Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WWII - German victors? Don't frag the n00b.

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

  • WWII - German victors? Don't frag the n00b.

    I'm sure this has been done before, but I'm going to do it again.

    Ways for Germany to win WWII
    1. Germany, recognizing that it could not possibly win against the pure manpower of the Soviet Union in combination with the Russian Winters, does not go to war with Russia, instead focusing all it's manpower to the western and african fronts of combat while the eastern front stops at Poland.

    2. Russia and Germany, still being small time allies in WWII, are able to get over their hatred of one other enough to complete an equipment trade in late 1940; The Soviets get a few Bf 109s for their engineers to attempt copying, and the Germans get T-34s for the same purpose. As a result, the Panther comes into service much earlier. With prototypes out in Mid-1941 and full-scale production entered by 1942. The target 600 per month production rate is reached (in real life, only about half this number were created each month) due to there never being a need for overall tank production to stay up in numbers, as a result, the Panzer IIIs and IVs are no longer being produced.

    -----

    Now the problem with these, is that, while the Panthers would substantially help matters in the African front, and the massive amounts of them definitely would have helped during the allied invasion in Normandy, it simply does not help with the war against the British. To fight the British, the Germans would need either A. Seapower, B. Airpower, or preferably C. Both.

    However, Nazi Germany simply did not have the production capacity needed to create a navy that could stand up to the Royal Navy, which means in my mind, Germany is putting all their construction towards making and improving 109s and swarming them into the battle of Britain alongside troop gliders, which would paradrop into britain.

    Thoughts? Any ideas to add to the list? Am I a complete retard who needs to GTFO of this forum?

  • #2
    Could Germany get some oil from Russia? That was always a big concern for Germany was oil for all the planes, tanks and equipment.

    Comment


    • #3
      Never thought of that. I don't see why not, other than the fact that neither nation is at war in that universe, Communism and Fascism still hate each others guts. So Germany would have to give Russia something of equal or greater value.

      Comment


      • #4
        Is Germany still going to fiddle around in the Balkans, or will it back off not to **** off Russia?

        Also how do the Allies feel about this trade between Russian and Germany? It would seem like they would be pretty upset, but I don't think they could really do anything about it. I mean land lease is basically the same thing.

        Comment


        • #5
          That's another thing I've been playing around with. If Germany continued the eastern front...just going south through greece/turkey...would that **** off Russia?

          In my screwed up mental world, they have African front and Britain to run wild with. Unless going through turkey into middle east/asia is feasible. But I would worry about that AFTER I got Britain out of the way.

          Comment


          • #6
            wow, I can't wait until later tonight when the really knowledgeable people start checking in and adding to this.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah, neither can I.

              I'll be the first to admit that I suck at strategy. I recognize strategic assets (i.e. a Panther is a better strategic asset than a Panzer IV, a Ki-61 Hien is better than a Bf 109, and an MP40 was a better weapon for infantry to have in that time than a Kar98k) but when it comes to actual tactics I fall behind the rest of the pack.

              Comment


              • #8
                Well,you're certainly not the first person to ask this question.

                I've witnessed a number of forum discussions regarding this, and here is my two cents.

                It all boils down to grand strategy.

                Germany lost because its adversaries had simply too much to fall back on : land,men and material. And these adversaries were by no means inept and did more than just try to rely on sheer weight of numbers,even the USSR. They learned and adapted and developed their own Blitzkrieg versions. Shock and Awe...need I say more?

                Germany could have managed to dominate Europe proper,blockade the UK to its knees and keep the US on its side of the Atlantic. But only one at a time, even attempting two would be a gamble not the least because the third, sensing weakness, would have joined the fun regardless. Think about it.

                Say Hitler focuses on Britain but doesn't manage to blockade it or reach the Suez by the time US joins. Doesn't it make sense for Stalin to join in the fun just as things are heating up?

                Or a defeated Britain jump back up when the US joins as Germany is busy in the USSR?

                The entry of the US due to the Pearl Harbour attack was beyond Germany's control, but not the decision to attack the USSR before signing a separate peace with the UK and its allies.

                Thus,Germany could not have won WWII as we know it because to "win" it would have had to fight it in a wholly different manner,namely by fighting against one adversary at a time. Not managing to finish off the UK before embarking on the invasion of the USSR is perhaps the single most important failure of Nazi Germany, one that would come back to haunt it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by RaduRO View Post
                  Well,you're certainly not the first person to ask this question.

                  I've witnessed a number of forum discussions regarding this, and here is my two cents.

                  It all boils down to grand strategy.

