of the war. As I can see Hitler was same or even worst than Stalin, because he manage to achieve the same numbers only in Russia for a limited period when Stalin needed almost 30 years.
Stalin was considered as a Hero because he manage to defeat an enemy who was really hated by the majority of the Russians. The Russians simply balanced which evil is worst.
Tia
Nick

Mylo42
07-19-2005, 08:12 AM
Good Thread,

....We are all awesome "armchair generals".

I'm glad Hitler was "in charge". If a guy like Manstein or Rommel were running the show, I'm sure the war would have been, at least, closer.

The January 1942 date sounds a lot like the surrender of the 6th Army to me. I could be wrong, but it sounds close. From what little I know about that, Hitler hand picked Paulus to command 6th Army because he suspected he would be a good "puppet general" given the resistance Hitler was getting from other generals in their insistance that they withdraw from Stalingrad. Hitler was definately obsessed with the meat grinder called Stalingrad.

Celeon999
07-19-2005, 09:02 AM
I have an mp3 speech from him about Stalingrad.

He says :

"...i wanted to come to the wolga.."
(river wolga which stalingrad was build on) (todays name is wolgograd)

"....at a special place ... at a very special town...." "by chance , it has the name of stalin himself"

"..but dont think thats the reason ive started marching there, for my part it might could have another name..." (escorted by laughter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)



"...ive gone there because a very important point is to be found there..."

"..as soon as we have reached the river wolga we are able to cut the entire shipping line that goes up it, cutting of the entire supply life line for entire asia..."

"...now somebody may ask : if this is so why this guy doesnt start a major attack?..."

" ...Because i dont want to make another Verdun!..."

"...i will make this with just some small special forces..."

".....you know we are modest, we have the town already in our hands ...."

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Looks like he was a bit too fast there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sunfighter1941
07-19-2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by MacBeth_279:
Sunfighter: HoI2 is my favourite strategy game as well ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But invading the US in 1943 let me assume a low difficulty setting, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif tststs

HA! it is the historical stoney road mod on Normal (okay thats easy haha) but really invaiding the USA at any time is pretty easy, all they do is pump out garrisons like mad...totally pointless...oh..and they got rid of FDR as you can see..so they never were in the war at all all the way till late 42... when i started it with them when I invaided Maine =D

Dremond
07-19-2005, 12:22 PM
The Germans should have concentrated on the RAF in 1940. Winning the Battle of Britian would have been no guarentee Sealion would have succeeded, but it was never given the chance.

Having said that, invading Russia before Britian was conquered was mistake #2. Without Britian serving as a really big aircraft carrier for the US, much more of the German industial might could have been directed east. The US would have been forced to enter Europe through the Med (which they did anyway, of course), but without having to defend the west, the Allied slog up the Boot wouldn't have been as "easy" as it was ... Once again, no guarentee of success, but the Russian invasion was doomed to failure from the start as long as Germany accepted a three-front war.

Lastly, Hitler's determination to make tactical decisions from Berlin played a key role in Germany's defeat. Field command needs to be left to the field commanders, as demonstrated no only in WWII, but Vietnam ... as long as Hitler insisted on personal tactical control, Germany was doomed.

jpr21b
07-19-2005, 02:53 PM
I wonder if its REALLY possible for someone to militarily conquer the world.

Bubblehead1948
07-19-2005, 05:55 PM
Posted Mon July 18 2005 21:55
quote:
Originally posted by Bubblehead1948:
I love arguments like this. But getting back to the original premise: Could Germany have won the War? Highly unlikely, unless some sort of peace could have been arranged with England by 1942. (A half-hearted attempt was made from elements within Germany and England, but from outward appearances it was quashed by Churchill) Beyond that, I can make a plausable argument that would stand up in a military war college that Germany was finished as of Jan. 15th, 1942. Anybody want to guess what I'm referring to?


russians recapturing Kiev?



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Nope. On Jan 15th, 1942 the German high command with the approval of Hitler began
to withdraw to winter defense lines using a desperate strategy referred to as the "hedgehog defence;" a Hitler concept. It was one of the few times Hitler was on the right track strategically. It saved the German army that winter.

