Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defender of the Reich timeline (would like feedback)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Enigma was a western advantage. Kursk will not reveal the engima secret. The Russians had an excellent spy ring operating in Berlin. Read up about "Lucy" and how the Russian knew exactly when the Kursk operation was going to start. Figuring out that Enigma was compromised is not going to help Germany in the East. Germany lost the war in the East.

    The allied Aluminum overcast is not going to be stopped by the Me262. Slowed a little maybe. That means the refinies are still going to get bombed. The lack of Tungsten meant that the Me262 engines are not reliable nor long lived. You can't count on a wonder weapon to stop the allied airforces. They'll inflict heavier losses but no where near enough to counter the massive allied production and pilot training advantages.

    The LW was broken in August and September 1943 (~25% pilots lost each month) which was too early for the Me262 to be deployed.

    Another point is that the Germans suffered their defeats (Stalingrad, Kursk, North Africa, Sicily) while the refineries were still at full capacity. Saving the refinieries just prolongs the defeat. The existing refinies were not enough to supply the German needs as they were and you are proposing an increased mechanization which would lead higher German demand. Your increased number of panzers, trucks and planes will just burn the fuel up faster.

    Smuggling is NOT going to be effective. The RN and USN will absolutely control the seas. Continental blockade is a tried and true English strategy. There is no reason for it not to work again.

    Comment


    • #17
      Oh Adrian, Adrian,
      man I talked to some professors down at Ohio State, and they gave me a MUCH different picture. About the Me-262s, and this came from a Modern German professor, and a Military historian, PhDs on the subject, and they both said seperately, it could have changed the course of the war. COULD HAVE. But that's good enough for me.

      I think you are very much exagerating the Soviet war effort. Not that it wasn't great, but the War was won IN THE WEST, not the east. The turning point of the East Front only came after the destruction of Army Group Center after D-Day and after the 1000 bomber raids had reduced Germany to rubble. Their officers, minus two generals, were utterly incompetent, their NCOs were garbage. Their army "doctrine," basicly shoot your own men if they retreat, was putrid and offensive to humanity. The Soviets were merely in the best position to take advantage of it, and if you don't beleive me, read John Mossier's Cross of Iron.

      With better supplies and less interference from Hitler, it seems quite plausible that the destruction of Army Group Center could have been averted. And that would change the whole course of the War in the East. And of cource you don't take into account that every little trick I put in the German's sleave would act as a force multiplier. Better supplies, just basic supplies, would have improved morale if nothing else, beating back the Allies at Selarno would have freed up men Germany deperately needed on the East Front and allow the Italian Army time to rebuild. Could the panzerfaust by itself win the war? Absolutely not BUT, could it have prevented the destrcution of Romanian and Italian Armies during operation Saturn and Uranus, armies that historically had no anti-tank weapons? I certainly beleive so. And with the Italian 8th and German 6th Amry still intact, the East Front becomes a whole new ballgame. And let's not forget, that even without gas, the Germans were well on their way to winning the Battle of the Bulge until the skies cleared and the Allied Air Forces pulverized the Panzers. Now close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades, but it does show us that if the Germans could have had planes in the air to achieve local airsuperiority, they could have beaten the Allies back.

      But I'm not sure any of this will have any effect on you. You don't seem able to see the possibilities, and that's fine. There's a lot of Wolrd War II AH out there, and I'm trying to break several of the conventions, because frankly, they don't adress the possibilities, but good and bad outside a tunnel vision. So I will ask you, point blank. What I should do to revise this? Here are the parameters:
      1. WWII is fought
      2. Germany is not conquered
      3. Germany does not retain any of it's conquests (excepting formerly German territories in Poland and Memel)

      The idea of a negotiated peace in WWII seems far fetched, but it seemed far fetched in WWI and in Korea and it happened anyway.
      How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
      275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Wolery View Post

        I think you are very much exagerating the Soviet war effort. Not that it wasn't great, but the War was won IN THE WEST, not the east. The turning point of the East Front only came after the destruction of Army Group Center after D-Day and after the 1000 bomber raids had reduced Germany to rubble.
        You sir have some reading to do. 80% of Germany's casualties suffered in WWII occured on the Eastern front. Check out Col. David Glantz's work. There are so many good books written by him that will illustrate how wrong your thinking on this is.

        Comment


        • #19
          Yes Wolery I have to agree with Adrian there, The Russians destroyed most of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front. Its is the biggest continuous land battle in history.The number of casualties were enormous there. I am proud of my nations contribution to the defeat of Nazism, very proud in fact but the Russians took the brunt of it.

