Could German have won World War 2?

[FW-190 Pilot]

Germany can win in the following way:

-Germany continue to bomb British airfield despite Churchill trying to trick Hitler to change his target.

-I believe some tanks are able to travel on water, since most british ships are on the north side of the country, tanks can land on the south side of England with the protection of germany navy and fighters. The Objective for those tanks are to finish off shore defense and let panthers tanks to went ashore safely, then Britain is basically finished.

-With Britain falling in to German's hand, Americans would be unwilling to attack Europe in a short time, that gives german the time to build heavy defense on England, while starting to invade Russia with better preparation

[WildBoar]

I think it would have been a lot harder than that as occupying a country with land access is a lot more difficult than invading an Island.

[TexanSkyraider]

If Germany hadn't started the war with the Russians, they would have been a lot tougher to beat! We were lucky that we ended up fighting Hitler's tactics instead of Hitler's general's tactics!

[South African Military]

I dont think that it would be so easy to invade England. After all Hitler could not dominate the air.

[TexWiller]

i don't like "what if"s much but i can say that;they could have kept most of europe and north africa.It's a good thing that Hitler decided to mess with USSR.They even could have won if Japanese accepted to go for "the north plan" which meaned attacking Russia.But we all know what they did.

[WildBoar]

I don't think the Japanese would have made much difference to be honest as the Russians used weight of numbers against the Germans and would have done the same against the Japanese. Also the Chinese would have been between the Russians and the Japanese and were already fighting them so the Japanese would have struggled to reach Russia anyway.

I agree that it would have been harder without the attack on Russia however it wasn't just Britain but all the commonwealth forces fighting So it wasn't as one sided as somepeople think.

[Prefab Sprouter]

Germany can win in the following way:

-Germany continue to bomb British airfield despite Churchill trying to trick Hitler to change his target.

-I believe some tanks are able to travel on water, since most british ships are on the north side of the country, tanks can land on the south side of England with the protection of germany navy and fighters. The Objective for those tanks are to finish off shore defense and let panthers tanks to went ashore safely, then Britain is basically finished.

-With Britain falling in to German's hand, Americans would be unwilling to attack Europe in a short time, that gives german the time to build heavy defense on England, while starting to invade Russia with better preparationOk, well I have to politely disagree with you FW 190 pilot for the following reasons:

In order to organise a co-ordinated attack on the Island of England, Germany needed to get command of the Air AND sea. The Kreigsmarine lost a good number of ships in the Norwegian Campaign and its numbers were vasty inferior to the Royal Navy. The Germans may have gained control of the air but the invasion fleet would still have taken massive casualties crossing the channel. The Royal Navy had plans to send its ships into the Channel if an invasion was imminent to completely disrupt the landings.

The Wehrmacht did experiment with inflatable tanks but they were not ver y successful and were used in the Invasion of Russia to get across the River Bug, there were too few of them to make a difference :)
Once those tanks got ashore well they would need infantry support as experience has shown that tanks on their own quickly become sitting ducks on a battlefield.
As for the Panther, well it didnt come into production until 1943.

[WildBoar]

So where is this mysterious Island of england ?

[Prefab Sprouter]

Its to the East of the nearly as mysterious Island of Ireland, home of the free loving and free drinking Leprechauns !!! :)

[nolanbuc]

The short answer is yes and no. Operation Sea Lion probably could have landed German troops on the British Isles. However, the Royal Navy would have been able to choke off the German's cross-channel supply lines and eventually force the surrender of the beachead.

Other facts worth mentioning, although the Royal Navy did have a near 10:1 advantage in hulls over the Kreigsmarine, most of the R.N.'s assett were deployed in the Atlantic or elsewhere after the fall of France. It would have taken some time to recall those ships to defend against a cross-channel invasion.

Also, the Luftwaffe did not have the overwhelming advantage that the RAF thought they did during the Battle of Britain, however this belief caused the RAF reserves to be called up and Spitfire production to be cranked up, and it gave a boost to Radar deployment as well. All of which helped doom any hope of an invasion of Britain.

[Gen. Sandworm]

I think this depends on what one considers winning the war. Germany dominating the Earth? Don’t see how this would be possible under any circumstances. Controlling Europe as a whole? Yes I think this was possible. That being said, much of this would hinge on securing Western Europe.
Firstly, if Germany (namely Hitler and Goering) had not bungled Dunkirk so badly they could have captured much of the BEF. This would have left England greatly exposed. Second step would be to eliminate the RAF. If the Luftwaffe had concentrated on military objectives (airfields, radar station etc) instead of civilian targets, they could have suppressed the RAF more than enough for an invasion. In fact they almost did just this. Most historians give the RAF 2-4 weeks of combat efficiency before Germany switched to civilian targets. As we all know, actually getting the troops to the shore would have been the main problem. The actual cross channel invasion would need to have come with great speed after the fall of France. If all these factors had gone in Germany’s favor I believe they could have taken England. This would have prevented any Normandy type invasion.
Hitler would have more than likely still invaded Russia. I really cant see then defeating the Russian’s even with more supplies and men. The battle on the Russian front would probably have come to a stalemate. From this point it’s hard to say what would happen. Really depends on the politics. However I think Germany could have secured Europe.

[South African Military]

I think Germany could easily of taken England. If the Luftwaffe only continued attacking the RAF for just a few more days the RAF would of completely been destroyed. The main reason why the RAF was so successful in destroying the Luftwaffe, while the RAF was greatly outnumbered, was because of radar.

Radar was invented sometime around 1938 by some English Scientists. After completing some successful trials, they built many many radar towers along the coast of England and up to Scotland. Thus they could detect any airplanes, the speed and hieght, as they where crossing the English channel. This meant that the RAF did not have to just fly around and wait for the Germans, which they could never have been able to afford. They could also choose which planes at which bases would go up to meet the Germans. One guy in the German air force avised the guy who was operating the Luftwaffe (dont know his name) to bomb these towers because he thought that they had a very important purpose, they did bomb them once and only put them out-of-order for a while. This proved to be one of the very serious mistakes made by the Germans. They could of easily taken England if they could of just bombed those towers.

I will be posting a topic about radar in WW2 in the British forum.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Another good question........Do you think Stalin would have gone to war with the Germans? The Nazi's and the Communist didnt like each other for sure. But I dont think Russian's would have gone to war with Germany. What really scary would be if the Russian and the Germans had made an alliance. Pretty doubtful but they both were land hungry. :shock:

[Cactus]

I think to detur a Normandy invasion Hitler should have let the jet program go when he heard of it. This would have given him advanced fighters with some kick arse pilots that would have thwarted off the Allied bombing offensive which aided in Normandy.

I think had Hitler let his Generals plan things they may have had a slight chance in winning I mean I doubt it, but it would have made it harder for us. Also if he didn't declare war on the U.S. and instead conquered Europe then we woulda been in a sticky situation when it came to finding allies over there plus the Pacific on top of that. Perhaps all those things combined together but I guess we will never know. :roll:

[Gen. Sandworm]

Hitler was a moron as far as military strategy. Stalingrad proved that. If he would have stayed out of it.....things would have been much harder. Hitler should have stuck to what he did best......motivation.

[HEINRICI]

Hitler was a moron as far as military strategy. Stalingrad proved that. If he would have stayed out of it.....things would have been much harder. Hitler should have stuck to what he did best......motivation.
Absolutely correct; Hitler was his own worst enemy. I believe that he lost the war on September 3, 1939, the day France and England declared war on Germany. It was Hitler's reaction to this that was fatal, and demonstrated his utter lack of understanding of the world situation and the real strength of his potential enemies. His reaction was to issue Operational Order No. 2 For The Conduct Of The War, which placed German industry on a 'war footing' in breadth but not in depth. By this, I
mean he ordered all war-capable industry to start production, but not to
go all out. No 24-hr. production. He wanted to keep to normal 8-hr. daily production schedules, so as to 'not alarm the civilian population'. Strange
sentiment for someone who wanted to conquer the world. 'Total' war would not begin until after Stalingrad, when it was too late. How many more planes, tanks, guns and submarines would he have had if he had
given the proper order?
Had he given the correct order, he probably would have had several hundred more aircraft for the Battle Of Britain, which would have overwhelmed the RAF. With air superiority, they could have conducted several fake invasion exercises, drawing the Royal Navy into the Channel, where the Luftwaffe could sink them. Once the Royal Navy was
crippled, Operation Sea Lion could begin. By 1941, Hitler would have had several thousand more tanks for Operation Barbarossa. With an extra Panzer Army allocated to Von Runstedt in Army Group South, Guderian wouldn't have had to come to his rescue at Kiev. The Battle Of Smolensk was the first indicator that the Germans did not have the strength to defeat Russia. If Guderian's 2nd Panzer Army had stayed in place on the Moscow highway, Moscow would have fallen by the end of September. While this in itself would not have won the war, it would have wiped out a large proportion of Soviet industrial might, and brought Germany to at least parity in the war. In the spring of '42, Army Group Center likely would have gotten within bomber range of Chelyabinsk, the famous 'Tankograd'. Bombing Chelyabinsk and the nearby southern Ural cities would have been disasterous for the Russians. The war in Russia would probably end in the spring of '43.
Meanwhile, the best America could do was North Africa. With Britain out of the war, the Italian Navy would control the Mediterranean, and Rommel could be heavily reinforced. Germany would have already taken the Middle East oil fields by this time. America wouldn't be ready for invading Europe before 1944, giving Germany time to consolidate and move forces
west to France and England.
I suppose the best chance for America was to hold onto northwest Africa, and use B29s to drop the Bomb.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Germany can win in the following way:

-Germany continue to bomb British airfield despite Churchill trying to trick Hitler to change his target.

-I believe some tanks are able to travel on water, since most british ships are on the north side of the country, tanks can land on the south side of England with the protection of germany navy and fighters. The Objective for those tanks are to finish off shore defense and let panthers tanks to went ashore safely, then Britain is basically finished.

-With Britain falling in to German's hand, Americans would be unwilling to attack Europe in a short time, that gives german the time to build heavy defense on England, while starting to invade Russia with better preparation

I thought, not a chance. Adolf Galland was wrote in his book "First and last" such thing: German bombers havn't such radius of action to destroy industry zones of England. And German havn't a fleet wich can compare with British. And only one country have a swimming tanks in the WW2 - it was an USSR. And if the Hitler have a swimming tanks? La Mansh - is not a river, and swimming tank is paid armor for swimming abilities. It was only light tanks... Hitler had no choice, but making suicide attack to Russians. Very many facts pointed to USSR was ready to invade Europe. Attack of Hitler canceled plans of Soviet command and Stalin, but at the end of War Zhukov was said to Stalin such a phrase: "Go to the ocean, untill our guns not lost it's hot"... But Stalin decline it, the losses of this, unexpected for Stalin, scenario of War was very big, and the power of Red Army was heavily reduced.

[Komissar Ombrok]

By 1941, Hitler would have had several thousand more tanks for Operation Barbarossa. With an extra Panzer Army allocated to Von Runstedt in Army Group South, Guderian wouldn't have had to come to his rescue at Kiev. The Battle Of Smolensk was the first indicator that the Germans did not have the strength to defeat Russia. If Guderian's 2nd Panzer Army had stayed in place on the Moscow highway, Moscow would have fallen by the end of September. While this in itself would not have won the war, it would have wiped out a large proportion of Soviet industrial might, and brought Germany to at least parity in the war. In the spring of '42, Army Group Center likely would have gotten within bomber range of Chelyabinsk, the famous 'Tankograd'. Bombing Chelyabinsk and the nearby southern Ural cities would have been disasterous for the Russians. The war in Russia would probably end in the spring of '43.

Incorrect. The Guderian, Mannstein and Galder was wrote in theirs dairys - tanks havn't a resourses of engines of tanks. In august 1941, Guderian was send a request - 1500 tanks engines must be replaced after using it in terrible enviroment :D. But he recieved only a 300... Do you take a geographic map in hands? Distance between Ural and Moskow - more than 4000 km. And Ural isn'tast industry zone of Russia, most powerful Industry was in Siberia, city Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Novosibirsk. Can you tell me at least one bomber with such radius? And with witch method Hitler can bomb Ural? The steppes near Volga (in plan of Hitle - placement of his bomber to destroy the Ural) had no landings site, and no rail communications. Planes need an ammunitions and fuel. And deliver it 2000 km from nearest railway - it's very expensive. One air strike from Volga to Ural cost like 20 to England.

[HEINRICI]

This is an opportunity for me to research where the major Soviet war industries were located after the great move of the factories from the
Ukraine. Until I complete this research, I will concede your points about
distance and air-strike radius. Only one point I will contest, and that is the effect of increased 'total war' production on panzer forces. It is true that 1500 tank engines needed to be replaced, out of a total of 2800 tanks. This was partially caused by the improper oils used, which would freeze solid at minus-40 degrees centigrade, and the subsequent breaking of camshafts, valves and piston rods. The rest was caused by over-use of the tanks due to there being NO strategic reserve of tanks!
The idiot Hitler thought this was going to be an eight-week war! It makes one wonder if he had a spy network at all. Again strange behavior from a dictator who stated way back in 1925 that he wanted to conquer Russia.
All that time to plan, and he did nothing! He simply accepted the only war plan put together by General Marcks in 1940 for Barbarossa; without seeking any other opinions. He must have been lulled into complacency by his easy victory over France, and the poor Soviet performance against the Finns.
With total war production in effect from September '39, however, German battle tank ( PzKw III's and IV's ) production would have provided
a total of over 5400 tanks; enough to provide replacements for the 1500
broken-down tanks AND provide Von Runstedt with the force he needed to
surround Kiev, with several hundred left over. The capture of highly-industrialized England in 1940 would have only increased production potential. If Moscow was taken in September-October, fewer tanks would be exposed to the below-zero conditions that began in November. The central questions then become, after taking Moscow, how far could the Germans get in 1942, how much of the Red Army and Soviet industry would remain, and were Soviet oil reserves all concentrated in the Caspian Sea area, or where there others further east? Without oil, even the enormous Red Army would be nearly helpless.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Abosolutely disagree. The Hitler didn't know simply arithmetic. The Soviet Union is country with size of 2 materics, Asia and Europe. Length - about 10.000 km. Medium speed of tank(without supply) - 15 km/h, at Russians roads - not more than 8-10. 100 days only to rich the last resourse base of SU, without stops, with unlimited fuel, on ideal line and without battles. Most territory (about 75%) unpassed for Germans tanks with thin tracks. Railway is easy to explode. Maximum bomber range is about 1500-1800 km. He was planned eight-week war? Even schoolboy can told you - this is madness. But more time? In long war, most critical factor is a resource base. Soviet Uniaon have a unlimited resorces in Siberia - oil, ore, wood, aluminum... anything. The source of Hitlers oil - was a small base in Ploeshty, Romania. He made sintetic fuel with cost 6-7 more than normal and used the potato grass to replace wood. And at the main resource - human resource - Hitler couldn't even compare with SU. Bismark left to Germans letter when died - to not make a war with Russia. For any small European country such war always fatal...

Nice picture, about how Hitler ruled the war: Soviet soldiers in his cabinet:

http://victory.rusarchives.ru/catalogue/photo.php?photo_id=344&id=17

[HEINRICI]

Abosolutely disagree. The Hitler didn't know simply arithmetic. The Soviet Union is country with size of 2 materics, Asia and Europe. Length - about 10.000 km. Medium speed of tank(without supply) - 15 km/h, at Russians roads - not more than 8-10. 100 days only to rich the last resourse base of SU, without stops, with unlimited fuel, on ideal line and without battles. Most territory (about 75%) unpassed for Germans tanks with thin tracks. Railway is easy to explode. Maximum bomber range is about 1500-1800 km. He was planned eight-week war? Even schoolboy can told you - this is madness. But more time? In long war, most critical factor is a resource base. Soviet Uniaon have a unlimited resorces in Siberia - oil, ore, wood, aluminum... anything. The source of Hitlers oil - was a small base in Ploeshty, Romania. He made sintetic fuel with cost 6-7 more than normal and used the potato grass to replace wood. And at the main resource - human resource - Hitler couldn't even compare with SU. Bismark left to Germans letter when died - to not make a war with Russia. For any small European country such war always fatal...