Why did they do this? Here's a summary, although the long version is a lot more profound: Jan 15th was the height of the first Russian winter offensive. It began about Dec 4th 1941. Few people beyond historians understand just how close to collapse the Germany army was on the Russian front by the middle of Jan 1942.

German units, particularly those in Army Group Center were already bled white by the time Dec 4th arrived. Armored units were literally worn out as the result of the battle of Kiev months earlier. 50-60% unit strength was not uncommon for infantry. Bolstered by terrified conscripts and pistol waving NKVD, four Russian shock armies hit the front at the juncture of Army Group North and Center. The result was an enormous wedge driven 200 miles into the front reaching almost to Smolensk and Velikye Luki. The Germans already in bad shape could not even maintain a contiguous line. Casualties were appalling. Whole units were isolated and disappeared without a trace. This went on until March when the offensive ran out of resources. It was only through sheer desperation and professionalism that the German Army managed to get things solidified by April. The casualties were never satisfactorily replaced, and as a result, operation Blau the following summer could only be accomplished by stripping army group North and South to the bone. We know how that ended at Stalingrad. Just a little trivia.

stinkhammer6
07-19-2005, 08:47 PM
Britain was key, it needed taken down at all costs, with u boats patrolling its shores it would have been well defended. Russia was in short, the mistake of the war for hitler, and not letting his generals do their jobs. Those things in short lost it for him and germany.

On DDay Rommel was off with his woman for her birthday and wasnt there to command the normandy defensive. Hitler found out about the invasion in the after noon since everyone was afraid to wake him due to his temper, when he did find out about it, americans were pushing their way across france. Hitler also took a possible yes from japan on attacking russia but nothing solid, another key mistake. This in short is what lost the war in europe.

All the generals called hitler "The amature tactition" behind his back, not alot of people knew that. Funny though.

Mylo42
07-19-2005, 10:53 PM
I guess I'm off by a year in my "Surrender of 6th Army" comment. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Back to the history books.

MacBeth_279
07-20-2005, 12:20 AM
@Bubblehead:

Beyond that, I can make a plausable argument that would stand up in a military war college that Germany was finished as of Jan. 15th, 1942. Anybody want to guess what I'm referring to?

This went on until March when the offensive ran out of resources. It was only through sheer desperation and professionalism that the German Army managed to get things solidified by April. The casualties were never satisfactorily replaced, and as a result, operation Blau the following summer could only be accomplished by stripping army group North and South to the bone. We know how that ended at Stalingrad. Just a little trivia.

I do not follow that argument. "Operation Blau" became a failure because Hitler split the forces to gain Stalingrad AND the oil fields of Baku. "Stripping" the other army groups aka concentrating the forces to backup an offensive was the common modus operandi for Germany. Your point would be valid if Germany would have been forced to retreat in the north during Operation Blau (like tilting the front), which was not the case ...

Germany was doomed to loose the war in the moment Russia learned that Japan will not open a 2nd front in sibiria (autumn '41)...

maxpower2
07-20-2005, 01:04 AM
if i remember correctly, hitler wanted a peace with britain after dunkirk.

if he would have let the tanks loose on the beaches and captured or killed the bef who knows, churchill might have signed a treaty.

CannonFodda_99
07-20-2005, 02:13 AM
"They are not our natural enemies" I think he said.

Cannon

Celeon999
07-20-2005, 08:11 AM
"They are not our natural enemies" I think he said.

He was shocked for a moment as he recieved word that britain gave us an ultimatum to withdraw our troops from poland.

He didnt believed that chamberlain would let this escalate to another world war just to save poland.


And if you look at how britain treated their polish "friends and allies" ...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You can understand why he was so stupified http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

He assumed that this is just a show of them to open a way for them to withdraw from the treaty with poland without losing their face towards the world.

In France it was the same. There were even large street protests against their own goverment because of the decision to declare war on germany.

This "mourir pour danzig?" (die for danzig?)attitude was widely spread in france.

fizilbert
07-20-2005, 09:18 AM
In my opinion, Germany could have indeed won the war, or atleast have brought about a beneficial end to it. For me, the key is the Battle of Britain. The RAF was only a week or two away from utter destruction. The luftwaffe was taking heavy casualties, but still had enough fight in it to take out the RAF.