                  Germany lost because its adversaries had simply too much to fall back on : land,men and material. And these adversaries were by no means inept and did more than just try to rely on sheer weight of numbers,even the USSR. They learned and adapted and developed their own Blitzkrieg versions. Shock and Awe...need I say more?

                  Germany could have managed to dominate Europe proper,blockade the UK to its knees and keep the US on its side of the Atlantic. But only one at a time, even attempting two would be a gamble not the least because the third, sensing weakness, would have joined the fun regardless. Think about it.

                  Say Hitler focuses on Britain but doesn't manage to blockade it or reach the Suez by the time US joins. Doesn't it make sense for Stalin to join in the fun just as things are heating up?

                  Or a defeated Britain jump back up when the US joins as Germany is busy in the USSR?

                  The entry of the US due to the Pearl Harbour attack was beyond Germany's control, but not the decision to attack the USSR before signing a separate peace with the UK and its allies.

                  Thus,Germany could not have won WWII as we know it because to "win" it would have had to fight it in a wholly different manner,namely by fighting against one adversary at a time. Not managing to finish off the UK before embarking on the invasion of the USSR is perhaps the single most important failure of Nazi Germany, one that would come back to haunt it.
                  Yeah, my main point is an alternate WWII where the USSR was never a factor. Germany recognized that it couldn't possibly win that war with the amount of stuff Stalin had in his favor: Supply lines, familiarity with the terrain, the Russian winter, sheer numbers, a massive amount of land to fall back to...

                  So Germany, despite it's hatred of Communism, leaves Russia completely alone. In that, Germany can focus all their manpower into the (possibly?) winnable war against Britain in the west and in Africa, possible branching south from Poland so that they go into a theater they never touched in real life: the middle east.

                  EDIT: Victory, in this term, means that Germany managed to defeat it's main enemy/ies (at this point, Britain), conquer most of Europe, and then enter peace without losing any of the conquered land. i.e. Zoom forward 60 years to present day, and Germany still controls France and Poland.
                  Last edited by DarkWolf54; 30 Jan 09, 16:52.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The OP doesn't specify what happens in the Pacific, which is critical to the outcome.

                    The best scenario for Germany would have been to not attack Russia, not attempt Sealion, and sit tight in 1940/41 in Europe. Use the troops earmarked for Sealion and later Barbarossa to support the Italians in Africa, and drive the Brits out of N Africa and the Gulf, but declare the Suez canal open to non-combatants.

                    Use the air assets expended in the Battle of Britain against British naval forces in the Med. Avoid unrestricted Atlantic U boat warfare - don't antagonise the US. Put more U boats in the Med - between the air power, the subs and the Italian surface fleet, it would become an axis lake.

                    Tidy up the southern Balkan states, but stay out of Romania and Bulgaria so as not to upset the Russians.

                    If the Japs could have been persuaded to stay at peace - maybe some deal for cheap oil (plenty available in the Gulf) and a free hand in China, and the US would have stayed isolationist. Sympathetic to Britain, sure, but not active.

                    Russia didn't really want to fight Germany, and would not have attacked.

                    What does Britain do?

                    Nothing she can do. Churchill would have fannied about with some commando raids and expeditionary forces to which he was so addicted, and the RN would have been steadily attrited in the med, it really wasn't equipped to fight a war against mostly air and submarines in relatively confined waters. (Look at Crete!)

                    By 1942/3, with no prospect of victory, Britain would have had to seek terms.

                    Germany wins.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                      The OP doesn't specify what happens in the Pacific, which is critical to the outcome.

                      The best scenario for Germany would have been to not attack Russia, not attempt Sealion, and sit tight in 1940/41 in Europe. Use the troops earmarked for Sealion and later Barbarossa to support the Italians in Africa, and drive the Brits out of N Africa and the Gulf, but declare the Suez canal open to non-combatants.

                      Use the air assets expended in the Battle of Britain against British naval forces in the Med. Avoid unrestricted Atlantic U boat warfare - don't antagonise the US. Put more U boats in the Med - between the air power, the subs and the Italian surface fleet, it would become an axis lake.

                      Tidy up the southern Balkan states, but stay out of Romania and Bulgaria so as not to upset the Russians.

                      If the Japs could have been persuaded to stay at peace - maybe some deal for cheap oil (plenty available in the Gulf) and a free hand in China, and the US would have stayed isolationist. Sympathetic to Britain, sure, but not active.

                      Russia didn't really want to fight Germany, and would not have attacked.

                      What does Britain do?

                      Nothing she can do. Churchill would have fannied about with some commando raids and expeditionary forces to which he was so addicted, and the RN would have been steadily attrited in the med, it really wasn't equipped to fight a war against mostly air and submarines in relatively confined waters. (Look at Crete!)