Nice picture, about how Hitler ruled the war: Soviet soldiers in his cabinet:

http://victory.rusarchives.ru/catalogue/photo.php?photo_id=344&id=17 I will add your further objections to my research on this subject.
I have found where all the tank production centers were moved to in late
1941, and their subsequent production totals. I'm still working on where the aircraft factories went ( like Sukhoi went to Komsomolsk-on-Amur ).
So far I haven't been able to find good histories on the Yakovlev, ILyushin, Tupolev and Mikoyan aircraft manufacturers during that period.
Your arguments support the idea that to win, the Germans would have to go deep into the Central Siberian Uplands and prehaps all the way to the Amur. Others argue that the original German plan to just hold all of European Russia west of the Volga was workable; that the loss of Moscow would have fatal political consequences for Stalin's regime, and that his remaining forces wouldn't be strong enough to retake Moscow.
At this point I am closer to your point of view than theirs. I think the Soviet state politically could survive the loss of Moscow, primarily because the Nazis were more brutal to the people than the Communists.
If Hitler were more cunning, he would have treated the peasants of the
Ukraine and Byleorussia decently, thus turning them against Stalin. Then, after winning the war, he could do what he liked.
So, under this secnario, with the Germans holding all of Russia west of
the Volga in 1942, who would hold the strategic initiative? One study I read stated that after reaching that point, the Germans would hold 49% of all Russian industrial capacity. Could the Russians merely hold the line at that point, counterattack, or slowly give way to further German offensives? By the way, in regards to resources, two things have become clear so far; 1-the taking of the Grozny and Baku oil fields would have given the germans far more oil than Ploesti contained; 2- the loss of the Caspian Sea area fields would have not deprived the Soviet army of most of it's oil-plenty exists in Siberia and on the Pacific coast. I was surprised to learn that fully 50% of all Lend-Lease supplies to the U.S.S.R. from America came through Vladivostok. Appearantly, the U.S. convoys flew the Russian flag to avoid Japanese attacks.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Abosolutely disagree. The Hitler didn't know simply arithmetic. The Soviet Union is country with size of 2 materics, Asia and Europe. Length - about 10.000 km. Medium speed of tank(without supply) - 15 km/h, at Russians roads - not more than 8-10. 100 days only to rich the last resourse base of SU, without stops, with unlimited fuel, on ideal line and without battles. Most territory (about 75%) unpassed for Germans tanks with thin tracks. Railway is easy to explode. Maximum bomber range is about 1500-1800 km. He was planned eight-week war? Even schoolboy can told you - this is madness. But more time? In long war, most critical factor is a resource base. Soviet Uniaon have a unlimited resorces in Siberia - oil, ore, wood, aluminum... anything. The source of Hitlers oil - was a small base in Ploeshty, Romania. He made sintetic fuel with cost 6-7 more than normal and used the potato grass to replace wood. And at the main resource - human resource - Hitler couldn't even compare with SU. Bismark left to Germans letter when died - to not make a war with Russia. For any small European country such war always fatal...

Nice picture, about how Hitler ruled the war: Soviet soldiers in his cabinet:

http://victory.rusarchives.ru/catalogue/photo.php?photo_id=344&id=17

You have to remember that Hitler and Germany were under the impression that most Soviet citizens were unhappy and would be glad to see the Germans. As the expression goes......"All you have to do is kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down." I think he was probably aware of the logistics that you are talking about but I dont think he expected them to matter.

And insofar as Bismark to tell the Germans to stay out of a war with Russia.......well that didnt happen. George Washington told Americans to alway stay out of European affiars. Especially alliances........well that didnt happen either. :)

[Komissar Ombrok]

This is more offen mistake... If you sutied history of USSR, you must know the such called "5-years plans". This is a parts of industry growth. The first 5-y.p. was to build a huge resource base with Siberia mines. Second - industry for building technics (in Siberia too), and only 3-rd(last before war) Soviet mading a war factories. Stalin them build near Poland and Romania border, for easiest transfer in the "liberation" war in Europe, targeted to conquer Europe. But with suddenly attack of Hitler, they los all prepaired items. For example, in the first 2 days of war Soviet army lost more than 2 800 trains with ammo!!! And loss of many war factories was an very strong hit to Red Army, but they don't loss the industry power! And the many of it was very quickly (less then year) reconstructed in Siberia. One more thing - all Soviet ammo and technics alwas was specialy modifiad for mass production. All technics was cheap and easy to products. More than that - date of begin recieving Lend Lease supplies - June 1939! 2 years before war between Soviet and German, and 2 month before WW2. And not only USA make this "postcards". Interasting facts: 1940. War between German and England. The England send ammo to Soviet (Soviet is neutral) and Hitler - send like a present to Stalin new cruiser, later named "Tashkent", also known as "light-blue leader"... With such intensive supplies from USA (Pacific way) and England (Nordic way) losses of war factories not so hard as can be... About captured oil plants - they captured not plans - only ruins of them. And for its powerful industry productivity, Hitler spend more than year and a lot of money... Very long period, imho. But most rich oil plants - of the Russia is in the regions between Ural and Siberia...

[Komissar Ombrok]

Abosolutely disagree. The Hitler didn't know simply arithmetic. The Soviet Union is country with size of 2 materics, Asia and Europe. Length - about 10.000 km. Medium speed of tank(without supply) - 15 km/h, at Russians roads - not more than 8-10. 100 days only to rich the last resourse base of SU, without stops, with unlimited fuel, on ideal line and without battles. Most territory (about 75%) unpassed for Germans tanks with thin tracks. Railway is easy to explode. Maximum bomber range is about 1500-1800 km. He was planned eight-week war? Even schoolboy can told you - this is madness. But more time? In long war, most critical factor is a resource base. Soviet Uniaon have a unlimited resorces in Siberia - oil, ore, wood, aluminum... anything. The source of Hitlers oil - was a small base in Ploeshty, Romania. He made sintetic fuel with cost 6-7 more than normal and used the potato grass to replace wood. And at the main resource - human resource - Hitler couldn't even compare with SU. Bismark left to Germans letter when died - to not make a war with Russia. For any small European country such war always fatal...

Nice picture, about how Hitler ruled the war: Soviet soldiers in his cabinet:

http://victory.rusarchives.ru/catalogue/photo.php?photo_id=344&id=17

You have to remember that Hitler and Germany were under the impression that most Soviet citizens were unhappy and would be glad to see the Germans. As the expression goes......"All you have to do is kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down." I think he was probably aware of the logistics that you are talking about but I dont think he expected them to matter.

And insofar as Bismark to tell the Germans to stay out of a war with Russia.......well that didnt happen. George Washington told Americans to alway stay out of European affiars. Especially alliances........well that didnt happen either. :)

No. People of Ukraine don't like Stalin, it's true... But I personally know many russians veterans of ww2 who love Staling with open heart. Maybe this nonsense, but people of Russia loved Stalin, and th Hitler had no chance to initiate uprising.

[Gen. Sandworm]

.............. And only one country have a swimming tanks in the WW2 - it was an USSR. And if the Hitler have a swimming tanks?......

I think if you go swimming off the coast of Normandy (Omaha beach) you will find plenty of swimming US tanks. The swimming tanks at Utah beach did much better and many made it ashore. Im sure the Germans could have developed one. The americans tanks where hastely thrown together.

[Komissar Ombrok]

.............. And only one country have a swimming tanks in the WW2 - it was an USSR. And if the Hitler have a swimming tanks?......

I think if you go swimming off the coast of Normandy (Omaha beach) you will find plenty of swimming US tanks. The swimming tanks at Utah beach did much better and many made it ashore. Im sure the Germans could have developed one. The americans tanks where hastely thrown together.

Maybe my bad english... I mean, in period of WW2 only Soviet had swimming tanks. And do you think it's easy to develope new type of tank for country without experience of such development?

[Gen. Sandworm]

.............. And only one country have a swimming tanks in the WW2 - it was an USSR. And if the Hitler have a swimming tanks?......

I think if you go swimming off the coast of Normandy (Omaha beach) you will find plenty of swimming US tanks. The swimming tanks at Utah beach did much better and many made it ashore. Im sure the Germans could have developed one. The americans tanks where hastely thrown together.

Maybe my bad english... I mean, in period of WW2 only Soviet had swimming tanks. And do you think it's easy to develope new type of tank for country without experience of such development?

Here is a picture of one of the WW2 American DD tanks used at the invasion of Normandy.


So you can see its a Sherman converted so that it can swim. Like i said these were quick a solution to getting the tanks ashore. Im sure the Germans could have developed something similar to invade England. This may not be a true swimming tank but as you can see it does swim....and does the job.

http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/tanks/usa/med/m4/sher/03867.jpg

[Komissar Ombrok]

:D I can't call THIS swimming tank... Japanese also using baloons to transfer tanks across the rivers, but can you tell me the swimming speed of such constuction? La-Manche is not a pond, and wind and weather can destroy any tanks without specially adopted to swim.

[South African Military]

Gen. Sandworm "Forbidden page"

Anyway the Allies did have tanks that could go in alot of water. Even the Churchhill tank fitted with flamethrowers were used in DDay.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Picture Fixed.

Okay

1 the Shermans were realeased about a mile or more (1mile=1.6km) off the shore. So for me this does a pretty good job at swimming.

2. All tanks are going to be unloading by the navy in an amfibious assault.

3. Im sure this russian tank was good (i know nothing about it so please provide info) but i seriously doubt that they will be crossing the english channel by themselves. If so Com. Ombrok please hop in one and cross the atlantic. I suggest landing in washington and taking interstate 64 to Indiana. Once there we will bask in all its glory :lol:

Point is......... I dont really see the difference?

And you have to admit that IF the Germans had a decent navy they could have deployed something like this to invade England. Anyhow dont want to get to off topic.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Picture Fixed.

Okay

1 the Shermans were realeased about a mile or more (1mile=1.6km) off the shore. So for me this does a pretty good job at swimming.

2. All tanks are going to be unloading by the navy in an amfibious assault.

3. Im sure this russian tank was good (i know nothing about it so please provide info) but i seriously doubt that they will be crossing the english channel by themselves. If so Com. Ombrok please hop in one and cross the atlantic. I suggest landing in washington and taking interstate 64 to Indiana. Once there we will bask in all its glory :lol:

Point is......... I dont really see the difference?

And you have to admit that IF the Germans had a decent navy they could have deployed something like this to invade England. Anyhow dont want to get to off topic.

to 1) 1.6 km/h Pathetic... :) The speed of water streams in La-Manshe more than 10 km/h. And it don't constant at any places. Even experienced sailors can't make a course with this conditions... In water, tanks wich don't designed for swim can't shot - firs shot will be last shot... Hitler has no cover for this crossing, his fleet was awful to compare with british. Submarines - in first period of war was good, but first ability of submarine - hideness, and they not designed for such cover operations...


to 3) Most seried russian swimming tank was PT-6, this tank was produced number of 4000. That was a light tank with anti-bullet armor, and gun 35mm. Technical characteristics is such PzKw-III, but PT-6 have a diesel engine, and swimming speed 9-12 km/h!!! They was tested on Onezhskoe and Ladozhskoe lakes (largest lakes in the world, even sailors call that lakes "trap for Ship") And that tanks was crossed more than 400 km of water... THIS tank can cross La-Manshe. But best swimming tank of the WW2 is a T-28P. Series of this tank was small, near 300-400, and the production of it was canceled after German attack. This tank was dsigned for offense, not for defense. The swimming speed of it was 12-15 km/h!!!

And this not offtopic. This discussion is a proof, that German have no units to invade British.

[South African Military]

Picture Fixed.

Okay

1 the Shermans were realeased about a mile or more (1mile=1.6km) off the shore. So for me this does a pretty good job at swimming.

2. All tanks are going to be unloading by the navy in an amfibious assault.

3. Im sure this russian tank was good (i know nothing about it so please provide info) but i seriously doubt that they will be crossing the english channel by themselves. If so Com. Ombrok please hop in one and cross the atlantic. I suggest landing in washington and taking interstate 64 to Indiana. Once there we will bask in all its glory :lol:

Point is......... I dont really see the difference?

And you have to admit that IF the Germans had a decent navy they could have deployed something like this to invade England. Anyhow dont want to get to off topic.

to 1) 1.6 km/h Pathetic... :) The speed of water streams in La-Manshe more than 10 km/h. And it don't constant at any places. Even experienced sailors can't make a course with this conditions... In water, tanks wich don't designed for swim can't shot - firs shot will be last shot... Hitler has no cover for this crossing, his fleet was awful to compare with british. Submarines - in first period of war was good, but first ability of submarine - hideness, and they not designed for such cover operations...


to 3) Most seried russian swimming tank was PT-6, this tank was produced number of 4000. That was a light tank with anti-bullet armor, and gun 35mm. Technical characteristics is such PzKw-III, but PT-6 have a diesel engine, and swimming speed 9-12 km/h!!! They was tested on Onezhskoe and Ladozhskoe lakes (largest lakes in the world, even sailors call that lakes "trap for Ship") And that tanks was crossed more than 400 km of water... THIS tank can cross La-Manshe. But best swimming tank of the WW2 is a T-28P. Series of this tank was small, near 300-400, and the production of it was canceled after German attack. This tank was dsigned for offense, not for defense. The swimming speed of it was 12-15 km/h!!!

And this not offtopic. This discussion is a proof, that German have no units to invade British.

Impressive but where any of these tanks used in reall battle effectively?

[Komissar Ombrok]

This is a tragedy of this tanks... They was designed for conqueror Europe and Britain, but sudden Hitler attack ruined all plans... This tank was used in defense - but this isn't their strong side... With only anti-bullet armor, they was easy terget in defense positions... That tank was a tool of agressive attack, they must to surround points of heavy defence without battles, or make a deep invasions behind fronlines... Something like Hitler made in France... In a defensive war they was unusable...

[South African Military]

This is a tragedy of this tanks... They was designed for conqueror Europe and Britain, but sudden Hitler attack ruined all plans... This tank was used in defense - but this isn't their strong side... With only anti-bullet armor, they was easy terget in defense positions... That tank was a tool of agressive attack, they must to surround points of heavy defence without battles, or make a deep invasions behind fronlines... Something like Hitler made in France... In a defensive war they was unusable...

So Russia really wanted to take over Europe from the beggining?

[Komissar Ombrok]

Yep. Stalin was a godfather of Hitler in reality. Stalin trained germans officer in Liepetsk, give Hitler about 30 millions dollars by gold... Many things.. The idea was simply - German initiate the WW2, and Stalin "liberate" the Europe, weakened by Hitler... The date of the begining "liberation war" was 6 Jule 1941. Two weeks later after Hitler invasion to Russia. Most war losses of Soviet was because of it. Landing sites of planes was 4-5 kilometrers near border. They must take a high on the German territory. Huge numbers of ammo and soldiers was in trains near border... They can't drop tanks from trains at easy... Huge numbers of planes, tanks, and fuel was burned in first wave of bombardment...

[HEINRICI]

Yep. Stalin was a godfather of Hitler in reality. Stalin trained germans officer in Liepetsk, give Hitler about 30 millions dollars by gold... Many things.. The idea was simply - German initiate the WW2, and Stalin "liberate" the Europe, weakened by Hitler... The date of the begining "liberation war" was 6 Jule 1941. Two weeks later after Hitler invasion to Russia. Most war losses of Soviet was because of it. Landing sites of planes was 4-5 kilometrers near border. They must take a high on the German territory. Huge numbers of ammo and soldiers was in trains near border... They can't drop tanks from trains at easy... Huge numbers of planes, tanks, and fuel was burned in first wave of bombardment...

Now this is really interesting. This is the first time I've heard an exact invasion date for Stalin's 'liberation of Europe'. I had thought he was going to wait until spring of '42, when he would have enough T-34's.
Experts had noted that in June of '41, that Stalin's troop dispositions made
little sense if he wanted merely to defend. Of special interest were the large forces he placed in or near Bessarabia; I'm sure he knew that if he
quickly took the oil fields at Ploesti in Rumania, Hitler's war machine would
starve for fuel.

[Dani]

Of special interest were the large forces he placed in or near Bessarabia; I'm sure he knew that if he
quickly took the oil fields at Ploesti in Rumania, Hitler's war machine would
starve for fuel.

True!!

[Komissar Ombrok]

Yep. That was a plan. Most of light and fast tanks was grouped in direction to Ploeshti. About 5000 BT tanks and more than lots on infantry. If the war was begin on Stalin's scenario, the oil plants of Ploehsti was be destroyed in a 3-5 hours. Easy way to win a war...

[Dani]

Romanian Army secured the Ploiesti oilfields from 23rd of August 1944.
Anyway, the fact the Romanian Army switched the side in August 1944 helped a lot Red Army!!!
Also I have to mention that Romanian Royal Army fought together with Red Army in Hungary and Czechoslovakia from October '44 till May '45.

[Dani]

King Michael (Mihai) was awarded by Stalin with "Order of Victory (Pobeda)".
As I know, only 2 foreign persons received this award from Stalin:
Dwight Eisenhower and King Michael of Romania!!!

[lieutlienant Vorontsov]

I think Germany I could vyygrat' war if with b it did not begin war against THE USSR, or began, but then, plus to everything the allies of tokryli the second front!

[FW-190 Pilot]

if stalin really has plan to invade europe, then would that make hitler the hero to stop the big disaster with a smaller disaster in comparison :lol:

[HEINRICI]

if stalin really has plan to invade europe, then would that make hitler the hero to stop the big disaster with a smaller disaster in comparison :lol:
The other major example of Stalin's strategic planning was his timing in
his attack on Finland. If he had attacked Finland before Germany invaded Poland, England and France probably would declare war on Russia, and Hitler would be glad to join that alliance. Can you imagine French troops
riding trains through Germany to fight alongside the Nazis in Poland?!!
Of course, Stalin was too clever to let that happen.