Initially orders were to avoid English cities. Hitler didn't want to destroy the British, his war was never really about the British. Then a loan bomber runs off course and drops a few bombs on london by mistake. Then the RAF counters with a bombing run on a german city. Hitler then says the gloves are off and orders the luftwaffe to start bombing English cities, taking the pressure off the RAF.

Had the luftwaffe remained on target with the RAF, in 2 weeks time, the RAF would have been non-existant. You dont need to conduct an invasion of Britain then, just bomb England into the stone age. I agree that Churchill would have continued fighting with stones and spears if he had to, but he can't keep fighting if the people give up. I think, eventually, the British would have given up under such a bombardment.

With Britain and Germany signing a peace, that would have left Germany to either a) attack russia, with a much better chance of success now, and hopefully on time without the Italian fiasco that was the Balkans, or b) not attack russia, and simply be happy with controlling Europe.

Thankfully, though, mistakes were made, and the outcome was as it was.

melin1971
07-20-2005, 10:56 AM
I think that if england had been occupied by german. the war had taken at least 5 or even more years to win over germany. Without the brittish troop and planes, and none that bomb the german faktory. oh..that had been a MAJOR task for us to crack. special if the didnt had started the war against russia. But..im not sure US had won the war if that had happen. German had better stuff to fight with.

Celeon999
07-20-2005, 11:57 AM
Attacking the USSR was his biggest mistake.
Without an eastern front the troop power could have been tripled in france.

Making an invasion like D-Day simply impossible.
Peace negotiations with the third Reich would had been the only option.

And for Britain it would had been negotiations to germanys terms only.

Ive found some numbers :

Troops used for Operation Barbarossa (The attack on the USSR) :

5,5 million men including troops from :
Romania, Slovakia, Finland, Italy and Hungary.

47,200 artillery guns
4.300 tanks
5000 airplanes

(The biggest battle force in mankinds history!)



First the successes were overhelming : By July 600.000 prisoners were made, 5623 russian tanks destroyed and 4920 artillery guns captured.

At the first battle of Kiev another 665.000 prisoners were made , 50 soviet tank divisions with 700.000 men , 894 tanks and 4327 artillery guns were completely "erased"

The amount of victorys were so huge that the OKW advanced the battle plans to reach the persian gulf to support iraq in his fight against britain.

The battles commenced in the east rendered the d-day invasion to a small commando operation.

And if you now remember that nearly nothing of this military power was left at the end of the war you get a picture what unbelievably gigantic battles happened there.

Without the east front europe would had become an citadel without equal. Just imagine the 5000 planes would hadnt been bound to the east.

They could have cleared the sky of most of the atlantic , north and eastern sea for the u-boats.

Finishing off the RAF so that an invasion in britain would had become possible again.


The attack on the USSR was the turning point in WW2 from then on everything went wrong for germany.

And imagine how much faster the development of the german A bomb would have been without the endless allied air raids.


Then at least the question is to be asked:

Has the cold war between the Third Reich and the USA ended the same way as the one we know ?

Or had the world ended in an nuclear war ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

paulhager
07-20-2005, 12:55 PM
The list of specific "bad decisions" is reasonable but it neglects the biggest and best reason why the Nazis lost: because they were Nazis.

Nazism was fascism + anti-Semitism. A German fascism akin to Spanish or Italian fascism might have prevailed in Europe and eventually gone to war with Russia and won. However, the German variant's brand of racism was suicidal.

Hitler referred to Quantum Physics as "Jewish Science". The theortician behind the Hahn and Strassman discover of fission in Uranium was Jewish physicist Lise Meitner - she naturally got no recognition for her critical role in explaining what her collaborators had found. She barely got out with her life.

When the best-and-brightest of Germany and Europe are hounded out of the country or gassed you've robbed yourself of your most important resource: human minds. Most of those minds came to the U.S. That's why we built the A-Bomb. A non-racist, non-anti-Semitic Germany probably would have had the A-bomb first.

In that world, the Cold War would have been between the U.S. and German-based international fascism.

