posted
So, the tubes are all blocked with senate memos.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
There are certainly MANY things in the war that Germany could have done to improve its situation, but Sealion was NOT one of them.
The Royal Navy was a great threat to any invasion. With a functioning Royal Navy, an invasion couldn't be given reinforcement.
The only useful thing the Germans had to counter the Royal Navy was the Stuka (level bombing is not useful against ships). To use the Stuka, Germany needed major air superiority over the channel, or the Stuka would be ripped to shreds by Spitfires and Hurricanes.
It would have been possible for Germany to do much better in the Battle of Britain, but they couldn't win a decisive victory. Britain actually had superior aircraft production then Germany, which had not converted to a total war economy (and didn't until 1943!). The best Germany could expect would be to push back British bases beyond the range of the Bf109.
British bombers were quite bad and would not have had a significant impact on Sealion, especially since Germany would have air superiority at the beachhead.
Even if the Germans did manage to secure air superiority over the beaches, though, this wouldn't be decisive. The Royal Navy could still attack and suffer some losses. Other Royal Navy units could do night attacks, and retreat to safety by morning.
Finally, the Germans would have really crappy logistics, so keeping an army supplied and sending reinforcements (especially armored units) would be problematic. After landing, it wouldn't be a cakewalk either. The British Army was severely mauled in France, but it still had many divisions and tanks, not counting home guard units, which probably wouldn't have been able to do much (maybe slow down the paratroopers).
Next Topic: If the Germans had somehow conserved their naval units (by not doing much, and certainly not invading Norway) and then made one great sortie (presumably following Bismarck�s historical route to reach French ports), the British could certainly have countered it. For one thing, the King George V class battleships were very good. Their 15 inch guns may have been smaller then the Bismarck�s, but they had 10 compared to the Bismarck�s 8. Still, the Bismarck had faster-firing guns, so overall it had better armermant, but only a little better. For an excellent comparison of many battleships see http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_guns.htm.
By the time the German carriers would have been ready (assuming both were greatly hurried), the British would have the Seafire (naval Spitfire), but the German carriers would not have had the Fw-190 (only the Bf109T was developed for carrier landings). Since there were several British carriers, it is likely that they could have prevented Stuka attacks on their fleet (though they probably couldn�t launch attacks of their own � I don�t think they had good bombers at around this time). Thus, the superior British surface superiority would have prevailed, though would have been bloody.
Next Topic: If the war was delayed for a year, Germany would indeed have been more advanced. Overall, it would have been a bad idea if Germany wanted to win to have delays, but to just focus on the air battle, the Americans and British were developing jets that could match the Me262, though being the Meteor and P-80. With the B-29 replacing the B-17 and B-24, it is unlikely that Germany would have been able to obtain more then a temporary advantage in the air.
posted
But the only reason the British efforts to develop jets ever proceeded was because Hitler was at the gates. If there had been no war, Frank Whittle wouldn't have gotten half a penny, and the first jets would still have been German.
And the B-29 and B-36 came to be because of the threat to the availability of European airfields, too. There would have been little incentive for the USAAF to do such R&D before the 1940s if not for Hitler.
Hitler could not delay the war because he wanted to maintain his personality cult through constant territorial gains. He thought he was delaying the war by conquering Poland - he truly seems to have been convinced the French and the British would not respond.
But what if he had delayed? There would still be a war brewing. The Japanese had to attack by 1941 or -42, as their natural resources were running out. The attack would challenge the British and French Empires if not USA, and directly affect the European situation. Moreover, rogue Japanese hardliners were at war with the Soviet Union at Manchukuo, drawing Stalin's attention; without this, Stalin would already have been gearing up for a campaign of conquest in Europe, rather than being semi-defensive in 1939 and thus failing to take Finland (which he attempted) or Hungary, Romania and the Balkans (which he postponed).
By delaying, and proceeding with a sensible shipbuilding campaign and constant aeronautics R&D, Hitler would 1) have created a stronger army, 2) undermined his chances of conquering Europe with it, and 3) probably nudged world history to a more favorable overall outcome in terms of political stability but 4) created a less favorable outcome in humanitarian terms, given that the European empires would have persisted worldwide, and the Nazis would have had more time to do their thing (even if only in Germany and Austria).
posted
Of course, the war might have been curtailed had the U.S. congress not been so isolationist due to both unpopular WWI losses and the Great Depression. Even the obvious gearing up for war might have altered japan's initial attack plans.
But the publicwould not have been for it, making for a lackluster homefront and poor production lines.
Huh. I wonder what would have happened if the world at large knew of Stalin's own mass murders and human experimentation at the end of the war? The U.S. had the only nuclear weapons- and the USSR was in no shape to repulse an alied invasion. (assuming said invasion did not occur in winter, of course).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, the Dean Koontz book Lightning features at the end an altered timeline where (based on a throwaway line by the time-travelling protagonist) Churchill persuades the USA to carry on the war after the fall of Germany, only this time against Russia. Deprived of military aid, the USSR soon collapses.
I never bought it. For one thing, the Soviet Union had been massively re-armed by the UK and USA, and a lot of those resources remained intact given how poor the German resistance had been in the last two years of the war on the Eastern Front.