[South African Military]

if stalin really has plan to invade europe, then would that make hitler the hero to stop the big disaster with a smaller disaster in comparison :lol:
The other major example of Stalin's strategic planning was his timing in
his attack on Finland. If he had attacked Finland before Germany invaded Poland, England and France probably would declare war on Russia, and Hitler would be glad to join that alliance. Can you imagine French troops
riding trains through Germany to fight alongside the Nazis in Poland?!!
Of course, Stalin was too clever to let that happen.

Ya so they might get Russia, but then Germany would have to declare war on the rest of the world, and ofcourse France would declare war on Germany, and by that time, Germany is fairely depleted.

[Sturmtruppen]

if stalin really has plan to invade europe, then would that make hitler the hero to stop the big disaster with a smaller disaster in comparison :lol:

:shock: stalin has plan to invade europe? (soviet could win,because german army isn`t big as soviet,and stalin had more power than hitler)

[Komissar Ombrok]

Yep. Stalin want to get whole world... Even began to build the "Soviet Palace". Fantastic project. That was palace, were Soviet must wrote joining documents of the last repubplic of USSR. Fantastic palace - and the statue of Lenin on it with height of statue - 113 meters. That building wasn't build, but in the Moskow even now left station of subway "Soviet palace" :lol:

[FW-190 Pilot]

Yep. Stalin want to get whole world... Even began to build the "Soviet Palace". Fantastic project. That was palace, were Soviet must wrote joining documents of the last repubplic of USSR. Fantastic palace - and the statue of Lenin on it with height of statue - 113 meters. That building wasn't build, but in the Moskow even now left station of subway "Soviet palace" :lol:
do you know why it wasnt build, not enough money?

[Komissar Ombrok]

Not. The war has began. And began with Hitlers plan, not Stalins. They "liberation of Europe" was canceled and thousand people from this project was sended to the fronline...

[Komissar Ombrok]

Nice pictures of "Sovie palace" projects:
http://crazyrussian.com/02/entry_940.php#body
Was chosen to build the second variant.

[Sturmtruppen]

Nice pictures of "Sovie palace" projects:
http://crazyrussian.com/02/entry_940.php#body
Was chosen to build the second variant.

wow 8)

[TexWiller]

http://www.jeroenschut.nl/~jeroen/sub/jeroensdingen/computerspellen/pcspellen/redalert/ra1-b.jpg

[South African Military]

http://www.jeroenschut.nl/~jeroen/sub/jeroensdingen/computerspellen/pcspellen/redalert/ra1-b.jpg

I do believe that is Command and conquer, modern warfare not WW2, right? But nice pic anyway.

[Komissar Ombrok]

If the Hitler was planned to attack SU not in the June, but in the August or late in the June? that picture would be true :)

[TexWiller]

I do believe that is Command and conquer, modern warfare not WW2, right? But nice pic anyway.

yes,it is command and conquer 2:red alert.in red alert,einstein goes back in time,eliminates hitler and ta-da! no ww2.then stalin grows stronger and invades europe.i thought putting this screenshot would be a funny addition.i guess most of you didn't get it,which proves you have lifes and are not nerds :)

[FW-190 Pilot]

Nice pictures of "Sovie palace" projects:
http://crazyrussian.com/02/entry_940.php#body
Was chosen to build the second variant.
so what are the functions of those buildings

[IRONMAN]

IF...

Germany had not stopped bombing British airfields, etc. etc., they still would have lost the war once the US devoted itself to the effort. You can slice it all however you like, it comes out the same:

The US had virtually unlimited manufacturing capacity with huge natural mineral resources on the continent, and a workforce of many millions. The US could have provided tens of times as many soldiers alone to the war than Germany had as an entire population. The population of Germany was about 17 million? and the US was about 120 million. Before Germany had begun to retreat from Russia, it's male population was already devastated, because 14 million German and Russian men died in the eastern front. With a little time, and especially after the retreat of the Japanese in the Pacific, countless US warships and submarines would insure that nothing could stop a massive and continuous US invasion of Europe.

For that matter, when Germany attacked Russia it sealed it's fate. Germany could never dream of having the resources, regardless of what small countries they had conquered, to take on Russia and the US\Canada\Australia\etc. in a front on the west. There simply was nothing that Germany could have done, save for developing the atomic bomb, to prevent it's demise.

People love to speculate about "what if..." and "if only..." and ponder what Germany could have done. The real answer of it all is "not much". They started a war that got too big for a country of their size to make good on. All the speculation in the world does not change that. Germany's resources and ability to fight began to decrease in 1942 and never stopped decreasing. All the while, her enemies capacity to fight only continuously increased. It was only a matter of time. Germany was amazingly effective while they lasted, no doubt about it. But it was a lost cause when they attacked Russia, and when the US joined the war, victory was no longer in doubt.

[Gen. Sandworm]

IF...

Germany had not stopped bombing British airfields, etc. etc., they still would have lost the war once the US devoted itself to the effort. You can slice it all however you like, it comes out the same:

The US had virtually unlimited manufacturing capacity with huge natural mineral resources on the continent, and a workforce of many millions. The US could have provided tens of times as many soldiers alone to the war than Germany had as an entire population. The population of Germany was about 17 million? and the US was about 120 million. Before Germany had begun to retreat from Russia, it's male population was already devastated, because 14 million German and Russian men died in the eastern front. With a little time, and especially after the retreat of the Japanese in the Pacific, countless US warships and submarines would insure that nothing could stop a massive and continuous US invasion of Europe.

For that matter, when Germany attacked Russia it sealed it's fate. Germany could never dream of having the resources, regardless of what small countries they had conquered, to take on Russia and the US\Canada\Australia\etc. in a front on the west. There simply was nothing that Germany could have done, save for developing the atomic bomb, to prevent it's demise.

People love to speculate about "what if..." and "if only..." and ponder what Germany could have done. The real answer of it all is "not much". They started a war that got too big for a country of their size to make good on. All the speculation in the world does not change that. Germany's resources and ability to fight began to decrease in 1942 and never stopped decreasing. All the while, her enemies capacity to fight only continuously increased. It was only a matter of time. Germany was amazingly effective while they lasted, no doubt about it. But it was a lost cause when they attacked Russia, and when the US joined the war, victory was no longer in doubt.

Dont forget that good commanders and tactics can change things quickly. Normandy might have failed. Dont forget the disaster Monty planned the didnt work. (Operation Market Garden). The first time out against the Germans the Americans got owned at Kasserine Pass. We had to learn the hard way just as everyone how to defeat Germany. If Hitler had not interferred so much things could have been very different.

[IRONMAN]

Dont forget that good commanders and tactics can change things quickly. Normandy might have failed. Dont forget the disaster Monty planned the didnt work. (Operation Market Garden). The first time out against the Germans the Americans got owned at Kasserine Pass. We had to learn the hard way just as everyone how to defeat Germany. If Hitler had not interferred so much things could have been very different.

True about the commanders. But no nation who faught in that war succeeded at every battle. The British got "owned" some too. The French got "owned", the Czechs got "owned", the Italians got "owned", everyone got "owned" by some measure.

"...Normandy might have failed."
"Americans got owned..."
"If Hitler had not..."
"We had to learn..."

Speculation, which does not change the big picture. The whole thing boils down to capacity to render war. Germany was a farily small nation with poor mineral resources (they imported iron ore from Sweden to make weapons because they had very little), they took on Russia and the US. There's no mystery about it at all.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Nice pictures of "Sovie palace" projects:
http://crazyrussian.com/02/entry_940.php#body
Was chosen to build the second variant.
so what are the functions of those buildings

more information:
http://www.muar.ru/ve/2003/moscow/14e.htm

[South African Military]

Nice pictures of "Sovie palace" projects:
http://crazyrussian.com/02/entry_940.php#body
Was chosen to build the second variant.
so what are the functions of those buildings

more information:
http://www.muar.ru/ve/2003/moscow/14e.htm

Interesting facts. Would it be possible to see the bottem half, that was already built, today?

[Komissar Ombrok]

No. Cruschev desroyed all that was build... And now there is a reconstructed Church of Criest the Savior.

[Gen. Sandworm]

i dont think germany will have the chance to win, they fight an impossible war on battle of britain and american are able to use britian as close base to attack germany

If Britain would have fallen to the Germans I think that Germany had much better odds of winning the war. And i mean Victory completly over Europe. Not Russia. I think this would have just come to a stalemate.

[IRONMAN]

i dont think germany will have the chance to win, they fight an impossible war on battle of britain and american are able to use britian as close base to attack germany

If Britain would have fallen to the Germans I think that Germany had much better odds of winning the war. And I mean Victory completly over Europe. Not Russia. I think this would have just come to a stalemate.

You mean...
IF Germany had not attacked Russia...
IF Germany had managed to defeat the British in the air
IF the US had not been supplying Britain with supplies and parts for planes
IF the US had not gotten involved with forces

and IF this that and the other...

You fail completely to understand everything altogether it seems:

By early 1943 Germany's resources in men, manufacturing capabilities, and money was begining to rapidly deminish. War against Russia cost Germany millions of men, and the country's male population was greatly reduced.

Germany's navy had been reduced to almost nothing by 1943 by US and British naval forces, and importing iron ore from Sweden to continue manufacturing goods for the war had become costly and difficult.
American and British bombing of Germany in 1943-44 reduced Germany's manufacturing capabilities to nothing.

1944, Germany was in complete retreat with the Russians pushing them back into Germany - because Germany could no longer supply it's soldiers in the east or west.

By the time the invasion forces of the US, Canada, and Britton landed in France, Germany's large remaining forces in the field were no longer able to receive adequate supplies from Germany. Then it was only a matter of time to push the Germans back to Germany - which was tough because Germany had a few hundred thousand in the west and more in the east.

Had Germany by some miricle managed to defeat Britain's RAF and actually invade Brittain, they would have suffered severe losses when they got there. The British would have given them a lot to think about. Even if this had been possible, and they had taken Britain, the army necessary to occupy britain would have been impossible to achieve for Germany in their state. And even if they had managed to do that, the US had the manufacturing capacities and numbers to counter and kick them out. The invasion in France would have simply taken place first in Brittain intead of in France.

I cannot see how anyone could specualte that Germany had a change of winning that war once Russia and the US got involved. It's ludicrous to consider that Germany could have done anything but loose.
had all of your "IF's" come to pass, Germany could not have defeated the US any more than they were able to defeat Russia. With America's manufacturing capacity and huge population, there is nothing germany could have done to stop the US.

[Gen. Sandworm]

You mean...
IF Germany had not attacked Russia...
(YES)
IF Germany had managed to defeat the British in the air
(YES and they almost did)
IF the US had not been supplying Britain with supplies and parts for planes
(DIDNT MATTER)
IF the US had not gotten involved with forces
(I would like to see US invade England and France from where Iceland. Yea right!)

and IF this that and the other...
(BLAH)

You fail completely to understand everything altogether it seems:

(You are pissing off just about everyone on this forum with your insults. Here are some suggestions and if you dont like them call me what you want......I dont really care. You seem to want to push yourself up by putting others down by what you think you know. This is sad and the above statement seems to imply that. As one to another....chill out man. You fail completely to understand everything altogether it seems how to be naturally polite to other people. It will come to the point where you can make your posts but no one is going to read them or respond. So chill out or talk to yourself. Im assuming you already do this quite abit anyhow. Im not looking for an apology just asking you nicely to calm down. This is not a forum to go haha i know more than your stupid ass. This is a forum to debate and discuss like adults. If you persist with your current way I and im sure most of the members of the site will be asking for you to be kicked. So please with sugar on it. Be polite. This goes for others that im sure you might think are antagonizing you. I suggest going above this and be and adult. Simply look past others insults. Hopefully they will do the same.)

[South African Military]

You mean...
IF Germany had not attacked Russia...
(YES)
IF Germany had managed to defeat the British in the air
(YES and they almost did)
IF the US had not been supplying Britain with supplies and parts for planes
(DIDNT MATTER)
IF the US had not gotten involved with forces
(I would like to see US invade England and France from where Iceland. Yea right!)

and IF this that and the other...
(BLAH)

You fail completely to understand everything altogether it seems:

(You are pissing off just about everyone on this forum with your insults. Here are some suggestions and if you dont like them call me what you want......I dont really care. You seem to want to push yourself up by putting others down by what you think you know. This is sad and the above statement seems to imply that. As one to another....chill out man. You fail completely to understand everything altogether it seems how to be naturally polite to other people. It will come to the point where you can make your posts but no one is going to read them or respond. So chill out or talk to yourself. Im assuming you already do this quite abit anyhow. Im not looking for an apology just asking you nicely to calm down. This is not a forum to go haha i know more than your stupid ass. This is a forum to debate and discuss like adults. If you persist with your current way I and im sure most of the members of the site will be asking for you to be kicked. So please with sugar on it. Be polite. This goes for others that im sure you might think are antagonizing you. I suggest going above this and be and adult. Simply look past others insults. Hopefully they will do the same.)

Very well said Gen.! Yes i agree with what you are saying, if Britain had fallen into German hands, there would be a major problem. Of course Germany should not attack Russia. Maybe if Hitler had somehow assinated Stalin, I think that would bring Russia into a devastated state to fight Germany.

[IRONMAN]

You are pissing off just about everyone on this forum with your insults.

You're nuts. I've insulted nobody. You are refering to someone else.

[South African Military]

You are pissing off just about everyone on this forum with your insults.

You're nuts. I've insulted nobody. You are refering to someone else.

HAHA! :D :D

[IRONMAN]

If Britain had provided bomber and fighter support in France before the Germans took the entire country (there were a few months to prepare), it would have saved a lot of lives later on. I think that could have been a powerful factor in the Allied loss of life in France.

[FW-190 Pilot]

No. Cruschev desroyed all that was build... And now there is a reconstructed Church of Criest the Savior.
so the railway station is actually the palace constuction site?
sorry if its a stupid qusetion, i really want to know more about russia, its a really interesting country to me, thanks:)

[IRONMAN]

You are pissing off just about everyone on this forum with your insults.

You're nuts. I've insulted nobody. You are refering to someone else.

HAHA! :D :D
what a way to insult your own iq :wink:
(to ironman, not SAM)

You are insulting me again. You need to stop that.

[Gen. Sandworm]

You are pissing off just about everyone on this forum with your insults.

You're nuts. I've insulted nobody. You are refering to someone else.

HAHA! :D :D
what a way to insult your own iq :wink:
(to ironman, not SAM)

You are insulting me again. You need to stop that.

I am going to agree with him on this one. Please stop insults from now on. IRONMAN im sideing with you on this one but please dont make me regret it.

[FW-190 Pilot]

ok, my fault, delete

[Gen. Sandworm]

ok, my fault, delete

No worries just please dont insult others anymore. We might have to go back and delete 50 posts to get rid of all the insults so just keep it clean from now on. :D

[IRONMAN]

There is something that I hope you will all read here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2026#2026

This was the 3rd thread I posted in, and I had been drawn into an argumentative behavior by others who posted aggressively against a movie suggestion and my opinion on what was the best fighter of WWII in 2 other threads. My choice of words was too harsh. I apologize for that.

[WildBoar]

The RAF were in France in 1939 (My Grandfather among them) Along with the Army the Fact is that we were not as prepared for war as the Germans and so The Commander of the RAF wrote a letter to Winston Churchill to stop him sending any more planes to France as to lose many more would have left Britain unable to defend itself.

In the beginning Britain stood alone and the only help they got in the first year was from people who had escaped their countries ahead of German occupation and volunteers from other countries including The USA as some citizens travelled to Canada and joined up to help fight.

The Royal Navy did a good job of holding the German Navy in Check apart from the U-boats which were a major hindrance,and by half way through the war the Germans had no surface fleet worth worrying about as they could not leave port for fear of being Sunk as had happened to the Bismark, other than the E-boats which managed to kill so many during the practices for D-day(I refer to the practice on the South Coast of England when many American troops were lost)

I think that had Hitler and Stalin managed to keep a truce going then Europe could have been occupied for years, But that itself was unlikely to happen.

[IRONMAN]

In the beginning Britain stood alone and the only help they got in the first year was from people who had escaped their countries ahead of German occupation and volunteers from other countries including....

I think that had Hitler and Stalin managed to keep a truce going then Europe could have been occupied for years, But that itself was unlikely to happen.


Aug 25, 1939 - Britain and Poland sign a Mutual Assistance Treaty

Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany

Sept 4, 1939 - British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy

Sept 10, 1939 - Canada declares war on Germany

Britain was not alone at all. At least 6 nations had declared war on Germany. The actions and announcements made by Hitler and the nazis in the few years prior to the war put the entire continent on pins and needles. The smell of war was in the air for several years prior to it's outbreak. To prevent war, several apeasments were made between European countries and Germany in an attempt to prevent war. They simply gave into Germany's demands.

One of the most ironic things about it all, is that when the war broke out, German did not have a large military force. German pilots, for example, flew their planes in huge circles around Germany's borders to give the impression that numerous German fighters were pattolling the borders, when in fact, there were very few, and they were only making a show of themselves over and over again.