Bubblehead1948
07-20-2005, 07:41 PM
I do not follow that argument. "Operation Blau" became a failure because Hitler split the forces to gain Stalingrad AND the oil fields of Baku. "Stripping" the other army groups aka concentrating the forces to backup an offensive was the common modus operandi for Germany. Your point would be valid if Germany would have been forced to retreat in the north during Operation Blau (like tilting the front), which was not the case ...

Germany was doomed to loose the war in the moment Russia learned that Japan will not open a 2nd front in sibiria (autumn '41)...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Probably not making myself clear.
My point is that Germany militarily lost the war in Russia, but not at Stalingrad or Kursk. Irreparable military damage was done much earlier in the war. Mostly in the aftermath of the Battle for Moscow. What they would or would not have accomplished at Stalingrad or beyond was moot. While "Blau" was going on, parts of the Russian army were still kicking the Germans around like a dusty shoe up north at Velikye Luki. They later lost the fortress city altogether. The attrition they had suffered by mid '42 was irreplacable, and the pace at which they continued to suffer damage was unsustainable for a country that small, regardless of any local successes. Beyond the human cost, their war production didn't even peak until mid '44. I'm saying that, although it was not clear at the time, Germany's goose was cooked by mid '42.

With regard to Japan participating in a second Russian front. I don't know if that by itself did or did not insure anything. But Japan had been fighting in China continuously since 1937. By 1941 Japan was in as serious trouble in mainland China, as Hiter was in Russia. And it all boiled down to attrition.

MacBeth_279
07-21-2005, 12:54 AM
@Bubblehead : Guess what ? We have same opinion ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Probably not making myself clear. and probably I didn't grasp what you meant ...


Jan 15th was the height of the first Russian winter offensive. It began about Dec 4th 1941. Few people beyond historians understand just how close to collapse the Germany army was on the Russian front by the middle of Jan 1942.

We come together at this point. Because it were troops from sibiria which carried that offensive. STAVKA transfered the eastern troops as Richard Sorge gave info that Japan doesn't intend to invade Sibiria (for whatsoever reason) ...
That way Russia could compensate for the losses of the previous months and took the initiative.

Bubblehead1948
07-21-2005, 06:49 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Amen. I remember a quote from some historian who said: (I'm paraphrasing)

"The only theatre that really mattered in WWII was the Russian front." I know some will take issue with that, but truely, once that phase started, the German military never devoted less than 60% of its resources there.

In my own words I will say this: The Great Patriotic War, as the Russians prefer to call it, or the Barbarossa Campaign is likely to remain for the forseeable future as the largest land campaign ever fought on thr face of the earth. No country is ever again likely to wage
a conventional war using resources on that scale. Lets hope not.

Celeon999
07-22-2005, 02:38 AM
Anybody knows the movie "Fatherland" ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sokole_oko
07-22-2005, 02:54 AM
After book (the same title) with Rudger Hauer?

Great!

Celeon999
07-22-2005, 03:46 AM
Yes that one with Rudger Hauer. First time i saw i didnt know the story of the movie...

" What the heck ? A Boeing 737 with a swastika on it ????" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And the stewardess : "Welcome to Germania , capitol of the great german Reich, we hope you enjoyed flying with us..." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sokole_oko
07-22-2005, 04:14 AM
Sometimes I wonder how would thins turned if WWII didn't start. You wouldn't know how russian tank looks like :] and I guess Poland would be now quite different country. I don't blame Germans - it's Soviet Union's fault (what's 6 years of ocupation compared to 50 years of being "colonial" coutry)

gkll
07-23-2005, 12:41 AM
To make seal├┬Âve you need transport capacity, not toy ships, otherwise the English would cut them up piece meal when they landed, every strategy gamer knows this, it has all to come across the channel at once .... every strategy gamer knows this and every professional also .... a ferry route will not do .... it is all at once and then you ferry in reinforcements and for that you need ~~~sufficient~~~ airsuperiory, not necessarily TOTAL superiority, a bridgehead that is not reinforced is dead, and if the initial blow is not heavy enough it is dead also ..... the germans could perhaps have done it if they focused ...