          From the perspective of a negotiated peace for your scenario, I've always thought that the only way was if Russia was knocked out of the war. That was only possible if Moscow had been taken in '41 leading to Stalin suing for a peace settlement which did nearly happen in reality. Otherwise the size of Russia would have eventually chewed up the German enemy even if they'd got all the way to the Urals.I know that doesnt include Germany not keeping her posessions but thats the most realistic approach i can believe in.Then with Russia not a problem anymore for Germany the western powes may have found themselves in a stalemate and thus a settlememt.
          Last edited by copenhagen; 12 Sep 07, 17:54.

          Comment


          • #20
            I still think the Enigma question remains unanswered in all this, just as certain key people in the Nazi side are allowed to live, and certain weapons programmes are put into production ahaed of schedule, how can you overcome the fact that prehaps the allies , through Enigma, would ascertain what was happening with all of your new weapons programmes, and responded accordingly? Would the allies ramp up their covert intelligence operations in occupied europe. Have you taken into account the British zeal for unorthadox raids on key installations, which they did quite successfully during the war? I could go on, but i really do support your efforts in what you are trying to do, good luck with it mate!!!!

            Comment


            • #21
              on italy. it has a huge army, but a relatively small industrial base, not the other way around.

              mussolini used to boast that his country could muster 6 million bayonets - what a silly idea when armies needed tanks and modern fighters. Italy fielded, what? over 100 divisions, but only 4 armoured divisions. tank production during the war was what? less than a 1000 units? (www.comandosupremo.com has all the exact data collated from reliable sources)

              now, had Italy received better weapons....

              my grandfather used to tell me from his wartime experience that German officers were appalled to see the conditions with which the Italians had to fight - bad food, no equipment, lack of weapons, lack of ammo, obsolete artillery and worst of all - bad officer corps. he was told by one of his german prison mates (he went for slave labor in a mercedes engine plant in eastern germany) that if only the italian army had german officers, they could have been marching in India!! (oh well.)
              "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Wolery
                Oh Adrian, Adrian,
                man I talked to some professors down at Ohio State, and they gave me a MUCH different picture. About the Me-262s, and this came from a Modern German professor, and a Military historian, PhDs on the subject, and they both said seperately, it could have changed the course of the war. COULD HAVE. But that's good enough for me.
                Pity here is that the Germans did not have the alloys for the engines and *that* is why the ME-262 failed.

                Originally posted by Wolery
                I think you are very much exagerating the Soviet war effort. Not that it wasn't great, but the War was won IN THE WEST, not the east. The turning point of the East Front only came after the destruction of Army Group Center after D-Day and after the 1000 bomber raids had reduced Germany to rubble. Their officers, minus two generals, were utterly incompetent, their NCOs were garbage. Their army "doctrine," basicly shoot your own men if they retreat, was putrid and offensive to humanity. The Soviets were merely in the best position to take advantage of it, and if you don't beleive me, read John Mossier's Cross of Iron.
                I cannot believe that anyone would post such nonsense in the 21st century. Beyond what Adrian has posted Mossier is a revisionist and his theories on both wars do not hold water. His specialty is English Literature or something similar and his conclusion more story making than history (check his bibliography and chapter notes).

                German was beaten long before June 1944 and the winter battles of 42-43, the summer of 43 and winter battles of 43-44 that cleared the Ukraine all show this. Long before the allies landed in Normandy the German high command knew the war was lost. The allied switch to bombing infrastructure in the lead up Normandy (the correct move, by the way) had the unfortunate effect of allowing German production to increase,...*despite the bombing*.

                German production only began its catastrophic slide after the allied heavies were switched back to the industrial targets after the land campaign in the west was decided and the allies advanced on the German borders. It is not stretching the truth any to state that had the allies not landed in 1944 but only threatened to do so, the Red Army would have been able to finish the Germans on the their own. With over 12 million Red Army troops, 20,000 tanks 25,000 aircraft and over 100,000 artillery tubes and rocket launchers the Germans in 1944 were not going to stop the Red Army. Period.

                You very, very badly need to update your reading and drag your pro-western views of WWII into the light of modern post-Soviet research. There are volumes,...*volumes*,... of new research based on recently opened US, Russian and German archives that are consigning the old cold war views to the fiction stacks. The trouble with alternate history,...Stirling's, Turtledove and the rest is that, while they make for some fun reading they are only very losely based and real history. Once the get past "On a sunny day in 1863,..." it becomes fiction,...not history,...that is why these books are found in "Science Fiction and Fantasy" sections of the book stores.
                Last edited by The Purist; 13 Sep 07, 19:58.
                The Purist

                Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Just a little point purist really. I dont think most of us needed post soviet research to understand the point about Russia bearing the brunt of the land war. Thats why I think the statement about overating Soviet contributions is so very wrong. I take your point though.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Wolery View Post
                    There's a lot of Wolrd War II AH out there, and I'm trying to break several of the conventions, because frankly, they don't adress the possibilities, but good and bad outside a tunnel vision. So I will ask you, point blank. What I should do to revise this? Here are the parameters:
                    1. WWII is fought
                    2. Germany is not conquered
                    3. Germany does not retain any of it's conquests (excepting formerly German territories in Poland and Memel)
                    The only concievable way I can see Germany not losing WWII is their to be absolutely no Nazi's involved in any way, shape or form. However, if the Nazi's aren't involved then there probably is no WWII.