The British Navy did indeed do a fine job fighting the German navy. I think one mistake made by Britain and France was not tooling up for the war much sooner when the signs of it's inevitability were in the air. The French placed too much importance on the flawred Magieau Line and did not build a stronger army. Britain did not build a stronger air force, and the US did not expect Japan to come after it's navy. These are some of the biggest mistakes of the war by the Allies.

Had these been averted, the Allies would have had a much stronger resistance to Germany from the very start, and that would have prevented the loss of a lot of lives, and a shorter end to the war. I suppose the lessons have been learned by all of these nations from that experience.

[Komissar Ombrok]

No. Cruschev desroyed all that was build... And now there is a reconstructed Church of Criest the Savior.
so the railway station is actually the palace constuction site?
sorry if its a stupid qusetion, i really want to know more about russia, its a really interesting country to me, thanks:)

Yes. The subway station named "Palace of Soviet" is directly under construction site. In plans, the exit from it must be in the hall of palace.

[WildBoar]

The countries you mention were the ones I was talking about.Most I suspect if they had not been part of the commonwealth might not have declared war against Germany since it really posed no direct threat to them.

The RAF had been expanding thanks to a insightful minority however there are limits to the resources available for the military in peacetime.

[IRONMAN]

The countries you mention were the ones I was talking about.Most I suspect if they had not been part of the commonwealth might not have declared war against Germany since it really posed no direct threat to them.

The RAF had been expanding thanks to a insightful minority however there are limits to the resources available for the military in peacetime.

The "commonwealth" of Britain dissolved in the 19th century. However, I suppose those countries did feel some sence of security that britain was going into the war.

[WildBoar]

The countries you mention were the ones I was talking about.Most I suspect if they had not been part of the commonwealth might not have declared war against Germany since it really posed no direct threat to them.

The RAF had been expanding thanks to a insightful minority however there are limits to the resources available for the military in peacetime.

The "commonwealth" of Britain dissolved in the 19th century. However, I suppose those countries did feel some sence of security that britain was going into the war.


The Commonwealth didn't dissolve the Empire did and then only in the 20th Century and most countries wanted to keep their association alongside having their Independance.SO the Commonwealth still exists.

[IRONMAN]

The Commonwealth didn't dissolve the Empire did and then only in the 20th Century and most countries wanted to keep their association alongside having their Independance.SO the Commonwealth still exists.

"Commonwealth", in relation to britain, politically means nations taxed and militarily protected by Britain, and which are ruled by the British Crown. The "commonwealth" applies to nations that Britain ruled by threat of force and which were taxed by Britain, whether they wanted to be or not. These nations supposedly shared a "common wealth" of British resources (lol - they really mean British wealth through taxation eh?). Today, England controls Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the Faulkland Islands by conquest only. Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc are no longer under British political rule, and have not been for a long time. Britain has no has any willing subject nations.

The Queen of England has traditionally been the monarch of British commonwealth nations. Today, she is a figurhead only with no direct political power whatsoever, and rules no-one. All that changed with the coming of the 20th century, as I stated previously. In 1901 Australia created it's own constitution, putting an end to British monarchy there. In Canada, Queen Elizabeth II remains as monarch of Canada only as a figurehead, and has no political power whatsoever there, or anywhere at all. Prior to or at the beginning of the 20th century, this scenario took place in every nation that had been considered a British "commonwealth" nation. The British crown in no longer a ruler, and no longer a monarch over nations outside the British Isles. So my friend...

There is no longer a British "commonwealth".

[Gen. Sandworm]

K enough about the commonwealth start an offtopic or pm each other. Back to could Germany have won WW2.

[pdf27]

K enough about the commonwealth start an offtopic or pm each other. Back to could Germany have won WW2.
Have done - now a "Commonwealth" topic in OT section.

Back on topic...
Sea Lion never had a hope - the Luftwaffe of 1940 couldn't actually hit moving warships and sink them (look at how badly they did trying to stop the evacuation of Crete, under far more favourable conditions, or at how little damage they did to the ships evacuating soldiers from Dunkirk). The invasion barges were easy targets - they were so unstable and had such a low freeboard that a battleship steaming at full speed nearby would sink they with it's wash without needing to fire a shot. A big storm (such as struck the Normandy landings a few days after D-Day) would probably have sunk 90% of the invasion fleet had it been caught at see - and the German weather forecasting was never as good as the British due to their inability to measure Atlantic weather.
From memory, the RN had roughly 50 destroyers within 2 hours steaming of the planned German invastion beaches, and the entire Home Fleet could be there within 24 hours. The Germans never had a hope of matching this - the Kriegsmarine had had 1/3 of it's strength sunk during the Norwegian campaign, and again from memory the Admiral Scheer was the only ship bigger than a destroyer not in a dockyard being either built or undergoing major repairs in June/July 1940.
This leaves the Luftwaffe trying to protect a huge, slow moving and horrendously vulnerable target using only Stukas (their level bombers couldn't hit a small target like a ship at that point in the war, and they didn't yet have any torpedo bombers). As mentioned before, the Stukas did very little damage to the ships evacuating Dunkirk (and almost all of it while they were stationary loading troops). They did a little better under perfect conditions at Crete, where despite a large RN force operating without fighter cover for nearly two weeks right under the noses of the Luftwaffe they only managed to sink three cruisers and six destroyers. While this would have been unsustainable losses for a long term war, they are the sort of losses the RN would have happily taken for the chance of destroying an invasion attempt (and the Germans would only ever have been strong enough at sea to make one attempt).

[Bluffcove]

So then IRONMAN, our mistake was waiting to long to tool up for war?
Whereas the states were dragged into it once they had been attacked?

Truth is no-one had seen it coming, Germanys forces were built up outsdie of their borders, and were allowed to increase under teh terms of the Versailles treaty, Understandably Europe hadnt much enjoyed WWI and so was doing an aweful lot to avoid it. We were caught napping admittedly, but to claim that this was negligence is to misunderstand.

Europe knew that German forces were on the rise but those devious Nazi's were creating much of their forces under contract in the east, by doing this they were not breaking the ters of any treaties they had signed. and it just isnt cricket to declare war on someone who is playing inside the rules. added to that Britain and much ofthe rest of Germany were trying to recover from the depression and couldnt really imagine another war starting so soon.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/ - beauracracy hey. TB has invented an entire department for something that does not exist. and as for all those actors we have to employ at the comonwealth games every four years. no wonder our economy is suffering!

[Gen. Sandworm]

So then IRONMAN, our mistake was waiting to long to tool up for war?
Whereas the states were dragged into it once they had been attacked?

Truth is no-one had seen it coming, Germanys forces were built up outsdie of their borders, and were allowed to increase under teh terms of the Versailles treaty, Understandably Europe hadnt much enjoyed WWI and so was doing an aweful lot to avoid it. We were caught napping admittedly, but to claim that this was negligence is to misunderstand.

Europe knew that German forces were on the rise but those devious Nazi's were creating much of their forces under contract in the east, by doing this they were not breaking the ters of any treaties they had signed. and it just isnt cricket to declare war on someone who is playing inside the rules. added to that Britain and much ofthe rest of Germany were trying to recover from the depression and couldnt really imagine another war starting so soon.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/ - beauracracy hey. TB has invented an entire department for something that does not exist. and as for all those actors we have to employ at the comonwealth games every four years. no wonder our economy is suffering!

Sorry I do think that the allies are guilty of negligence because there were many chances to stop Hitler prior to Sept 1st 1939. Why do you think Churchill eventually became PM. He was the crazy bastard that keep telling everyone that if we dont do something there will be war. And im sorry but the Allied powers of at the start of the war did Poland dirty in my opinion. You made a military alliance with Poland and did next to nothing when Germany invaded. Really all you did was prepare for the defense of France and the Low Countries. This is hard to believe from France with a that had one of the greatest military commanders ever. Napoleon. He said once "a side that hides behind its defences will eventully lose." This holds true in most cases of war. France and England had a chance to invade Germany soon after the invasion of Poland. Germany had minimal divisions in the west to stop such an attack. Goering admitted this at Nurenberg.

Insofar as the Versailles Treaty. In my opinion there was only one sane man at that conference and that was Woodrow Wilson the American President. But no one really listened to him.....not even the American people. All this treaty did was set up another war in my opinion.

But im not trying to knock ya. Just think that they allied powers of the time were negligent. Everyone makes mistakes ..... just happens. Thankfully you redeemed yourself later in the war. America should have joined the war sooner but most Americans felt it wasnt our problem. Again we didnt understand the entirity of the European problem.

Operation Sea Lion I give it a 50/50 chance (Assuming that Germany defeated the RAF which they almost did). Most of Germany's landings would have probably been airborne. But it would have to be done really quickly after the fall of France.

Another thing that could have helped Germany win the war would be an alliance with Franco's Spain. Franco was not sure if he wanted an alliance with Germany or not. And was nervous that if he didnt join that they might invade but thanks to Wilhem Carnis (German Head of Intelligence) this was twarted. Carnis interesting guy. Not sure whose side he was on.

[Bluffcove]

During the Approach toward WW2,

The First world war crippled Europe, no-one imagined a second war so soon after "the great war!"

Following the Invasion of Poland, the British Expeditionary Force went to France to try and hold the German forces at bay,

Britain had not foreseen a war, a war was unthinkable! hence the BEF were forced back to Dunkirk, We stepped in to Oppose Germany, because Fascist regimes were not themselves thought to be deliberately warlike, It is the preserve of a Sovereign state not to be invaded or have its internal affairs interfered with (a contentious matter even now.)

It was not thought that Germany would be so aggresive as it did not appear to be to their benefit, The Molotov Ribbentrop pact also made (restrospectively) demonstrates that much of the Military build up was not in contravention of the ToV.

Germany had to commit an act of Wanton aggresion before the world could react, the "living room" theory and expansion into Austria was not an act of war it was a uniting of the German Speaking peoples - it was a precursor but only hindsight shows us this.

The Blitzkrieg was a new form of warfare, no-one had used airpower in a battle before, the assault on Poland is remarkable in its foresight of modern warfare, A vast air assault on infra structure, fast incisive armoured columns securing communication and road routes followed by infactry moving in to secure the areas between and connecting up the armour and mech forces.

Britain was still recovering from WWI and didnt have the forces to counter such a form of warfare, We were back footed and rather than be slaughtered on Beaches at Dunkirk retreated. We were not slow in takin g action the BEF departed very soon after the invasion of Poland we merely didnt have the uptodate technology enjoyed by the Germans who had been re-arming right up until the start of the Blitzkrieg.

[Gen. Sandworm]

During the Approach toward WW2,
The First world war crippled Europe, no-one imagined a second war so soon after "the great war!"

Agreed.


Following the Invasion of Poland, the British Expeditionary Force went to France to try and hold the German forces at bay,

They did well considering that they had not had much of a miltary focus over the past years. Hence, the loss.


Britain had not foreseen a war, a war was unthinkable! hence the BEF were forced back to Dunkirk, We stepped in to Oppose Germany, because Fascist regimes were not themselves thought to be deliberately warlike,

I agree with you that this was the opinion of the Allies prior to WW2. But this is a stance that is nieve. And i think people such as Churchill new it.


It is the preserve of a Sovereign state not to be invaded or have its internal affairs interfered with (a contentious matter even now.)

Gulp! You as a Brit and me as an American........dont know if we should go there. :)


It was not thought that Germany would be so aggresive as it did not appear to be to their benefit, The Molotov Ribbentrop pact also made (restrospectively) demonstrates that much of the Military build up was not in contravention of the ToV.

I can say that the Allies did not understand the what exactly the Molotov Ribbentrop pack was.


Germany had to commit an act of Wanton aggresion before the world could react, the "living room" theory and expansion into Austria was not an act of war it was a uniting of the German Speaking peoples - it was a precursor but only hindsight shows us this.

Sorry but I think that this clearly shows the Germans attempt on expansionism. And you have to admit that Munich was a disaster. Was Munich a real attempt to make peace or a "Oh shit this a**hole is getting ready for war and we arent ready???? :|


The Blitzkrieg was a new form of warfare, no-one had used airpower in a battle before, the assault on Poland is remarkable in its foresight of modern warfare, A vast air assault on infra structure, fast incisive armoured columns securing communication and road routes followed by infactry moving in to secure the areas between and connecting up the armour and mech forces.

Maybe this is why the Allies didnt move right away. They couldnt figure out how Germany moved so quick. Not only thru Poland but Denmark and Norway. Maybe the Allies were questioning weather or not they could defend themselves. But you did and had to know the attack was coming so you did........nothing. Of course you were a bit hindered by Belguim, Holland and Luxemberg going oh S**t :shock: going I hope these bastards dont come this way.


Britain was still recovering from WWI and didnt have the forces to counter such a form of warfare, We were back footed and rather than be slaughtered on Beaches at Dunkirk retreated. We were not slow in takin g action the BEF departed very soon after the invasion of Poland we merely didnt have the uptodate technology enjoyed by the Germans who had been re-arming right up until the start of the Blitzkrieg.

I consider Dunkirk a major Allied victory. Because if the forces had been captured or destroyed. England wouldnt have had much to defend itself with. Farmers and pitchforks. :wink: (k, not that bad, but not much better)

Just think that the Allied powers made some bad decisions prior to the war. Could they have made different or better decisions. Hard to say really.

[pdf27]

Most of Germany's landings would have probably been airborne. But it would have to be done really quickly after the fall of France.
Nope. Look at the number of Ju-52s they had available, and at their actual capacity in terms of passengers and freight. At an absolute maximum effort they could possibly transport 2-3,000 men per day with no supplies. Once you start trying to support them, the amount you can supply goes way down. Even assuming no RAF/Army interference, the Germans could airlift enough supplies for a single division at most. This would then have to be carried around by hand (all draft animals would have been killed and all motorised transport destroyed when the invasion started, so the parachutists would only have what they could carry on the drop).
Given the nature of parachute operations and the later fiasco at Crete where the German airbourne forces were nearly exterminated, I really can't see a successful invasion coming in by air. Even the later allied air/glider drops (made with an order of magnitude more troops, with better equipment and immeasurably more air transport) were very chancy things and as Arnhem showed liable to be overwhelmed if ground forces didn't arrive soon to support them. So it all comes back to can the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine control the Channel.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Most of Germany's landings would have probably been airborne. But it would have to be done really quickly after the fall of France.
Nope. Look at the number of Ju-52s they had available, and at their actual capacity in terms of passengers and freight. At an absolute maximum effort they could possibly transport 2-3,000 men per day with no supplies. Once you start trying to support them, the amount you can supply goes way down. Even assuming no RAF/Army interference, the Germans could airlift enough supplies for a single division at most. This would then have to be carried around by hand (all draft animals would have been killed and all motorised transport destroyed when the invasion started, so the parachutists would only have what they could carry on the drop).
Given the nature of parachute operations and the later fiasco at Crete where the German airbourne forces were nearly exterminated, I really can't see a successful invasion coming in by air. Even the later allied air/glider drops (made with an order of magnitude more troops, with better equipment and immeasurably more air transport) were very chancy things and as Arnhem showed liable to be overwhelmed if ground forces didn't arrive soon to support them. So it all comes back to can the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine control the Channel.

Good point. I was refering to the help the would come from airborne operations after making the RAF combat ineffective. But you are right the main issue is the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine control of the channel. This is debatable and would take much research. But there is no way this is possible without having total air supremacy. And i remind you that it was close in the beginning. But lucky for Britain Hitler and Goering's stupidity prevailed.

[reiver]

It's fair to say that Chamberlain, Britain's Prime Minister at the time of the Munich Agreement, was an appeaser.
Appalled, as was most of the world, at the carnage of WW1, he allowed his hopes for peace to overshadow his judgement.
Only Churchill, of the major British politicians in the prewar years had the foresight to, perhaps, have built up the British forceds to the level required to stop Hitler's expansionist progamme any sooner, but he was not only out of power, but distinctly out of favour with the ruling party.
It is, perhaps, worth noting, that in "The Gathering Storm", his history of the runup to war, Churchill expressed the opinion that, "had France mobilised her 100 divisions and her reputedly strong airforce, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw, or, had he not done so, would have been repudiated and probably deposed by the German General Staff."
(Quoted from Roy Jenkins biography "Churchill", a book I heartily recommend to anyone with an interest in an amazing soldier, politician, leader and statesman.)

[Gen. Sandworm]

It's fair to say that Chamberlain, Britain's Prime Minister at the time of the Munich Agreement, was an appeaser.
Appalled, as was most of the world, at the carnage of WW1, he allowed his hopes for peace to overshadow his judgement.
Only Churchill, of the major British politicians in the prewar years had the foresight to, perhaps, have built up the British forceds to the level required to stop Hitler's expansionist progamme any sooner, but he was not only out of power, but distinctly out of favour with the ruling party.
It is, perhaps, worth noting, that in "The Gathering Storm", his history of the runup to war, Churchill expressed the opinion that, "had France mobilised her 100 divisions and her reputedly strong airforce, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw, or, had he not done so, would have been repudiated and probably deposed by the German General Staff."
(Quoted from Roy Jenkins biography "Churchill", a book I heartily recommend to anyone with an interest in an amazing soldier, politician, leader and statesman.)