Many think (I am one) that sealion if launched would have been a first class disaster for the germans. A naval victory without peer for the Royal Navy... The Royal Navy was (is) extremely aggressive and nobody at that point in the war had shown any talent for sinking ships at sea... the RN would have slaughtered the invasion convoy.

And the Battle of Britain is more myth, nice myth but the common version makes no sense. It just wasn't pivotal. British war plans of the time were clear that in no sense would the RAF be allowed to be destroyed. Group 12 and remnants of Group 11 would be preserved, and the german birds didn't have the range to get them.

An invasion needed a year or more of attrition to the RN, more practice in sinking ships at sea, and a big buildup of the kreigsmarine and invasion fleet generally. 8 knot river barges as lined up at the time could've been swamped with hideous loss of life just by bit of unexpected chop mid-channel... never mind the 50 destroyers, all eager to 'engage the enemy more closely" and the rest of the RN....

Baletzan
07-23-2005, 07:59 AM
Just to bring out a little point celeon missed in his numbers for the Barbarossa. The attack on the Soviet Union was a combined attack by the whole europe against the bolsheviks, there were soldiers from all over europe including the countrys celeon mentioned but my point is that there were also voluntary units from France, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Yogoslavia. Many young men from these countrys thought that Barbarossa was just a war against communism. Even the pope Pius XII gave his blessing for the operation. Hitler said that this was his gift to the rest of the world and in a way his idea of unified european army succeeded. Many people from the captured soviet territories joined the war on the german side to fight off the soviets, some of them also started hostilities against the local jews which the germans didn't mind at all. Ukranian peasants cheered for the invading german army and celebrated the fact that "cristian soldiers" have liberated them. And there was Finland fighting its own war against the soviets.

I'm angry that germany lost the war in a way but I'm happy that the nazis lost, it's frustating to read about the mistakes that were made when you could easily have avoided them, a trained monkey would have been a better leader than Hitler.

Celeon999
07-23-2005, 08:14 AM
I think an invasion was not necessary. Its only use had been to end the war more quickly and prevent further air attacks from britain.

The u-boat war had already heavily affected the british economy. At the height of sunken tonnage numbers the UK was close to economical breakdown. All sunken ships needed to be replaced by new ones faster and faster , more and more ships. The burden of debt of the UK was already sky high. Inflation was raising every week.


This was the idea of the u-boat war. The UK was completely addicted to his merchant shipping lines in all terms (Food, Fuel, Trading)

If the u-boat war had succeded and a more effective blockade had been established it would only had been a question of time till the UK had no choice but to surrender.

Remember : " The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the u-boat peril" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


No fuel means no airplanes in the sky , no ships at sea, no tank movements. A food shortage had sooner or later lead to unrest in the population, maybe even to the fall of the goverment.



The attack on the Soviet Union was a combined attack by the whole europe against the bolsheviks, there were soldiers from all over europe including the countrys celeon mentioned but my point is that there were also voluntary units from France, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Yogoslavia

Yep right. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also several ten thousand volunteers from Spain. Some thousand volunteers in the Ukraine and some other part republics of the soviet union. Plus a unknown number of defectors from the red army. I have some photos were you can see some of them.

Maj_Solo
07-23-2005, 12:39 PM
I guess most of them were like young adventurers, foreign legionares, easily manipulated young (men) not treated right at home and wanted to get away, to get respect and make a name for themselves. A sound kid in a sound family would not ~voluntarily~ risk his promising future life like that ... but I am not saying there were not people politically convinced. A whole other story is to involuntarily get drafted .... and even then you have to motivate people or they might go AWOL dispite the risks ..... I think there are a million possible psychological explanations why a foreign person voluntarily end up at the front that there is political.. young men have a scewed way of looking at things ... IMHO ... much is out of proportion until they mature ... all this IMHO ..

Celeon999
07-26-2005, 08:06 AM
As an addition to this a-bomb thing :

I saw an interesting documentary of the work of Werner Heisenberg on the german a-bomb a few days ago.

And imagine .... U-boats played an important part in it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


The Deuterium Heisenberg used for his experiments in trying to reach a controlled chain reaction was produced in norway. Ships and U-boats were used to transport it.


