No announcement yet.

Nazi Germany vs. Imperial Japan

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
    I dont know why everyone seems to think that the Japanese Navy would have had it's own way. Germany had more Submarines than Japan has ships.

    Besides, a much smaller American fleet of Subs mangled the Japanese merchant AND surface fleet.
    Might Germany not also have use of the Royal Navy if Britain fell to Sealion?


    • #17
      Originally posted by Napalm View Post
      I think Hitler would have a pretty tough time not trying to fight the Japanese, who he considered subhuman.
      With that logic it is equally likely for the Japanese to be the aggressor as they held the same view of themselves being a master race!

      If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

      Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!


      • #18
        Might Germany not also have use of the Royal Navy if Britain fell to Sealion?
        I would say so,Germans were not exactly blessed with loads of war ships and battle cruisers at there tips of there hands,the extra help RN provided was much needed and misidentify of being an enemy is easily fixed.
        All Germans had to do is to replace the name of ship and replace the flag
        That's if the British do not pull there fleet out to US saver waters.


        • #19
          Originally posted by Wolery View Post
          Czin, where did the 14.4% number come from. I'd heard similar things, and it would help my debating Immensely if you can give me a credible source on Industrial capacity per nation.

          Here you go. As you can see, Italy was a single percentage point behind Japan, while Germany's industrial capacity was four times greater than Japan's and would have grown substantially from comandeering the industries of europe. Japan would have gained virtually nothing in industrial capacity since Asia was largely unindustrialzed continent, but in the long term the increase in resources might have helped them build it up, but the same would apply to Italy.

          Japan only got as far as it did by taking on underdefended colonies and unindustrialized nations (China and Siam come to mind.) Once the British Commonwealth and America dug in the sand and made a serious stand, Japan was quickly halted, as evidenced by the battle of Midway and Japan's failed attempt to take Papua or the British isles. Germany at least managed to stay on the offensive until 1943 after nearly 4 years of war, Japan got halted within a year of attacking Britian and America. While Japan could carry her own weight when set up against other great powers, unlike Italy, she was nothing compared to the military, economic, and industrial juggernaut that was Hitler's Deustchland, which was arguably a Superpower back then.

          Again, Italy alone would have been able to keep Japan busy on a fairly equal basis assuming each of the three Axis powers achieve their goals, adding a victorious Germany to the mix would turn the war into a curbstomp with a heavy seasoning of overkill with a dash of lopsided massacre.
          Last edited by Czin; 26 Jul 10, 08:56.
          Standing here, I realize you were just like me trying to make history.
          But who's to judge the right from wrong.
          When our guard is down I think we'll both agree.
          That violence breeds violence.
          But in the end it has to be this way.


          Latest Topics