To bad they didnt really listen to him untill it was to late. Chruchill didnt have the most polished record so im sure that held him aback a bit. But I agree Franch should have at least attacked thru the Siegfried line if they had too. This was nothing compard to the Maginot line. Im sure they might have had a bit of trouble but they surely could have done it in my opinion. Please feel free to correct me if im wrong.

[BDL]

Just to make some points:

Swimming Tanks - all very well for crossing a river or small lake, no use at all for the English Channel (famous for it's sudden storms), a swimming tank would be useless for the invasion.

(by the way Gen Sandworm - the DD tanks were invented by the Brits - we showed you how to make them (and many other special tanks, which you weren't interested in and could have saved you casualties at D-Day))

Bombing Airfields - proved to be very hit and miss during the whole Battle of Britain. The British aircraft were very well dispersed (spread out) around the airfields and were protected by revetments (big walls of earth or concrete), so only a direct hit could damage them. The medium bombers were not accurate enough to that and the stuka was too vunerable to be used.

Germany invading USSR - they could have won IF they hadn't been fighting on two fronts and IF Hitler had let his Generals run the war. Splitting and weakening their forces by being forced to defend France meant that the Whermacht just weren't strong enough to face the Red Army.

Naval invasion of Britain - impossible for Germany in 1940. They only had one capital ship available in 1940 (Graf Spee had been sunk, Scharnorst, Tirpitz and Bismark still being built). The Royal Navy would have destroyed an invasion fleet in a few hours - Churchill would have risked losing most of the fleet to destroy the German fleet, knowing full well we could (if required) pull our naval assets from the Med, Far East etc back to form a new Home Fleet.

Dunkirk - had the major part of the BEF been captured, we would have had severe problems defending ourselves, however the Germans would still have had to cross the Channel, and there would have been more chance of Churchill sacrificing the Home Fleet if he knew there was so few ground forces to face an invasion.

RAF strength - The strength of the RAF was actually improving when the Germans switched to bombing civillians. The problems for the RAF were training pilots quick enough - fighter production was actually faster than Germany's (I'll post the exact numbers tomorrow if anyone wants them).

Destroying radar - the Luftwaffe tried many times to bomb the radar towers, because of their spindly towers, they allowed bomb blast to disperse rather than being damaged by it, so they were very resistant to bombing raids.

Providing air support in France - we supplied as much as we dared, sending anymore squadrons to France would have left us unable to defend ourselves.

Britain pre-war production - we were building our forces up as quickly as we could. The Wall Street crash and Depression had hit us hard. It's worth remembering that we were the only 100% Mechanised Army in 1939 - even Germany still used a large number of horses. It was our tactics (remember most armies prepare to fight their last war rather than their next one. Germans used Blitzkreig because they had lost their last war and wanted to avoid a long stalemate that would allow Britain to build her strength up against them again as they had in 1914/15/16.

Appeasement - as much as I hate it, it was the most sensible way we could have gone at the time. We weren't strong enough to provoke war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia and needed the breathing space that Munich gave us to build up.

British Commonwealth - still exists today, but I'll find the topic already existing for that arguement.

Sorry it's such a long post, I didn't want to miss anything out.

[Gen. Sandworm]

(by the way Gen Sandworm - the DD tanks were invented by the Brits - we showed you how to make them (and many other special tanks, which you weren't interested in and could have saved you casualties at D-Day))

Dont get your statement???? We used DD tanks during the invasion of Normandy just as you did. Want proof go swimming off Omaha beach and you will see loads of them at the bottom. Most DD Tanks got ashore just fine but something went wrong (something with the currents) at Omaha and only 2 made it ashore. All other beachs the majority of DD tanks made it ashore. Honestly who cares who came up with the idea. Yea for the UK. Did I say that the UK had poor engineers. Dont think so. Maybe with guns. JK :)


Naval invasion of Britain - impossible for Germany in 1940.........

Debatable. If the Germans had Air Supremacy they would have been a formidable opponent against the Royal Navy.



RAF strength - The strength of the RAF was actually improving when the Germans switched to bombing civillians. The problems for the RAF were training pilots quick enough - fighter production was actually faster than Germany's (I'll post the exact numbers tomorrow if anyone wants them).


You had better have some pretty good info. Because ive watch many shows and read many books and most of the historians that I have heard speak or write gave the RAF 2-4 weeks of combat effectiveness before the Germans switched to civilian targets. Might be hard to change my mind on this point. But you are more than welcome to try. :wink:

[pdf27]

Debatable. If the Germans had Air Supremacy they would have been a formidable opponent against the Royal Navy.
Read up on the invasion/evacuation of Crete. The RN was running large numbers of ships in daylight for roughly two weeks in broad daylight around Crete, with no air cover whatsoever. The Luftwaffe only managed to sink or damage somewhere between a third and half of the force (can't be bothered to look the details up, running from memory here).
Then compare it to the much stronger and more modern Home Fleet, with some RAF air cover (in an invasion scenario the RAF would send anything that could fly out to the channel - even if it didn't shoot anything down, it would distract the fighters) and only requiring 24-48 hours to destroy the invasion fleet (the Home Fleet could get to the invasion beaches far faster than the German invasion fleet could, due to the unseaworthy nature of the barges used). The Germans didn't have a prayer of stopping the home fleet.

Because ive watch many shows and read many books and most of the historians that I have heard speak or write gave the RAF 2-4 weeks of combat effectiveness before the Germans switched to civilian targets.
Have you seen the corresponding graph for the attacking German forces? It's actually quite surprising that in terms of single seat fighters at least the Germans were losing them faster than the British. British fighter production was several times the German rate, and they didn't have a particularly good system for getting damaged fighters back into service. The only reason they could continue ops at all was that they had a higher initial strength.
In any case, the RAF was being run by ruthless professionals. Had No. 11 Group been seriously threatened, they planned to simply withdraw North of the Thames. That basically means the Germans can attack Kent and Sussex with reasonable safety (there really isn't anything to bomb there apart from the sector stations anyway!), but have to send unescorted raids if they want to attack anything else. At which point they get massacred by the RAF, as happened whenever they tried to attack from Norway.
Were the invasion to take place after this withdrawl, No. 11 Group could have been back in place within a day or so (the early squadrons within hours - probably before the first wave even landed).
The problem with what you've watched is that they're assuming the RAF would continue going on as it was and connive at it's own destruction. They had done what they did to date as it was the most effective way of fighting - but the overriding consideration was to protect the UK from invasion, and that meant they had to retain a certain amount of strength to protect the fleet in that event.

[Gen. Sandworm]

It really depends on the situation. I understand what you are say pdf27. But with proper tactics an Air Force can be very effective against a Navy. Example Pearl Harbor. But even better example. The Swordfish attack against the Bismark. Now they didnt sink the ship. Single torpedo shot from a almost WW1 plane disabled it so it could only turn circles and then later the RN sank her. Dont forget about German subs that could help out in such an attack.

Of course we are all talking hypothetics here.

[BDL]

Dont get your statement???? We used DD tanks during the invasion of Normandy just as you did. Want proof go swimming off Omaha beach and you will see loads of them at the bottom. Most DD Tanks got ashore just fine but something went wrong (something with the currents) at Omaha and only 2 made it ashore. All other beachs the majority of DD tanks made it ashore. Honestly who cares who came up with the idea. Yea for the UK. Did I say that the UK had poor engineers. Dont think so. Maybe with guns. JK :)

Wasn't having a go at the Yanks, merely spreading education. The British invented a range of tanks known as Hobart's Funnies (the guy who ran the programme was Colonel Hobbart), based on Sherman and Churchill chassis, which would have made tha Americans lives on Omaha a lot easier - Spigot tanks firing a 270mm naval depth charge to take out gun emplacements, fascine tanks dropping large bundles of wood in trenches to allow gun tanks to cross, flail tanks to beat the ground with large chains mounted on a drum in front of the tank and detonate land mines. There were others but I'm doing this off the top of my head. The Americans were offered all of these and rejected them, with fatal results on your beaches. Had you had the Special Tanks like we did, you would have cleared the beaches much faster.


Debatable. If the Germans had Air Supremacy they would have been a formidable opponent against the Royal Navy.

Maybe, but as I said, I believe that Churchill would have been willing to sacrifice the Home Fleet knowing that he could recall the Far East Fleet, the Mediterranean Fleet etc and rebuild it. Also don't forget - those Swordfish that crippled the Bismaek were on the two or three carriers that were part of the Home Fleet, they could have destroyed most of the Naval escort for the invasion fleet before they even saw Britain.


You had better have some pretty good info. Because ive watch many shows and read many books and most of the historians that I have heard speak or write gave the RAF 2-4 weeks of combat effectiveness before the Germans switched to civilian targets. Might be hard to change my mind on this point. But you are more than welcome to try. :wink:

I have to be on parade in a bit, I'll dig the information out later on.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Had you had the Special Tanks like we did, you would have cleared the beaches much faster.

Of course we refused them. Then we wouldnt have had much material to make Saving Private Ryan. :)


Maybe, but as I said, I believe that Churchill would have been willing to sacrifice the Home Fleet knowing that he could recall the Far East Fleet, the Mediterranean Fleet etc and rebuild it.

Good point. And I agree that would have been the thing to do.


I have to be on parade in a bit, I'll dig the information out later on.

Looking forward to it.

[pdf27]

Example Pearl Harbor. But even better example. The Swordfish attack against the Bismark. Now they didnt sink the ship. Single torpedo shot from a almost WW1 plane disabled it so it could only turn circles and then later the RN sank her. Dont forget about German subs that could help out in such an attack.

Of course we are all talking hypothetics here.
Exactly. Note that the sinking of Prince of Wales/Repulse was the first time in history that capital ships at sea, able to manouver and defend themselves. The Germans in 1940 had none of the torpedo bombers needed to sink these ships. Oh, and IIRC no submarine has ever sunk a battleship/cruiser moving at high speed - the Belgrano is probably the closest. It certainly hadn't happened in 1940.

[BDL]

Ok, on July 1st 1940 (a rough start date for the Battle), the British had a front line strength of 745 single seat fighters (Hurricanes roughly outnumbered Spitfires 3 to 2, so that makes about 447 Hurricanes and 298 Spitfires). The Luftwaffe had 1,107 Bf-109s and 357 Bf-110 (although the standard response of the Bf-110 on being attacked by fighters was to form a defensive circle and then run away, they were outclassed by both the Hurricane and the Spitfire). The Luftwaffe also had 1,380 bombers and 428 Stukas.

Over the course of July - October 1940 (the qualifying period for the Battle of Britain Star awarded by the RAF for flying in the Battle), the RAF lost 538 Hurricanes destroyed (33 in July, 211 in August and 294 in September and October) with a further 138 damaged to varying degrees. Spitfire losses for the Battle were 342 destroyed (34 in July, 113 in August and 195 in September and October), plus 140 damaged. On October 18th 1940, the strength of the Royal Air Force was 512 Hurricanes and 285 Sptifire - 65 extra Hurricanes and 13 fewer Spitfires. There had been problems with establishing a Spitfire production line in Castle Bromich which is why Spitfire production had not met demand.

Over the course of the Battle, Luftwaffe losses were 591 Bf-109, 261 Bf-110, 747 bombers and 71 Stukas. There were also 155 Bf-109s damaged, 70 Bf-110s, 303 bombers and 30 Stukas. These losses were harder for the Luftwaffe to replace because they had not built there reserves up at the same rate as their front line forces. The average German fighter production for the period was 200 fighters a month (I've not been able to find exact figures - I'll do some more research after work). Considering their losses were 852 fighters lost plus 225 damaged - even if they repaired every aircraft that was damaged (probably not possible), they still had 52 fewer fighters than when they had started, whereas the British were now stronger than at the start of the Battle (plus the majority of RAF pilots were now experienced, whereas in July most had been without any combat experience at all).

Figures taken from here (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/strength.html) and from the book The Most Dangerous Enemy by Steven Bungay (ISBN 1 85410 721 6), which I have found to be almost 100% accurate in the past.

[Bluffcove]

Hobart also inventede the bobbin, designed to counter the blue clay on teh beeches by laying a roadway of hessian and steel poles, from a reel mounted on the front of the tank.

He had flamethrower with a rrange of 200 yards mounted on one of his tanks but was possibly vulnerable to everything as it also towed a 400 gallon trailer!

He also provided an early version of the NEgineer bridgin units and pioneer footbridges,
the ARC armoured ramp carrier - a turretless tank with ramps front nad rear for bridging gaps or sea defences
the ZGirder box section, up to30 feet long for infantry use

(from memory cant provide more detal but google of hobarts funnies etc)

[BDL]

Something I forgot - the Germans didn't have a bomb heavy enough to penetrate the deck armour of British battleships, so they couldn't have destroyed the Home Fleet from the air even if they'd have wanted to.

[Firefly]

Hi

1st post

Interstiing site and good discussion here.

Could germany have won WW2?

NO

Not a chance. In 1945 one of the german cities would have been hit by an atomic bomb.

End of war.....

No what if at all in my opinion.

[pdf27]

Not a chance. In 1945 one of the german cities would have been hit by an atomic bomb.
Maybe. The other alternative (if Germany had done very well, say taking the UK somehow and managing a stalemate in Russia) would be for the US to go for a large scale attack instead with roughly 200 weapons some time in 1947. This has actually been gamed out by someone who used to targeteer nuclear weapons for the US government, and written up as a superb piece of alternate history ( http://p074.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm24.showMe ssage?topicID=51.topic - be warned that the denizens of that board have much less patience than is common around here and several of you would get banned in a heartbeat if you post there like you do here). In it, German civilization is effectively destroyed in the space of about two hours - and the terrifying bit is that he actually gives the Germans more chances than they would plausibly get in real life while restricting the US to technology they actually built by 1947 (the Germans are much less restricted). Something like 80% of the German population is killed in the strike.

Shows up the paradox really - the better Germany does in WW2, the worse the final outcome is for them. If they do too well, they get totally destroyed.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Not a chance. In 1945 one of the german cities would have been hit by an atomic bomb.


I kinda doubt that the Americans would have used the A-bomb on the Germans. Not unless we really had to. You have to remember that we treated German POW's better than we treated normal American Japanese citizens. Hell even better than we treated African-Americans. Most Americans considered the Japanese kind of a joke untill Pearl Harbor. But even after that a somewhat of inferior race. Dont forget that anti-semitism wasnt in Germany and Japan alone. It was present in all countries but thankfully to a lesser degree.

[2nd of foot]

BDL

Wasn't having a go at the Yanks, merely spreading education. The British invented a range of tanks known as Hobart's Funnies (the guy who ran the programme was Colonel Hobbart), based on Sherman and Churchill chassis, which would have made tha Americans lives on Omaha a lot easier - Spigot tanks firing a 270mm naval depth charge to take out gun emplacements, fascine tanks dropping large bundles of wood in trenches to allow gun tanks to cross, flail tanks to beat the ground with large chains mounted on a drum in front of the tank and detonate land mines. There were others but I'm doing this off the top of my head. The Americans were offered all of these and rejected them, with fatal results on your beaches. Had you had the Special Tanks like we did, you would have cleared the beaches much faster.

There has been a lot of debate about the US use of the 79 armoured div (Hobart was a Maj Gen ex Indian army). Although the designs were there the downer vehicles were not. I have seen written document, which suggests that they would not have been able to make them even if they could. The main problem with Omaha beach was that the tanks were launched too early and were pushed down coast by the current and swamped. If they had taken them closer, a mile instead of 6, they would have had a major effect on casualties. But all in all the US was not overly enamoured with the funnies. A lot of the designs are still in use today.

Bridge layer (go back to WW1)
Mine plough (go back to WW1)
Carpet layer but now on a truck
Fascines on the side of vehicles (go back to WW1)
The AVRE went out in the mid 80s (flying dust bin)

The flamethrowers came in two types the one on churchills (crocodile) and the wasp on bren carriers.

The Churchill provided most of the chassis for fighting vehicles and the valentines most of the bridge vehicles. The DD was originally for valentines but changed to Shermans in the same way that the crab had moved from matilda to Shermans.

[BDL]

Cheers for that 2nd of Foot, I knew that the Yanks had launched their tanks too early, didn't know Hobart had been a General though :shock:

[Firefly]

Not a chance. In 1945 one of the german cities would have been hit by an atomic bomb.


I kinda doubt that the Americans would have used the A-bomb on the Germans. Not unless we really had to. You have to remember that we treated German POW's better than we treated normal American Japanese citizens. Hell even better than we treated African-Americans. Most Americans considered the Japanese kind of a joke untill Pearl Harbor. But even after that a somewhat of inferior race. Dont forget that anti-semitism wasnt in Germany and Japan alone. It was present in all countries but thankfully to a lesser degree.

I dont believe for 1 minute that the US wouldnt have used the A Bomb on Germany if it was ready in time. After all, the allies bombed the heck out of german cities with no regard for casualties. The same analogy that would save allied lives in an assault on Japan would have worked for an assualt on Germany. No the Nazis were pure evil and much more so than the japanese, so it would have been used. And, if it saved 1 allied life, why not! War is hell.