In the middle of 1944 Heisenberg conducted his last experiment. He almost reached a chain reaction ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

It is very likely that the next experiment would had been succesful. The only problem was that his storage of Deuterium was at his end.

An ship was ordered to transport several barrels of Deuterium but was sunk.

Heisenberg couldnt make another experiment because of the allied advancements there was no time to wait for another load from norway. So the work was cancelled and the secret research facility abandoned

A few years ago some of these barrels have been found and raised from the ground.

They were still intact. As one of them was opened and examined it was revealed that it had a clearance quality of 1,5 %. Which is very good !

Propably the best quality reached in the 1940s. It is very likely that Heisenberg would had reached a controlled chain reaction in 1944 if he would had that heavy water from that ship!

If we assume that more resources would had been transfered to his project after such an success a working prototype of an a-bomb could had been completed in or around January 1945.

Although no chain reaction was reached and no bomb was constructed, the luftwaffe was ordered in an top secret order to modify an Heinkel He 177A-5 for "an new type of bomb which is unsual in size and weight" and to paint it in night camouflage. Specifics for the assumed size and weight of the bomb were provided by Heisenberg himself.

After the end of the war in europe Charles Oppenheimer used Heisenbergs work to fill the gaps in his own. He also used the captured uranium oxide on U-234 to build the Trinity Bomb.

I never thought that the race for the a-bomb was so close !

It is also believed that Heisenberg delayed the work because he knew what horrible weapon it would become.

A fact Oppenheimer first realized after he build the first one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Finally as Albert Speer put pressure on him and wanted answers , Heisenberg said that he believes he can complete a working bomb by beginning of 1945.

dtindc70
07-26-2005, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by ndladis:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Celeon999:
[QUOTE] yeah, but I bet you a million bucks that some german scientist defected that information to us.

Albert Einstein anyone?

Thats right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-- I've held my tongue on a number of issues that are factually wrong, but I'll talk about this one.

Einstein left Germany in 1932 and became a permanent resident of the United States in 1935. He would not have been any insight into Nazi plans on an atomic bomb or its status. He had renounced his German citizenship in 1896 and he was Jewish, two major factors that would have prevented any Nazi participation on the development of a nuclear weapon.

Einstein didn't defect to the United States with knowledge of an atomic bomb. He did possess knowledge about theoretical possiblities of such a weapon and yes, his ideas played a role in the United States creation of it. But the United States did not 'capture German scientist' to do this, and Einstein's role, while important in a theoretical sense, was limited in a practical one. In 1939, he wrote a letter to President Roosevelt urging the development of such a bomb, especially in light of the successful fission of uranium atoms by German scientists. He wrote additional letters to the President urging the need to create the bomb , but Einstein did very little work on the progress of the weapon itself.

Missouri23
07-26-2005, 12:30 PM
Also many people don't know the intracacies of Plan Z

1.The German Navy was not to be finished until 1945
2. After the Bismark, Tirpitz, all 5 Hipper class CAs (Lutzow and Seydlitz included), and the 3 Pocket BBs were all started the rest of Plan Z would be implemented:

Six "H"-class battleships-The successors to the Bismark class-planed to have 16in guns

Three battlecruisers

Twelve panzerschiffe(pocket BBs)

Four aircraft carriers (later in 1939 it was changed to 2)-Graf Zeppelin, the German Navy has always maintained a policy of not assigning a name to a ship until she is launched, since the second carrier was never launched it never had an official name, but the rumored name is Peter Strasser.

Six light cruisers

Obviously Hitler started the war much too early, the plan was to have 2 different kinds of navies-
A large battle fleet capable of taking on the most powerful possible opponents (Britain and France).
A large force of U-Boats and medium sized warships such as the panzerschiffe for commerce raiding.

So if Hitler hadn't been so greedy in taking Poland, even if he only waited till 41 or 42, it still would have been better because the Bismark, Tirpitz, and Graf Zeppelin would have been finished (because more resources could be used, since the war wasn't going on), and one of the H class woukd have at least been launched.

The naval war would have been much different if Plan Z had even been partially accomplished.