                      By 1942/3, with no prospect of victory, Britain would have had to seek terms.

                      Germany wins.
                      That is quite simply the single most tactically sound alternate WWII I have ever seen.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                        The OP doesn't specify what happens in the Pacific, which is critical to the outcome.

                        The best scenario for Germany would have been to not attack Russia, not attempt Sealion, and sit tight in 1940/41 in Europe. .
                        Just as long as you remember that the UK/Commonwealth will not be sitting on their hands doing nothing at this time.

                        Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                        Use the troops earmarked for Sealion and later Barbarossa to support the Italians in Africa, and drive the Brits out of N Africa and the Gulf, but declare the Suez canal open to non-combatants..
                        Historically, the Germans and Italians were unable to effectively supply the DAK in North Africa, a far smaller force than you suggest. How do you intend to move and supply a force this size?

                        Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                        Use the air assets expended in the Battle of Britain against British naval forces in the Med. .
                        No Battle of Britain, so the RAF can make countermoves into the Med. Also, the Luftwaffe was not a force that proved particularly adept in the anti-shipping role. Without a decent aerial-launched torpedo, the Stuka will have to take up the slack. Remember that the Stuka was withdrawn from the Battle of Britain because they proved easy prey to Hurricanes and Spitfires. Moving them to the Med won't change that.

                        Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                        Avoid unrestricted Atlantic U boat warfare - don't antagonise the US. .
                        Historically the Germans started unrestricted submarine warfare for a reason. U-boats conducting resolve procedures to ascertain the identity of a ship were extremely vulnerable. This won't change here, you have given the RN/RCN the advantage at sea in the North Atlantic.

                        Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                        Put more U boats in the Med - .
                        Far easier said than done, the historical reasons the Germans sent token U-boat forces to the Med still apply. Running past Gibraltar submerged is very tricky, and just about suicidal on the surface unless it's at night, when it's merely dangerous.

                        Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                        between the air power, the subs and the Italian surface fleet, it would become an axis lake.
                        Despite the bravery of the average Italian sailor and the relative modernity of it's fleet, the Italian navy during WWII was far outclassed by the RN and Commonwealth navies in the Med. It was generally poorly led, suffered from logistic problems (notably fuel) and lacked decent radar and fire control systems. Further, the RN was led by Admiral Cunningham, arguably one of the best commanders of the war.

                        Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                        Tidy up the southern Balkan states, but stay out of Romania and Bulgaria so as not to upset the Russians.
                        The Balkans are a tough place to fight, good luck tidying it up, it didn't happen historically.

                        Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                        If the Japs could have been persuaded to stay at peace - maybe some deal for cheap oil (plenty available in the Gulf) and a free hand in China, and the US would have stayed isolationist. Sympathetic to Britain, sure, but not active.
                        The Japanese will still consider themselves in a tough spot by the fall of '41. Even if your concept of how to fight the war in the Med gets you to Suez, it's still a long way to the oil fields in the Persian Gulf. The war isn't over yet.

                        Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                        Russia didn't really want to fight Germany, and would not have attacked.
                        Forever?

                        Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                        What does Britain do?

                        Nothing she can do. Churchill would have fannied about with some commando raids and expeditionary forces to which he was so addicted, and the RN would have been steadily attrited in the med, it really wasn't equipped to fight a war against mostly air and submarines in relatively confined waters. (Look at Crete!)

                        By 1942/3, with no prospect of victory, Britain would have had to seek terms.

                        Germany wins.
                        The UK/Commonwealth is winning the war in the North Atlantic, therefore the submarines available for the Med is very small, and attritted by the run through the Straits of Gibraltar. The air war in the Med will be a closer thing. But the Germans are a long way from home here, supply lines are long, loses of pilots ditching in the Med are heavy.

                        Hitler's intention before the war was to leave the British with the Empire, he believed its' existance was necessary to maintain balance in the world geo-politic. Apparently his major demand would have been the return of German colonies in Africa seized after WW1.

                        Maybe if he'd given up that and had some sort of withdrawl or self-rule plan for France, the low-countries and Norway, he might be able to cut a deal.

                        Also, to the OP, please study the definitions of 'strategy' and 'tactics':
                        Strategy: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=strategy
                        Tactics: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=tactics
                        Last edited by Roadkiller; 31 Jan 09, 07:44.
                        Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The one way I could see Germany winning the war is if the Allies went to war with Russia. They considered it during the Finnish vs Russian war.
                          http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd.htm#help

                          If both Germany and Russia truly Allied. Those of us left would be speaking German. Thank God the Allies didn't do this.
                          Credo quia absurdum.