[Firefly]

Not a chance. In 1945 one of the german cities would have been hit by an atomic bomb.
Maybe. The other alternative (if Germany had done very well, say taking the UK somehow and managing a stalemate in Russia) would be for the US to go for a large scale attack instead with roughly 200 weapons some time in 1947. This has actually been gamed out by someone who used to targeteer nuclear weapons for the US government, and written up as a superb piece of alternate history ( http://p074.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm24.showMe ssage?topicID=51.topic - be warned that the denizens of that board have much less patience than is common around here and several of you would get banned in a heartbeat if you post there like you do here). In it, German civilization is effectively destroyed in the space of about two hours - and the terrifying bit is that he actually gives the Germans more chances than they would plausibly get in real life while restricting the US to technology they actually built by 1947 (the Germans are much less restricted). Something like 80% of the German population is killed in the strike.

Shows up the paradox really - the better Germany does in WW2, the worse the final outcome is for them. If they do too well, they get totally destroyed.


An excellent what if and very well written, thanks for that link. I was compelled to read it. Some inaccuracies but very good nonetheless.

[pdf27]

An excellent what if and very well written, thanks for that link. I was compelled to read it. Some inaccuracies but very good nonetheless.
What, out of curiosity? I've yet to catch Stuart being mistaken in anything, and that is quite a record, so if he's made a mistake I'm very curious as to what it is.

[Ord_Sgt]

What you have to remember is that had Hitler defeated the UK in 1940 he is unlikely to have declared war on the US in 1941, remember the US still had no particular reason to get involved in Europe even after Pearl Harbour. So it is possible that Hitler could’ve held onto Europe and not had to fight the US. Had that happened who knows the outcome?

[Bluffcove]

Robert Harris has written a very interesting book alongthe lines called Fatherland.

Its remarkable, unfortuantely the NAZI's won the war and failed to mention the Holocaust to their good citizens - telling them they ahd deported all jews to Madagascar I beleive. Through the course of the book the truth is discovered etc etc....

Jolly good read.

[Firefly]

An excellent what if and very well written, thanks for that link. I was compelled to read it. Some inaccuracies but very good nonetheless.
What, out of curiosity? I've yet to catch Stuart being mistaken in anything, and that is quite a record, so if he's made a mistake I'm very curious as to what it is.

I suppose it has been debated to death over there. However his suppositions are absolute and all the US technology is war based. The US wouldnt have developed 1/2 the aircraft they did, nor the electronic technology if they hadnt gone to war.

Also, german Jet engine technology is taken as an absolute and that they struggled to improve power output. If the Germans had taken over the UK, they would have had access to some excellent UK engine technology both Jet and piston.

Again, they would also have had access to British long range bombers, such as the excellent Lancaster.

Finally, the USA is presumed to have all the time in the world to assist the USSR, which conveniently has no Stalin now, and bring about a change in the German priorities.

As I said, bloody good piece of fiction, no more, as events in real life shape events further along the chain. Without USA going to war in 1941, there would be no A-Bomb or B36 in 1947.

[Sturmtruppen]

the war was like it was.To have different ressults,there should be different alliances,we know the most powerfull countries in ww2 were germany,urss,england and the usa. the important things are the relations with other countries,it isn`t the same fighting at the side of china as fighting at side of uruguay.

[pdf27]

I suppose it has been debated to death over there. However his suppositions are absolute and all the US technology is war based. The US wouldnt have developed 1/2 the aircraft they did, nor the electronic technology if they hadnt gone to war.

Also, german Jet engine technology is taken as an absolute and that they struggled to improve power output. If the Germans had taken over the UK, they would have had access to some excellent UK engine technology both Jet and piston.

Again, they would also have had access to British long range bombers, such as the excellent Lancaster.

Finally, the USA is presumed to have all the time in the world to assist the USSR, which conveniently has no Stalin now, and bring about a change in the German priorities.

As I said, bloody good piece of fiction, no more, as events in real life shape events further along the chain. Without USA going to war in 1941, there would be no A-Bomb or B36 in 1947.
Oh, it's absolutely a piece of fiction. However, he's done a good job of convincing me that it's the most likely course of events following a successful Halifax-Butler coup in June 1940.
The US rearmament is precipitated by the shock of Germany taking over all of Europe in a few weeks in 1940 - the US had after all fought a war with Germany only 25 years before, and the "Neutrality Patrol" was all but fighting German U-boats by the time the UK would have capitulated in this alt-hist. This (supposedly) precipitated US rearmament on a large scale (as latter happened after Pearl Harbour). The major difference is in the type of weaponry produced - the only bombers built are the B-29 (obselete) and B-36, while the USN gets a lot of carriers.

With German jet technology, the major problems were access to strategic metals (particularly nickel) which would not have been helped by a UK capitulation, and the fact that many people working on them weren't very good engineers. I'm not sure that this would have been improved after the capture of the UK, given the "not invented here" mentality sure to prevail.

Finally, Stalin was supposedly killed in the siege of Moscow - he shaved off his moustache and fought as a Private. This explains his appearance as a saint in the sequel The Great Game...

And yes, they are addictive. I need more!!!
<Good thing he's currently doing Anvil of Necessity then!>

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

Germany could have most certainly won the war. Luckily they didn't. If they hadnt tried to go start something over in Russia, then they probably could have had a much better shot at winning. But the soviet army and the harsh russian winters made the German Russian conflict tilt to the Soviet side, alot.

[Sturmtruppen]

I think germany lost because of italy intervention :lol: ,they needed lots of help of german troops,so,they delayed the germans attacks at other fronts.

[bigmac1197@yahoo.com]

Without a doubt. I just read an excellent book on the the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain. It went into detail about how close the War Cabinet was to capitulating and suing for peace during the Battle of France. The only thing that stopped it was Churchill.

The US was so sure that GB would fall that they began making arrangements via Canada to make sure the Royal Navy was not turned over to Germany like the French fleet.

Letting the Luftwaffe finish off the British at Dunkirk was a major blunder. It allowed hundreds of thousands of combat seasoned troops escape to fight another day.

The Luftwaffe basically eliminated the RAF fighter command before they accidentally bombed London. This bombing prompted GB to bomb to Berlin which got Hitler so upset he started bombing population centers in merry old england. This strengthened British public opinion against Hitler and really put an apathethic public behind continued resistance.

If GB capitulated, there would be no need to invade. Htiler gets western Europe. The USSR gets eastern europe. Let's remember that USSR got half of Poland with the non-agression pact.

No need to invade USSR or if they do, no two-front war.

And lets remember that the US did not declare war on Germany until after Hitler, for a change, kept his word on the Japan alliance and declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. The US then declared war on Germany. No direct US invlovement, no GB in the alliance, no allied victory.

WW2 does not escalate and we would call it something else. Feel free to pick a name for the 1939-1940 conflict that ended with a British deal.

[BDL]

The Luftwaffe basically eliminated the RAF fighter command before they accidentally bombed London.

Check the figures in my post mate, we had more fighters in November 1940 than in July 1940 - Fighter Command was stronger by the end of the battle than at the end.

[Walther]

The biggest obstacle to Germany winning the war were the Nazis themselves, especially Hitler with his constant meddling into the affairs ofg the military. But on the other hand, without the Nazis the war would have never started.

Jan

[bigmac1197@yahoo.com]

Well, materials are one thing. I don't dispute the RAF had more planes/. The biggest RAF problem was dead/wounded pilots and unusable runways. The constant early attacks on RAF airfields were preventing sortees for the defense. After the runways were cratered, the Germans started realizing the radar was killing them and were targeting that on off days for the airfields. Then they got away from that and went for civvie targets. There's no way the Germans could have won regardless. They had the pilots but the aircraft losses were killing them. They lost more pilots as well since many were shot down over GB (had more trained though due to Spain and Poland). No runways, no radar and no pilots for GB equals a draw in the Battle of Britain Would the Germans invade? Unlikely. Would the Brits sue for peace? Hmmmmm. Makes you think about it.

[2nd of foot]

Well, materials are one thing. I don't dispute the RAF had more planes/. The biggest RAF problem was dead/wounded pilots and unusable runways. The constant early attacks on RAF airfields were preventing sortees for the defense. After the runways were cratered, the Germans started realizing the radar was killing them and were targeting that on off days for the airfields. Then they got away from that and went for civvie targets. There's no way the Germans could have won regardless. They had the pilots but the aircraft losses were killing them. They lost more pilots as well since many were shot down over GB (had more trained though due to Spain and Poland). No runways, no radar and no pilots for GB equals a draw in the Battle of Britain Would the Germans invade? Unlikely. Would the Brits sue for peace? Hmmmmm. Makes you think about it.

I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by runway. At this time for fighter aircrafts the runways were grass and any field would do. It was the infrastructure that they could destroy but sqns were dispersed and it only made admin difficult not impossible.

As far as I am aware there was only one attack on Radar and that was not very effective as the Germans did not know how significant it was.

The UK also had fighter sqns in reserve and more pilots coming on line very quickly. You are right in that if an RAF pilot is shot down and survives he will be back on duty very quickl, if he is German he is invited to stay at His Majesties Pleasure.

edited for grammar

[Walther]

Also, while the British fighters were operating right over their own bases, the Germans had to fly for quite a distance until they reached their targets. Especially the Me 109 was quickly running out of fuel and had to break off contact to fly home, leaving the German bombers unescorted.

Jan

[bigmac1197@yahoo.com]

I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by runway. At this time for fighter aircrafts the runways were grass and any field would do. It was the infrastructure that they could destroy but sqns were dispersed and it only made admin difficult not impossible.

As the holder of a BA in History with a concentration in 20th Century Europe and as an individual with a lifelong interest in World War Two, I am quite aware of what constituted a runway during the Battle of Britain. My point in this thread is that the Battle of Britain was a bit closer than everybody seems to think. Maybe because it has become legend. The history of Western Europe rested on the outcome of this battle. It really could have went either way. It was tactically a draw but represented a strategic victory for GB. It demonstrated to FDR that GB would continue to fight and swayed US public opinion in favor of the Lend/Lease Acts and the destroyer deal.

[pdf27]

As the holder of a BA in History with a concentration in 20th Century Europe and as an individual with a lifelong interest in World War Two, I am quite aware of what constituted a runway during the Battle of Britain.
Just a hint, but several of the people you're arguing with have I suspect got somewhat higher/more relevant degrees. In my own case, I've flown off several of the runways that were in use at the time and flown over rather more, so have something of an idea what they were like.

Oh, and the only notable attack on a radar station during the BoB was on Ventnor (Isle of Wight). Since the station kept transmitting (although the receivers were wrecked) the Germans concluded the attack was unsuccessful and discontinued all further attacks on radar stations.
The point you're missing is that there was (and to an extent still is) sweet FA worth bombing in the south-east of England. Hence, if the RAF was in trouble it could simply withdraw and leave the Luftwaffe to try and cut down the quality of the beer by bombing the hop fields. There's virtually nothing else for them to hit!

[bigmac1197@yahoo.com]

Oh get over it and don't tell me what I do and don't know. I have an informed differing opinion of your informed differing opinion. That's fine and there's nothing wrong with it. Show a little respect for other people's opinions instead of assuming you are the be all do all know all of WW2 history.

[Crab_to_be]

Oh get over it and don't tell me what I do and don't know. I have an informed differing opinion of your informed differing opinion. That's fine and there's nothing wrong with it. Show a little respect for other people's opinions instead of assuming you are the be all do all know all of WW2 history you pompous idiot.

Calm down!

It's a discussion forum. Pdf has disagreed with you in no uncertain terms. That's a good opportunity for you to post your counter-arguments and the debate continues, not start verbal abuse of other site members. As for pomposity, the first person to flash their credentials on this thread wasn't pdf.

On another note, could you be described using the words 'Ferrous' and 'Male'? You increasingly remind me of someone I know from somewhere.

[2nd of foot]

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=103&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

As wildboar has said the only really important one was the BoB. If Britain had lost this it is unlikely that the US would have entered the war. Lend lease would have stopped to the USSR and Germany could have directed all its efforts to Russia. Normandy could not happen with out Britain and the Med would have been controlled by the Germens. They would have had access to oil and the black see. India would have gone independent and probably sided with Japan. Australia would have fallen most likely and Japan’s Empire would have been secure. What choice would the US have? The US was isolationist and would have stayed that way.

All the other battles after BoB would not have happened because Germany would have secure flanks.

I had this point some time ago so in general I agree. It is some of the finer points I disagree with.

As for the public wishing for peace, I think you may be thinking more along the lines of the political elite and not the working class, although the socialists where leaning to the Nazi side as they had a pact with the Soviets. There was evidence of unions sabotaging tank production early on in the war, which stopped after the invasion of Russia.

[2nd of foot]

On another note, could you be described using the words 'Ferrous' and 'Male'? You increasingly remind me of someone I know from somewhere.

No I don’t think so he/she is not misquoting or posting irrelevant info. :)

[bigmac1197@yahoo.com]

...am I the bad guy in this? I gave my opinion and somebody told me I didn;t know what the Hell I was talking about. I defend myself and this makes me an instigator? A troublemaker? I mentioned my credentials because I was labelled an idiot because my opinion differed from sombody here. If that's what happens when your opinion differs, just send me away to the gulag, or the camp or to Gitmo.

[2nd of foot]

...am I the bad guy in this? I gave my opinion and somebody told me I didn;t know what the Hell I was talking about. I defend myself and this makes me an instigator? A troublemaker? I mentioned my credentials because I was labelled an idiot because my opinion differed from sombody here. If that's what happens when your opinion differs, just send me away to the gulag, or the camp or to Gitmo.

Is this a 5 min argument or the full ½ hour?

[Crab_to_be]

Another ferrous, male trait: Misrepresenting what was said.

...am I the bad guy in this? I gave my opinion and somebody told me I didn;t know what the Hell I was talking about. I defend myself and this makes me an instigator? A troublemaker? I mentioned my credentials because I was labelled an idiot because my opinion differed from sombody here. If that's what happens when your opinion differs, just send me away to the gulag, or the camp or to Gitmo.

You aren't the 'bad guy', but you are the one who reverted to name-calling first. Pdf suggested that your definition of runway differed from the nature of runways at the time. You defended yourself understanding, quite reasonably. Mentioning your credentials was indeed relevant. It just struck me as rather ironic that you then accuse other users of being pompous, as you flash your degree around. On a review of the thread, the first person to label anyone any idiot was you. That's another ferrous male trait. Not to mention hypocritical.

As for the frankly ridiculous comments about Gitmo etc, did I not *absolutely explicitly* state that your best course of action was to reply with reasoned debate? That is certainly not trying to silencce you or ridiculing you because I allegedly disagreed with you. You would find what I say far less offensive if you read my posts before taking offence at what you imagined I wrote.

I didn't mean to get dragged into this. I was actually trying to defuse what looked like an increasingly heated debate. Read my posts, you'll find I've been nothing like as rude as you imagine - indeed, it seems no one has and you are rather touchy at the moment. The debate on this site is often robust and strongly worded. You'll have seen that when you looked at some of the older threads to get acquainted with the site. Be a little more thick skinned, and we'll all get along fine.

[festamus]

Currently reading "Operation Sea Lion" by Peter Fleming. Nowhere near finished yet so not sure if there's going to be anything of relevance.

I think the obvious response from Fighter Command had the battle gone worse for them would have been to pull back 11 Group's units to 12 Group's "patch". Not ideal but a lot safer to preserve those assets for the time of the invasion.

Pure hypothesis for discussion:

Such a pull back of 11 Group, allowing the Germans *easier* (but not unopposed) access to the South Coast to prep for the invasion... The invasion starts and the pride of the Wehrmact sets sail in a woefully inadequate "fleet". Opposition on land is inadequate but then perhaps it only needs to be inadequate (better than non-existant). Royal Navy sets sails on an "all or nothing" mission and within the day is running through the Channel messing up the German's scarce vessels which NEED to survive more than the first wave of landings to
A) Reinforce
B) Bring the heavier equipment to give the Wehrmacht the edge
C) Resupply

Kriegsmarine opposition will be token. The Germans NEVER maintained a surface fleet capable of standing toe to toe with a serious RN threat. They'd given up on the very idea when they ran to port after Jutland in the first World War. In WWII they had a fleet good for commerce raiding and attacks on small forces, but all the vessels the RN would throw into the channel once the invasion begun?

Even with the advantage in air superiority stakes (it would be contested, not complete - the RAF WOULD be over the Channel, but with longer flight times from 12 Group's airfields) the Luftwaffe won't be capable of protecting the surface combatants in the invasion fleet from the Royal Navy. And even if the Royal Navy is terribly mauled by the Luftwaffe in doing so, the German's invasion fleet would be wiped out long before the RN could be. And with it, the Germany army forces committed to the invasion up to and including the wave onboard at the time!

Put simply - the Germans could not stop a seaborne evacuation from the French side of the channel. They're even less likely to be able to pull off a seaborne invasion on the other side! They didn't even start planning for it until mid-1940!