                    Here is a timeline that is slightly plausible:
                    1914 - an unknown corporal from Bohemia is killed by a British bullet near Ypres
                    1919 - Wilson prevails at the treaty of Versailles and lenient terms imposed on Germany (Danzig remains German)
                    late 1920s - a strongly anti-communist, mildly nationalistic political party is formed in Germany
                    early 1930s - they come to power, fix the German economy
                    late 1930s - an anti communist block is formed by Germany, Poland, Rumania and the Baltic states
                    winter 1940 - Stalin invades Finland triggering WWII.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      That is actually not bad mate!! Hmmm

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        That actually makes more sense. A smaller, thoroughly professional German army with Germany as a first line state in defence of central Europe against a "Red Wave" in 1941 or 1942 might be possible but getting around Versailles would be difficult without Nazi bluster and bluff would have been tough. The 100,000 man army (von Seeckt's model) would need to be kept but the Germans may have been able to develop a reserve system that could raise perhaps 1/2 to 3/4 million more troops in an emergency. The problem is still modern weapons such as aircraft and tanks. This scenario would probably have meant sucessful disarmament treaties of the 20s that would have weakened the democracies even more and made marching to Germany's aid very dodgy.

                        Europe would need to rely on the very poor performance of the 1940-41 Red Army to survive. It would be an interesting scenario.
                        The Purist

                        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                          Just a little point purist really. I dont think most of us needed post soviet research to understand the point about Russia bearing the brunt of the land war. Thats why I think the statement about overating Soviet contributions is so very wrong. I take your point though.
                          No, we don't. However, the view of the Red Army as little more than a wave of automatons charging and overwhelming the Germans by sheer numbers (as described by Manstein and von Mellenthin, for example) was not properly dispelled until the openess that occurred after 1989. We know far more today than we did 20 years ago about how the Red Army held and then beat back the German military with Russian operational art, Russian weapons and Russian manpower. That is what it boils down to and no bomber offensive was going to do the damage to the Germans that the Red Army did and Normandy would not have been possible without some 3/4 of the German military pinned and being bled to death in the east.

                          To state that Normandy and 1000 bomber raids were equivalent to the destruction of the German armies in Bagration, then south/central Poland and then drives into Romania and Yugoslavia is to have very little understanding of just how powerful *and* effective the Red Army had become in 1944. The Germans could not and would not have been able to stop it.
                          The Purist

                          Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                            No, we don't. However, the view of the Red Army as little more than a wave of automatons charging and overwhelming the Germans by sheer numbers (as described by Manstein and von Mellenthin, for example) was not properly dispelled until the openess that occurred after 1989. We know far more today than we did 20 years ago about how the Red Army held and then beat back the German military with Russian operational art, Russian weapons and Russian manpower. That is what it boils down to and no bomber offensive was going to do the damage to the Germans that the Red Army did and Normandy would not have been possible without some 3/4 of the German military pinned and being bled to death in the east.

                            To state that Normandy and 1000 bomber raids were equivalent to the destruction of the German armies in Bagration, then south/central Poland and then drives into Romania and Yugoslavia is to have very little understanding of just how powerful *and* effective the Red Army had become in 1944. The Germans could not and would not have been able to stop it.

                            This reminds me of the time i sat and read the entire Purcells history of the second world war series, at the time the finest publication of its time, spread out over 6 volumes. the editers decided in the interest of balanced arguments to invite Soviet authors to contribute their thoughts on the war in the Eastern front. This was considered quite a coup at the time, and these Soviet historians wrote a great deal of material for the series.

                            It did not take long , however , for people to start writing in to complain about the one-sidedness of the Soviet version of events. In brief, the complaints centered around the authors unwillingness to state Soviet losses during battles in anything other than in the breifest of terms, nor would they elaborate on Soviet mistakes during caimpaigns. However , they were more that happy to state german losses down to the last bullet and fingernail. After reading the series , i tended to agree with these critesisms . It was not until later that i realized that for the authors to write anything but, would mean a bullett in the head and the gulag for their families!!!

                            Funny thing is though, if you add newly revealed Soviet losses to these papers, in order to provide objectivity, then the original articles are remarkably accurate, though, given the stae of the world when they were written, i should come as no suprise really!

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X