                          Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Germany could not win what it set out to do, the problem is not with the strategy or tactics (though they became a problem when combating the symptom) but the policy of the Nazi Regime. As long as that policy is in place Germany is going to at some point in the early to mid 40s confront the USSR.

                            If not once Stalin has his military ready he is going to confront Germany, either way the two powers will meet. The status quo won't work because as long as Britain is undefeated, Stalin will hold Hitler hostage and blackmail him for continued good Soviet behavior.

                            The example above introduces too much change to be feasible from the reality of the situation, in these what ifs there can only be so much deviation since there is so much interconnected with each major decision from the players in history.

                            If Germany pushes Barbarossa to 42 (and all of the HUGE implications of that) to finish strangle Britain by blockade and put a solid amount of effort in the Med/Africa (actually take Malta) and manage to rein in the Japanese for 10-12 months (Japan at some point wanted to control the Pacific, and that meant a fight with the US), if Britain came close to breaking the US was intervening (though maybe not declaring war per se). I would imagine a situation they would challenge the blockade with US convoys for "relief" and force Germany to declare war (through action or declaration) on the US to maintain the blockade.

                            Regardless the world instability would still push American engineering to at the very least continue research at a high rate (you all know what is coming) and the eventual entry into the war would mean that in 45/46 Berlin was getting "glassed".

                            The core problem wasn't strategy, it was policy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                              The best scenario for Germany would have been to not attack Russia, not attempt Sealion, and sit tight in 1940/41 in Europe. Use the troops earmarked for Sealion and later Barbarossa to support the Italians in Africa, and drive the Brits out of N Africa and the Gulf, but declare the Suez canal open to non-combatants.
                              Originally posted by Roadkiller View Post
                              Just as long as you remember that the UK/Commonwealth will not be sitting on their hands doing nothing at this time.
                              True, but what exactly could they have done? The traditional British strategy when faced with the threat of a potential continental hegemony would be to a) pick off the overseas possessions (none worth mentioning) b) blockade the coast (no longer feasible in the face of air power) and c)Bribe a continental ally to do most of the land fighting (none left except an unwilling and unfriendly Russia)

                              Originally posted by Roadkiller View Post
                              Historically, the Germans and Italians were unable to effectively supply the DAK in North Africa, a far smaller force than you suggest. How do you intend to move and supply a force this size?
                              It wouldn't need to be enormous - the scale of forces in NA was relatively small. A handful of extra divisions woukld have been enough. Probably capturing or neutralising Malta would have been necessary, partly to secure the Italy-Libya route from RN light forces and subs, and partly to force the British convoys to always take the long route via the Cape. While Sealion and Barbarossa were beyond German capabilities, if they had concentrated solely on the Med, I believe that they could have pulled this off.

                              Originally posted by Baldric View Post
                              Use the air assets expended in the Battle of Britain against British naval forces in the Med. Avoid unrestricted Atlantic U boat warfare - don't antagonise the US. Put more U boats in the Med - between the air power, the subs and the Italian surface fleet, it would become an axis lake.
                              Originally posted by Roadkiller View Post
                              No Battle of Britain, so the RAF can make countermoves into the Med. Also, the Luftwaffe was not a force that proved particularly adept in the anti-shipping role. Without a decent aerial-launched torpedo, the Stuka will have to take up the slack. Remember that the Stuka was withdrawn from the Battle of Britain because they proved easy prey to Hurricanes and Spitfires. Moving them to the Med won't change that.
                              Overall, the record of dive bombers vs capital ships during the course of WW2 came out emphatically on the side of the dive bombers. Yes, they would take casualties if caught by modern fighters, but they sank a whole lot of ships.

                              Britain would have had to keep a lot of fighter capacity at home. They wouldn't know that Sealion was off - in fact a bit of creative deception with barge assembly etc could keep the threat real. Also, remember that the RAF fought the battle of Britain with every tactical and logistical advantage - they fought within minutes of their bases, over a tiny area, behind a fixed radar set up. Whats more, they were only hours from the factories, spare parts suppliers etc etc. This does not transalate to the med where a lack of bases, replacements, radar, spares and a much larger geographical area would dilute effectiveness.


                              Originally posted by Roadkiller View Post
                              Historically the Germans started unrestricted submarine warfare for a reason. U-boats conducting resolve procedures to ascertain the identity of a ship were extremely vulnerable. This won't change here, you have given the RN/RCN the advantage at sea in the North Atlantic.
                              remember this scenario is aimed at putting Britain in a position where is comes to terms. It is not aimed at defeat. Don't fight the Atlantic Battle at all. Use those U boats in the med.

                              Running out of battery. I may return tomorrow!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X