So the RAF "loses" the Battle of Britain in that they are forced to vacate their South East bases. There *was* a reserve and there *were* more bases within range of the possible invasion beaches. Britain wins the BoB if Germany doesn't invade... I don't see how Germany could successfully invade. In fact, they end up at LOT worse off from trying than Britain does.

Just my thoughts...

[2nd of foot]

In my own case, I've flown off several of the runways that were in use at the time and flown over rather more, so have something of an idea what they were like.



Have you seen the one at Popham off the A303, it goes up and down and tilts to one side. Landing must have been fun.

[FW-190 Pilot]

stick to topic please

[bigmac1197@yahoo.com]

I did mention somebody considered themself to be the do all be all and end all of WW2 knowledge. And Crab I have no beef with you. Why can't we all just get along?

[LargeBrew]

A big mac with no beef, say it aint so ( joking ).
Where is ferrous male it's getting close to 48hr's since he posted, I'm missing him even though I often have no idea wtf he's going on about.

[pdf27]

Have you seen the one at Popham off the A303, it goes up and down and tilts to one side. Landing must have been fun.
Yeah, I've flown over it (out of Lasham, just south of Basingstoke). If you want crazy runways, try the Long Mynd for size - the two ends of the runway are about 200ft difference in height, and it's on the edge of practically a cliff, covered in sheep...

[Dani]

People, please get back to the topic!! :!:

[2nd of foot]

People, please get back to the topic!! :!:

Dani, I’m confused.

Are you referring to my point on airfields in the UK or the lighthearted banter that fills gaps as people think and produce new and exciting posts. If you are sending out “interviews without coffee” you may need to be more critical or we thick infantry types will not understand.

[Gen. JoshM]

I here a lot of people saying that if they defeated the UK they could probably defeat Russia. Remember: Stalin was not in the dark, he knew Germany would probably invade Soviet Russia, it was just that it was an unexpecting time for him. After all, Communism was Nazism ideological enemy. Stalin thought that Germany would invade only when they defeated Britain. So Stalin would therefore of been prepared for a German onslaught of 4 to 5 million men. :)

[2nd of foot]

I here a lot of people saying that if they defeated the UK they could probably defeat Russia. Remember: Stalin was not in the dark, he knew Germany would probably invade Soviet Russia, it was just that it was an unexpecting time for him. After all, Communism was Nazism ideological enemy. Stalin thought that Germany would invade only when they defeated Britain. So Stalin would therefore of been prepared for a German onslaught of 4 to 5 million men. :)

As I understand it, Churchill warned uncle Joe that the Germans were coming (ultra intercepts) but he would not believe them.

[Commando Jordovski]

I think i can finally forgive Germany for what they did 60 years ago and the first World War aswell, their reign of terror is well and truely over and it wont happen again...by them anyway.

[South African Military]

I think i can finally forgive Germany for what they did 60 years ago and the first World War aswell, their reign of terror is well and truely over and it wont happen again...by them anyway.

Sorry but I lack knowledge on the First World War. OFF TOPIC: Wasnt the first war started because someone got assasinated? And can you blame the start of the first world war on the Germans?

[Dani]

I think i can finally forgive Germany for what they did 60 years ago and the first World War aswell, their reign of terror is well and truely over and it wont happen again...by them anyway.

Sorry but I lack knowledge on the First World War. OFF TOPIC: Wasnt the first war started because someone got assasinated? And can you blame the start of the first world war on the Germans?
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austro Hungary was assasinated in 1914 in Sarajevo. (And Germany was an Austro-Hungary ally...)
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWW.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/total_war_01.shtml

[Commando Jordovski]

Yes, you dont normally hear much on the First World War do we ?, its funny , because i dont even know who the german,british or American leader was back then...time to search google and find out.

[Hanz Lutz]

Well i think then russians leader been king aleksei ,after him 1917 was lenin .

[Firefly]

I think the question should be re-phrased.

Maybe, at what point was the war lost for Germany? For surely sometime between 1939 and 1941 they still had a chance to win?

[BDL]

I think the question should be re-phrased.

Maybe, at what point was the war lost for Germany? For surely sometime between 1939 and 1941 they still had a chance to win?

IMO as soon as they failed to force Britain to surrender, they were fucked

[Firefly]

I agree BDL, and I think the crux of this was letting the BEF escape. If they had cut that off I dont thin the UK would have had much choice but to come to some sort of armistance, I dont think they would have surrendered, merely come to terms. Which then would have given Hitler a free hand, by the time Pearl harbour arrives I dont think Germany would have declared war on the US.

Just my thoughts though.

[Commando Jordovski]

I think the question should be re-phrased.

Maybe, at what point was the war lost for Germany? For surely sometime between 1939 and 1941 they still had a chance to win?

IMO as soon as they failed to force Britain to surrender, they were fucked

Britain may be small but its powerful.

[Sturmtruppen]

I think the question should be re-phrased.

Maybe, at what point was the war lost for Germany? For surely sometime between 1939 and 1941 they still had a chance to win?

IMO as soon as they failed to force Britain to surrender, they were fucked

Britain may be small but its powerful.
yes,but unprepared for the war.

and america is by far the most powerful,and was when they used factories for army.

[LargeBrew]

We may have been unprepared but still managed to dominate the Air and Sea war. Though Rommel started well in Africa the 8th Army handed him his arse on his way out, it was all down hill after that for the feldgrau gang.

[Hanz Lutz]

If americans don't help British Germans crash Britany.

[South African Military]

If americans don't help British Germans crash Britany.

I suppose that could be true. The Americans helped allot with getting supplies there, like raw meterials. I also think that if Britain had surrendered early on, the Germans would have won.

[Hanz Lutz]

In Africa Brtich wins becouse italian's and they commander Grazziani have low moral.

[Firefly]

In Africa the Axis loose because hitler sees the Med as a sideshow. He fails to see the importance of Malta. He then fails to give the support that Rommel really needs. By the tim El Alamain comes around the Axis are at the end of a long supply chain, outnumbered and out gunned. Then as the Axis pulls back into Tunisia hitler does his usual panic and reinforces massively. All this does is hand the western allies their first great haul of prisoners.

[Hanz Lutz]

In WW2 Malta's been very importnant allied base ,and axis will need first attack Malta.

[Sturmtruppen]

In WW2 Malta's been very importnant allied base ,and axis will need first attack Malta.
of course,that location is for suppling and for delivering planes and ships.
it´s like some islands,for example,the azores (i like those islands :D )

[Cuts]

Or Ascencion Island.
:wink:

[Sturmtruppen]

Or Ascencion Island.
:wink:
affirmative sir :D

[Gen. JoshM]

I believe, yes, the Germans could of won the war. I think the Wehrmacht is, I don't think they made that mistake during the war, completely overrated.

Look at the facts: the Germans got within 20 miles of the Kremlin in Moscow and, if it hadn't been for Hitler's insistance to carry on with their assault through the winter could have easily captured it.

The Battle of Britain, could have easily been won by continuous bombings of Britain's airfields and not on unimportant civialian targets in London and other major UK cities.

Also, the entire Nazi empire in early 1941 stretched from France to Romania, to Norway to the Balkans state. The amount of people under their rule, and mostly in the factories, was close to 1 Billion People! Even up to late 1943 and early 1944 the Wehrmacht was the best equipped, most powerful military force in the world, AND it took 3 fronts to defeat them.

It took the Russians four years to cross the same ground the Germans crossed in under a year (excluding Poland). With the Germans giving stiff-resistance at every turn.

Somehow, they could also fuel a basic defensive victory by military terms in Italy and still provide enough men to keep the Anglo-American armies pinned near the Normandy coast line for more than two months.

The Wehrmacht also was made up of several countries, comprised of a vast number of divisions, just look here: http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=574. And even in March 1945 the German U-Boats at sea were over 300, operating in various parts of the world including the Carribean! Also, the Luftwaffe, had it been used more properly could have seriously dampered the Allies bombing efforts.

If Russia would have been knocked out think of how much pressure the British would have to face with the Wehrmacht breathing down their neck? Think of how different Russia would be if the British did not send vital supplies.

My conclusion: If Hitler let his Generals run the war and not himself, we might now be living in a colony of the Third Reich.

In a word: yes. They could of won the war.

[Commando Jordovski]

I believe, yes, the Germans could of won the war. I think the Wehrmacht is, I don't think they made that mistake during the war, completely overrated.

Look at the facts: the Germans got within 20 miles of the Kremlin in Moscow and, if it hadn't been for Hitler's insistance to carry on with their assault through the winter could have easily captured it.

The Battle of Britain, could have easily been won by continuous bombings of Britain's airfields and not on unimportant civialian targets in London and other major UK cities.

Also, the entire Nazi empire in early 1941 stretched from France to Romania, to Norway to the Balkans state. The amount of people under their rule, and mostly in the factories, was close to 1 Billion People! Even up to late 1943 and early 1944 the Wehrmacht was the best equipped, most powerful military force in the world, AND it took 3 fronts to defeat them.

It took the Russians four years to cross the same ground the Germans crossed in under a year (excluding Poland). With the Germans giving stiff-resistance at every turn.

Somehow, they could also fuel a basic defensive victory by military terms in Italy and still provide enough men to keep the Anglo-American armies pinned near the Normandy coast line for more than two months.

The Wehrmacht also was made up of several countries, comprised of a vast number of divisions, just look here: http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=574. And even in March 1945 the German U-Boats at sea were over 300, operating in various parts of the world including the Carribean! Also, the Luftwaffe, had it been used more properly could have seriously dampered the Allies bombing efforts.

If Russia would have been knocked out think of how much pressure the British would have to face with the Wehrmacht breathing down their neck? Think of how different Russia would be if the British did not send vital supplies.

My conclusion: If Hitler let his Generals run the war and not himself, we might now be living in a colony of the Third Reich.

In a word: yes. They could of won the war.

They could of won the war if they attacked countries strategically and not to attack everyone with everything at once.

You said, England could of been taken by the Germans if they bombed the Airfields instead of the Civilian buildings...the germans didn't always know where the English bases, bunkers and airfields were.
Also, German Submarine and U-boats have travelled all over the globe, even in North American Waters.

[Man of Stoat]

You said, England could of been taken by the Germans if they bombed the Airfields instead of the Civilian buildings...the germans didn't always know where the English bases, bunkers and airfields were.
Also, German Submarine and U-boats have travelled all over the globe, even in North American Waters.

It's very difficult to hide either an airbase or an army camp from the air - of course they knew where they all were - they just couldn't bomb anywhere other than the South East with fighter cover.

[Canaris]

Alternative history is always dodgy groundbut makes for an intersting discusion. Lest try to set some constants:

Germany had to invade Russia. This was Hitler's main aim - the establishment of eastern colonies for the heerenvolk (sp?). Personally I don't see any way the Germans could have forced Russia's surrender. There were ways that the Germans could have greatly increased their chances:

1. Let the Generals run the war.
2. Take Moscow in 1941 very difficult but possible
3. Prepare from the outset for a long war
4. Make use of the huge numbers of white Russians that were keen to fight the communists and equip them with captured Russian equipment.
5. Perhaps declare independent Ukraine and Belarus (puppet states naturaly)

Even then I don't believe the Russians would have given up. Not unless someone close to him put a bullet through Stalin's skull and he'd already purged anyone with the balls to do that. Even if they couldn't exploit Hitler's mistakes they could just have fought a war of attrition even if it went on to 1950.

Going back to Britain I thinks Britain's darkest hour was not the BoB but the wavering in the cabinet in May 1940 if Churchil had not come to power I believe we may well have agreed to a cease fire. Though we would never have allowed ourselves to be invaded without resistance. I think that this thread has shown that we would have defeated an invasion in 1940.

The Germans had a better chance of defeating Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic. Look at the absolutely critical effect the Royal Navy's blocade of Germany had in World War One.

[Commando Jordovski]

Alternative history is always dodgy groundbut makes for an intersting discusion. Lest try to set some constants:

Germany had to invade Russia. This was Hitler's main aim - the establishment of eastern colonies for the heerenvolk (sp?). Personally I don't see any way the Germans could have forced Russia's surrender. There were ways that the Germans could have greatly increased their chances:

1. Let the Generals run the war.
2. Take Moscow in 1941 very difficult but possible
3. Prepare from the outset for a long war
4. Make use of the huge numbers of white Russians that were keen to fight the communists and equip them with captured Russian equipment.
5. Perhaps declare independent Ukraine and Belarus (puppet states naturaly)

Even then I don't believe the Russians would have given up. Not unless someone close to him put a bullet through Stalin's skull and he'd already purged anyone with the balls to do that. Even if they couldn't exploit Hitler's mistakes they could just have fought a war of attrition even if it went on to 1950.

Going back to Britain I thinks Britain's darkest hour was not the BoB but the wavering in the cabinet in May 1940 if Churchil had not come to power I believe we may well have agreed to a cease fire. Though we would never have allowed ourselves to be invaded without resistance. I think that this thread has shown that we would have defeated an invasion in 1940.

The Germans had a better chance of defeating Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic. Look at the absolutely critical effect the Royal Navy's blocade of Germany had in World War One.

The Germans were at their height of their power in 1941, if they attacked Russia then ( a year earlier ) they would need as many Units as they can get and attack straight to Moscow.
Though if the Germans stayed neutral with the Russians before 1942 and marched into Britian, instead of just bombarding it with V-rockets, then they would easily capture Britian and fortify their defenses there against allied attacks to retake Britain.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2294/etomap14bo.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img313.imageshack.us/img313/3746/etomap17px.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[Cuts]

Cdo, I notice the maps are marked 'USAF Museum.'
Did no-one tell them that both Spain and Sweden were neutral too ?

Still geography, accuracy and nav have never been their strong point !

[Canaris]

So what you are saying is: attack Britain in Summer 1941 and Russia in 1942?

I don't see how that would have helped. True, the Germans would have had 1940 to build up for an invasion of Britain in 1941 and and also an extra year to build up for the invasion of Russia.

However Britain could regain her shattered army by 1941 and the RAF was improving rapidly in that period both in terms of strength and more modern aircraft. I think that Germany would have had a better chance in 1940.

Likewise Russia was in the middle of an Army wide reorganisation in June 1941. This would have been completed a year later and the effect of the purges would have also been reduced. Modern tanks especialy the T34 would have made up the significant part of Russia's tank fleet and most of the I-153s and I-16s would have been replaced.

So not a good move for Germany.

If you want to play with the calender a better plan for Germany would have been to ignore France and Britain in Summer 1940 and push hard and fast for Moscow. The Russians had just been screwed by the Finns, the purges were in full swing. The French would have been embarressed into an offensive in spring 1941 which would probably been an inept disaster - perhaps Britain and France would have come to terms.

[StalingradK]

Germany could have never won the war. The beginning of the end for Germany started December 8, 1941.

[Hosenfield]

germany would have won the war if they finished off britain first while completely mobilizeing all industry and population for total war.

then spend some time to prepare to take russia.

first, by expanding germany's automobile production capacity and produce plenty of warm clothing. increase mobilization to at least 50 percent. and ofa course, do the usually advancement of weapons.

invade the soviet union. Forget about seizing sevestapol and stalingrad or any major city that proves too fortified. lay seige to the enemy's cities with the goal of reaching the oil fields of the caucauses. once the oil fields are secured, russia would be truely screwed. the caucauses provide around 80 percent of the ussr's fuel.

expend all effort possible to keep the oil fields intact and linked with the german army. then, finish off the encircled cities one by one.

once white russia is taken, the rest of russia would be much easier to take.

anyway, stalingradk, the us army was a weakling in 1941. while the navy was decent, your talking about an army that has inferior technology, quality of personelll, and a tiny 150,000 man size. the us army would not be a feasible threat until at least late 1944 to early 1945.

by then, russia would be finished and france would be refortified.

[StalingradK]

If Britain was crushed, the United States would obviously put enough manpower and war supplies into the effort to elimiinate the Axis in which they did throughout the year of 1943.

If Britain was gone, who cares about France anyways? The Allies could have landed in many places.

Even if Moscow was captured, the Wehrmacht would have to hold off an endless assault of Soviet Counter-Strikes.

Also, Germany and its allys never ever dreamed of invading US soil.

What you must understand is that with WWII "what if's", comes up with more possiblities for the Allies to win a sure victory.

[Hosenfield]

If Britain was crushed, the United States would obviously put enough manpower and war supplies into the effort to elimiinate the Axis in which they did throughout the year of 1943.

If Britain was gone, who cares about France anyways? The Allies could have landed in many places.

Even if Moscow was captured, the Wehrmacht would have to hold off an endless assault of Soviet Counter-Strikes.

Also, Germany and its allys never ever dreamed of invading US soil.