Then, there's persuading the British and American peoples, and their allies, to carry on the struggle. Especially bear in mind that immediately after the war Churchill was removed from power by a massive Labour landslide which expedited one of the greatest programs of social(ist) reform in our history, such as the Welfare State, nationalised industries etc., and which subsequent Conservative governments have done their best to overturn. Not really the environment for telling a war-weary people that "Now we've got rid of the fascists, lets get the socialists too!"
And, lastly, it's now known that Churchill would probably never have been able to convince Roosevelt, because the latter conducted all their dealings with an eye to reducing British/Imperial power, especially as it would stand in the eventual post-war settlement. And he wasn't above siding with Stalin to do so, effectively out-voting Churchill.
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
The U.S. would have had the same problems with Russia that Germany had only with some spiffy 4-engine bombers to reach further. As far as armor goes, the Soviet T-34's, SU and KV series tanks would've killed ANY armor the U.S. could field. Not even the T-26 (M26) Pershings were much more than adequate and there was less than three dozen of these in Europe at the end of hostilities. U.S. naval power would be negated to a large degree by the geography of Russia itself. The only hope for the U.S. would have been long range bombing and the use of nuclear weapons and a surrender. A conventional campaign would more than likely suffered the same fate that the Germans met.
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, the Americans could have already analyzed what went wrong, and invaded Russia through the Baltic. Taking Leningrad should have been almost trivially easy with the overwhelming amphibious and naval air capabilities the Allies had; proceeding to Moscow from there would have collapsed the Soviet transportation network...
But such an expedition would have required at least a year of planning, probably two. This would have made it even more difficult to keep up the support for the plan, and would have outdated it politically before it got launched.
Another choice would have been to invade the Far East with the forces already on the Pacific, making Stalin tear his moustache over the logistics of getting his forces across Siberia. That would have made a subsequent European invasion quite a bit easier. That's what Hitler originally wanted to happen, too - the Japanese simply didn't accommodate him by keeping up the pressure in the East, but signed a nonaggression pact with the USSR instead.
posted
Timo, the B-29 was in development before the war even started, and was making good progress before France fell.
The Meteor was as well. In fact, the Battle of Britain may even have slightly hindered its development, but the war probably did speed it up overall. However, wouldn�t the war have sped up the German research projects as well?
Fro delaying the war, I don�t think it would be unreasonable to project that Anchluss occurs somewhat later, with a larger gap between it and Czechoslovakia, and that and Poland. This wouldn�t be changing Hitler�s plan, only delaying it. In fact, German planning did not consider Germany to be ready for war until 1942, maybe later (I forget exactly).
The Japanese only attacked because they were running low on oil, and the West was busy with Germany, giving them a major advantage. If the war had been delayed a year, these conditions would still have been met. With a delay of over a year, then all bets are off. They probably would still have attacked at about the historical time with two years delay in the European war, since France and Britain would still be engaged with Germany then (this assumes, of course, that the war follows roughly it historical course).
The Soviet Union may not have conducted aggressive action against Finland and Poland. The Molotov Pact was responsible for giving the USSR its �area of influence�.
Overall, a delay in starting the war in Europe would have been very beneficial to the Allies. The German ship building program was quite bad, only having two carriers, but a lot of battleships. German tank development lagged as well, the T-34 being the inspiration for most German tank developments past their starting force.
Meanwhile, the Allies continue modernization of their army, especially the Soviet Union (though France and Great Britain were building up as well � this is often cited as a reason that they agreed at Munich). Germany would have been hard-pressed to invade a Soviet Union with thousands of T-34s at the beginning, with a force only marginally better then they had historically (more MkIIIs, fewer MkIIs). Time would also reduce the effect of the Soviet purges.
Overall, the German military was good, and they certainly would have done well, but not as well as historically. This means that they would be defeated conventionally in a shorter amount of time then the actual war. However, even a one-year extension of the war meant that Germany could be nuked (the Manhatten project was helped along by the war, but was started before, so it is guesswork to determine if the weapons would be ready), perhaps simultaneously with Japan, perhaps not (Germany was the main enemy, and the original target of the Manhattan project during the war). Finally, the Holocaust would have been a bit worse in Germany, but somewhat less bad in other areas (the main areas it took place) due to the shorter length of the war.
To Jason: Unlike WWI, the U.S. DID begin rearmament once the war began. It was quite obvious, and even included a peacetime draft.
On the matter of a WWIII, it is a very big topic. Long story short, the USSR would definitely have been the ones on the strategic offensive due to their superior army. They probably would have conquered a good swath of Germany, reaching the Rhine before they could be halted due to a variety of factor (airpower, logistics, Allied reinforcements, etc). However, atomic weapons, as usual, would spell the end of the war, and probably the Soviet Union as a political entity.
Finally, the T-34 is a highly overrated tank. Yes, it was extremely innovative and effective, but by the end of the war it was only average. Half the U.S. tanks with the 76.2mm guns could kill it, and the other half (75mm guns) could deal with it from the flank or at very close range. Meanwhile, some of the T-34s might have been leftover 76.2mm-armed models, which would be inadequate against the Sherman. All Western Allied tank destroyers would have had no trouble with the T-34. The trouble would have been with the IS-2s, but these were not produced in huge numbers.
Awhile ago, I made a thread in another forum comparing contemporary models of the Sherman, T-34, and the German MkIV (the main German tank from ~1942 until it started sharing that distinction with the Panther in 1944). It can be found at: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=91884
posted
My link to the battleship comparison page a few messages ago was incorrect, sorry about that. The proper link is: http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
Printer-friendly view of this topic