What you must understand is that with WWII "what if's", comes up with more possiblities for the Allies to win a sure victory.

you overestimate american power and fight abilities. first of all in 1943, the afrika corp was defeated. all 40,000 of them. and around 200,000 italians? (who needs these guys) it took a disportionate amount of time and energy for the allies to defeat this tiny force.

the north africa campaign was a drop in the bucket compared to stalingrad. don't even bother comparing them.

if britain was gone, america would have to invade germany by herself. more than half of the d-day personnel were british forces.

and as i wrote in another thread, the american army is almost embarrashingly slow in ground forces operations. look at d-day to berlin. it took wayyyy too long against such small opposition.

a concentrated panzer attack with enough fuel and not bled white in the russian front would destroy the americans around the beaches.

moscow isn't as important as the russian oil fields. you take that, the russians have nothing to power their tanks or expand their industry. they are finished. just like how russia took rumania from the germans in late 1943. the german air force and panzer forces were crippled after losing rumania, it proved 90 percent of germany's fuel.

human-wave assaults aren't that difficult to destory if they aren't supported by tanks or enough artillery. thats how germany was able to advance and take over 40 percent of white, industrial russia in one year.

what you must understand is that america wasn't the only worldrpower in ww2.

[Firefly]

Im afraid this has turned into our very wrost what if of them all.

All the Axis propositioners here assume that the Nazis have all suddenly started getting on with each other and bonded in some sort of way.

The war went the way it did largely because all the top Nazis were trying to get 1 up on each other, to assume they would change is the biggest farthest out what-if of the lot.

[Gen. JoshM]

The one thing I wonder... if Germany invaded (I believe it was either one of them that was neutral, my memory easily slips :? ) Finland and Norway. Why not Switzerland? They would get a lot of money and arms. 8)
http://www.wsws.org/history/1998/may1998/gold-m30.shtml<-- Good site on German-Swiss Collaboration

[pdf27]

The one thing I wonder... if Germany invaded (I believe it was either one of them that was neutral, my memory easily slips :? ) Finland and Norway. Why not Switzerland? They would get a lot of money and arms. 8)
http://www.wsws.org/history/1998/may1998/gold-m30.shtml<-- Good site on German-Swiss Collaboration
Invaded Norway and Denmark, Finland was sort of an ally. As for why not Switzerland, the Swiss army is huge even today (every adult male is in it) and the terrain is awful to attack over. There are good reasons the Swiss have managed to stay neutral for a very long time.

[IronFist]

Plus the Swiss hold really no stratigic purposes, to force an invasion from Germany, and the last post is correct the Swiss military is massive today (400,000Men) (Not everyone though 8) and back in 1939-1945 is was much bigger. Theres a reason no one attacks them.

[Firefly]

Plus theres nothing there. What purpose would there be in invading Switzerland? To gain the world domination of the Cuckoo-Clock industry?

[Cuts]

...

What purpose would there be in invading Switzerland?

...

One word...

















Toblerone.

[chase]

I think the Germans could have won the war in russia. If they had just taken Moscow in the first 4 months, the Russians would have lost. The Ruskies had already been caught with their pants down. The fact that the germans failed to take Moscow allowed the Russians to "pull their pants up" with Stalin's winter offensive.

When Guderians Panzergruppe 2 flung out across the River bug and seized the forts at Brest Litovsk, they quilckly drove straght for the city of Minsk, curving up from the South to meet Hoth's Panzergruppe 3 coming from the north. thus the soviet forces were immedietely behind their attack fronts, and were isolated in a huge cauldron in which, once their supplies had run out, they would have little alternative but to surrender.

This was all achieved in five days. However, the pockets of Soviet troops were not as inclined to surrender as their counterparts in France. When the decision to destroy these soviet pockets came by, Hoth and Guderian thought that the clean up should be left to the infantry of the 4th and 9th armies, and that the Panzer spearheads should continue on to Smolensk and then to Moscow. Guderian grew impatient, and launched his Panzers toward the river Beresina, and thei to the River Dniepr. They reached river Dniepr in 4 days, but then were immediatelly bugged down with fighting. Guderian had lost contact with Hoths Panzergruppe. Smolensk was captured on the 16 of July and the next target was Moscow. However, on the 29th of July, Hitler gave the order to go no further east, and to redirect attention to Ukraine.

29th of JULY :!: like a month after the german invasion began! So close to Moscow!

At that time, Moscow was very poorly defended, and all of the Soviet government had fled, except for Stalin and some of his commanders, including Zhukov.

imagine how the war in russia would have been like if Moscow had been captured in the first 4 months. :idea:

[Monty's Double]

imagine how the war in russia would have been like if Moscow had been captured in the first 4 months.

I suggest you dig out your copy of War and Peace chap.

[chase]

I suggest you dig out your copy of War and Peace chap.

What?

[pdf27]

I suggest you dig out your copy of War and Peace chap.
What?
Well, I've not read it but suspect it was probably set in around 1812. When Napoleon took and burned Moscow without it making a blind bit of difference to who won.

[chase]

It still would have affected it some, perhaps stalling the mobilization of the Russian army and preventing Germany from losing so much territory in the winter.

[Firefly]

I'm still of the firm persausion that for a couple of reasons the loss of Moscow would have affected a diffrent outcome.

Moscow was the main North-South communication node. Cut it off and you cut a lot of transport to Lenningrad etc.

It is also symbolic, but I dont think so symbolic that it would affect Soviet morale too much, but it could have affected the Germans more.

Also, at this stage of the war,I'm not sure Moscow would have turned into a Stalingrad situation and if the Germans took it early enough, well who knows.

[Man of Stoat]

I'm still of the firm persausion that for a couple of reasons the loss of Moscow would have affected a diffrent outcome.

Moscow was the main North-South communication node. Cut it off and you cut a lot of transport to Lenningrad etc.

It is also symbolic, but I dont think so symbolic that it would affect Soviet morale too much, but it could have affected the Germans more.

Also, at this stage of the war,I'm not sure Moscow would have turned into a Stalingrad situation and if the Germans took it early enough, well who knows.

Moscow was more important in 1941 than in 1812. As Firefly says, it was a communication hub, i.e. a RAILWAY hub. Most supplies etc were moved by rail, so cut this, and the sovs have a serious logs problem. When the army marched on foot, i.e. in 1812, it was not such a serious issue.

[LargeBrew]

The real issue with this what if is that you need to look beyond the victory over conventional forces. Did Germany have any plans for hearts and mind operations? could they have held their land gains against the inevitable resistance.
Even if the Axis had achieved victory in continental Europe I doubt it would have been able to sustain the occupation as they lacked the manpower to garrison every villiage, town and city.

[StalingradK]

A good question is if Germany would even think of stepping into Siberia and beyond, though almost all Russian industry is in the West, Russian guerilla attacks would spring from every direction, you don't even really need anti-tank weapons to hop onto a tank and gun down the crew. And air would be almost useless against guerillas because they don't mass in large groups like an army would, or have huge complexes. And that's just for Russia, there were hundreds of resistant forces behind enemy lines, with all the countries occupied by Germany (if taken like, GB, Russia, and North Africa) with the armies spread out they would get decimated.

[HG]

Yes and no. Gurilla attacks are only effective when morrale are high and you know how to use the numbers of men you have to their full capacity. It is not to say that the Germans wuold have lost if they took over what they wnated. StallingradK do you know about the Boer War of 1899-1901? The war was between the forces of Great Brittan and the Boer States Transvaal and Vreestate. (today South Africa ) As you know GB had the best army and Navy in those days and the Boer states had a smaal army. The Boers was the first to use Gurilla attacks against the Roayl Armed Forces and did succeed in doing so for a long time but then the Brittish used consentration camps for woman and children that lived on the farmes and burned down the farms and killed all the animals, named the Scorched Earth Campain. After the Boers saw the way the woman and children were suffering in the camps they gave up fighting. 250 000 woman and children died in the camps.

The biggest problem with Germany was when things went bad in Africa and in the East, then morale also fell. By 1943 they saw the end comeing and thus only fought for survival and not for the Honor of their country.

So never say that numbers count, because it is not always about the numbers but about how you use them to their full capacity.

Henk

[pdf27]

250 000 woman and children died in the camps.
Since that's roughly twice as many poeple as ever passed through the camps, I suspect your numbers are waaay off. For instance, this South African site (http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/weber.html) states that 116,752 people were held in the camps, of whom 27,927 (22,074 of whom were under the age of 16) died - this is unclear if it is from all causes or directly related to conditions, but I would assume all causes. There won't be a lot of difference between the two numbers anyway.

[BDL]

250 000 woman and children died in the camps.
Since that's roughly twice as many poeple as ever passed through the camps, I suspect your numbers are waaay off. For instance, this South African site (http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/weber.html) states that 116,752 people were held in the camps, of whom 27,927 (22,074 of whom were under the age of 16) died - this is unclear if it is from all causes or directly related to conditions, but I would assume all causes. There won't be a lot of difference between the two numbers anyway.

From what I've read about it - most deaths were caused by contagious diseases were they not?

From the way it's written by HG, you'd think we were sticking them in the chambers.

[Firefly]

I agree, they were called concentraion camps, because they concentrated the population in one place. By their very nature that concentration allowed the rapid spread of disease.

This was both shocking and shamefull to the british public at that time and was exposed in british newspapers. Things were then done to stop the problem.

I havent read any thing to say the same for German newspapers or any media in ww2.

[HG]

I am so sorry I put a extra zero in there. It was 25 000 woman and children. I once went to the Museum dedicated to the Boer war in Bloemfontein South Africa where they say how many people died in each consentration camp. My Grand mother's fathers brother died as a baby in one of the camps.

Yes, the problem was that there was no disease prevention in place by the Brittish and the public in Brittan was against it and even Emily Hobhouse came to South Africa to help but was send back. The thing is that all consentration camps are Evil and nobody has the right to do to a nother human like the Brittish govermant of the time during the Boer war and like the Nazis and SS during WW2, but that is all in the past and we can not prevent it from happening but we can prevent it form happening in the futare.

Well you know quite a lot about the Boer war. Normaly people from other countrys do not know about the Boer war. It is great to know that there are other people out there that know their history.

But what did you think about my statemant about the Gurilla warfare and the numbers being used in war.

So sorry again for my misstake.

Henk

[Jon725]

i dont think germany alone could have won wwii... AXIS powers(refering to all the countries as a whole), maybe.

MAYBE... if the Norwegian resistance never sabatoged the german labs that were trying to develop the atomic bomb. If they norwegian resistance never sabotaged the research lab or whatever it was ( cant remember exactly, but it was vital) germany might have developed the atomic bomb before U.S did. The Norwegian resistance is also responsible for destroying a german boat carrying vital supplies for the atomic program


With germany in the power of the atomic bomb, who knows what they could have done to the allied powers.Though the SOE also had a role to play in the sabatoge, it could have never been done without the Norwegians. Thank god for the Norwegian resistance :)


If anyone wants to see a nice video on this, check out
Gladiators of World War II - Norwegian Resistance

[HG]

Well, Well, do not give all the credit to the Norwegian resistance. The RAF bombed the facilaty and also send comados to sabotage it at the Norwegian Hidro Electricle Plant where the Germans experimanted with the idea of a Atom bomb. The German scientist also tried to take long on the development of the Atom bomb by not doing the right things or just looking past the importend facts on building a Atom bomb. They just showed a little bit of progres to Hitler just to satisfy him. But after Hitler relised that it was a waste of money where he could rather build more war equipment and even after the raid on the Hidro dam in Norway he realised that it was just a waste of money.

No ways that all three the Axis countries could have won the war because they did not always saw eye to eye and they all had there own goals and Japan were to gready and did not plan for any thing after Pearl Harbour. Hitler also got to gready after he ocopied Europe and attacked Russia and attacked London and helped Mosselini in North Africa. Mosselini was a ideot wen it came to warfare. He could not take over Greece and keep his grip on North Africa and his army and airforce was a joke. Hitler should have kept the pact with Stalin and used them to win the war and Japan should have just planned better they could have done it. Mosseline only had to get a new brain and maybe he could have done something to be able to wright something good about him.

So finealy they all made big time misstakes and my oppinion is that they never even could have won the war because good always win the battle against the big evil super powers, I mean big like Hitler and Japan not like old little Sadam.

Henk

[Firefly]

i dont think germany alone could have won wwii... AXIS powers(refering to all the countries as a whole), maybe.

MAYBE... if the Norwegian resistance never sabatoged the german labs that were trying to develop the atomic bomb. If they norwegian resistance never sabotaged the research lab or whatever it was ( cant remember exactly, but it was vital) germany might have developed the atomic bomb before U.S did. The Norwegian resistance is also responsible for destroying a german boat carrying vital supplies for the atomic program


With germany in the power of the atomic bomb, who knows what they could have done to the allied powers.Though the SOE also had a role to play in the sabatoge, it could have never been done without the Norwegians. Thank god for the Norwegian resistance :)


If anyone wants to see a nice video on this, check out
Gladiators of World War II - Norwegian Resistance

Are you saying that the Norweigian resistance won ww2?

[pdf27]

Are you saying that the Norweigian resistance won ww2?
They might possibly have had the Germany nuclear programme been run by smart people. Problem is, Heisenberg was a complete and utter idiot who didn't have a clue how to run things. The others were no better - they really would have trouble finding their arrse with both hands and map...

[Jon725]

i dont think germany alone could have won wwii... AXIS powers(refering to all the countries as a whole), maybe.

MAYBE... if the Norwegian resistance never sabatoged the german labs that were trying to develop the atomic bomb. If they norwegian resistance never sabotaged the research lab or whatever it was ( cant remember exactly, but it was vital) germany might have developed the atomic bomb before U.S did. The Norwegian resistance is also responsible for destroying a german boat carrying vital supplies for the atomic program


With germany in the power of the atomic bomb, who knows what they could have done to the allied powers.Though the SOE also had a role to play in the sabatoge, it could have never been done without the Norwegians. Thank god for the Norwegian resistance :)


If anyone wants to see a nice video on this, check out
Gladiators of World War II - Norwegian Resistance

Are you saying that the Norweigian resistance won ww2?



ummmmm no? :|, just that they played a vital role that could have definately stopped the germans from developing a atomic bomb. make your own conclusions on whethere or not germans could have won with a atomic bombs.

[Man of Stoat]

[

ummmmm no? :|, just that they played a vital role that could have definately stopped the germans from developing a atomic bomb. make your own conclusions on whethere or not germans could have won with a atomic bombs.

The German atomic weapons project was rather half-hearted, and they were a long way from producing a bomb. Just think of the amount of time effort and resources that went into the Manhattan project compare to that which went into the German project.

They recently pulled up some of the barrels from the wreck of the Hydro. What they discovered, was that there was not enough heavy water to fill a reactor, by a long way.

[mrfo]

Germany can win in the following way:

-Germany continue to bomb British airfield despite Churchill trying to trick Hitler to change his target.

-I believe some tanks are able to travel on water, since most british ships are on the north side of the country, tanks can land on the south side of England with the protection of germany navy and fighters. The Objective for those tanks are to finish off shore defense and let panthers tanks to went ashore safely, then Britain is basically finished.

-With Britain falling in to German's hand, Americans would be unwilling to attack Europe in a short time, that gives german the time to build heavy defense on England, while starting to invade Russia with better preparation

I don't agree with you. I believe the decision to ocupy France was correct but attacking Russia cost Hitler the War. I think Germany should continue taking profit of the element of surprise that Blitzkrieg was, and attack Britain. That way he would prevent USA from using it. I believe Britain was of the utmost tactical importance for both sides. If USA couldn't use it to prepare the invasion of France from where would they attack? Spain? North of Africa?

[Panzer Ace]

First.... I dont believe invading Britian would of worked.... Churchill would of sacrificed the whole of the Royal Navy to defeat an unprepared German invasion!

Second.....Russia' was soooo close to being knocked out of the war. Imagine... Zhukov counter attacked outside Moscow... the Germans had an adequate supply of fuel/ammunition... plus winter clothing! More and better prepared.. this could of turned the Russian Victory into a Russian defeat. Hundreds of thousands of experienced Siberian soldiers taken prisoners... Moscow would of been taken. Who knows... Maybe Zhukov would of been shot?!?

With Russian industry being moved east... it would take them months to begin producing tanks/planes in sufficient numbers. Germany could then attack and capture Stalingrad and cut off Russia's Caucasus oil supply in the spring.

I dont know how many defeats it would take Russia to sue for an armistice while they still had a hope to resume the war at a later stage.

Hitler could then turn his attention to the middle east.

I"m just throwing out ideas.... everyone always says... Stalingrad was the turning point... Kursk was... I believe it could of been in Dec of 1941 when Zhukov saved Moscow. There wasn't a whole lot of Russian troops... they were not prepared for war. And in 1941... there was a point when Germany actually had more troops in Russia... then the Russians did. Now that is very interesting! Germans outnumbering the Russians!

Oh..... and treating all- the people formally under Russian control like sh*t.... that did not help the Germans out one bit!

What does everyone think? :D

[jnd2089]

I believe it could have been done, if Hitler concentrated on one thing at a time, building up his forces...

[StalingradK]

With Russian industry being moved east... it would take them months to begin producing tanks/planes in sufficient numbers. Germany could then attack and capture Stalingrad and cut off Russia's Caucasus oil supply in the spring.

This is where Hitler messed up, he should have gone all or nothing on Moscow, or the caucasus oil fields. Not both at the same time. Stay on the defensive in central western russia and head straight for the oil!

[Panzer Ace]

Heres a good read of the many problems the Germans had during WW2..........http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=68