Could the Axis have won World War 2 ?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-10-14 01:12pm

Was there any way the Axis could have won World War 2 ?

I think not. The Allies were technologicaly superior. They had Radar, Atomic bombs etc. Besides the USA and the USSR were with the Allies. These two countries were much stronger than both Italy and Japan.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-10-14 01:17pm

No. Germany set its sights too high and streched themselves too thin. They also, IMO, jumped the gun in starting the war. Can you imagine if Germany had waited five or six years before initiating combat. They could have started with a Luffewaffa (sp?) full of jet aircraft, basic cruise missiles, and radar themselves. That would have changed alot.

But in the long run, they bit off more than they could chew. Russia would have eventually crushed Germany by weight of numbers alone. If Germany would have focused on either Russia or Europe, it is conceivable that they could have won, but not both fronts at once.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-10-14 01:24pm

But that would have given Russia time to build up their own militaries.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-10-14 01:30pm

evilcat4000 wrote:But that would have given Russia time to build up their own militaries.

I did say that it is conceivable that Germany could win if they had only attacked either Europe or Russia. From what I have read, and I could be horribly wrong, if Hitles didn't set off WWII then Stalin probably would have a little later on.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-14 01:35pm

Knife wrote:No. Germany set its sights too high and streched themselves too thin. They also, IMO, jumped the gun in starting the war. Can you imagine if Germany had waited five or six years before initiating combat. They could have started with a Luffewaffa (sp?) full of jet aircraft, basic cruise missiles, and radar themselves. That would have changed alot.

Unfortunately for Germany, Uncle Joe is heading West in 1943/1944 and then Germany is fucked. Their economy also required the conquest of new lands to keep it afloat with Hitler's massive expenditures.

Japan has probably been invaded by 1944-45 in this timeline, and if the US declares war, well, her huge Two-Ocean Navy can be flooded into the Atlantic, and the Kriegsmarine stands zero chance of defeating it. The USAAF will shortly have some...interesting toys coming online.

Audrie_Dawn · Post by **Audrie_Dawn** » 2003-10-14 03:21pm

I think not. The Allies were technologicaly superior. They had Radar, Atomic bombs etc. Besides the USA and the USSR were with the Allies. These two countries were much stronger than both Italy and Japan.

However, the Germans had:

- Better early-war fighters (Fw-190, which was not produced in large numbers due to stupid industrial politics)
- Better late-war fighters (Me-262, which was used as a bomber at Hitler's personal insistence)
- Better infantry weapons (StG-44 assault rifles, which were badly delayed because they had to be developed behind Hitler's back)
- Better tanks (Panthers, which they didn't have enough of because Hitler made them waste resources on the Tiger and King Tiger uber-wankjob heavy tanks)
- Better submarines (Type 21, which is a paradigm leap ahead of any other WWII sub but was not put into mass production until it was too late)

Freed of Hitler's stupidity could concievably have won a limited victory -- had they not squandered their air force over Britain and attacked Russia, they could have held Europe and Africa and negotiated for peace from that position, creating a three-way Cold War between the U.S., Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-14 03:32pm

If Germany had concentrated on Europe instead of attacking Russia, they could have annexed the UK which would have made it next to impossible for the US to launch an offensive without their forward base.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-14 03:45pm

Audrie_Dawn wrote:
- Better early-war fighters (Fw-190, which was not produced in large numbers due to stupid industrial politics)

20,000 is not a significant number?

- Better late-war fighters (Me-262, which was used as a bomber at Hitler's personal insistence)

The Me-262 sucked, its engine life was nine hours, the guns jammed and it was incredible expensive. Plus and by the time any could be produced they also where being shot down as they landed and took off because the allies had the skies filled with long range fighters. All of them could have flown as fighters and the difference in the course of the war would be jack shit.

And guess what? The first jet fighter to enter service was BRITISH, and America had jet fighters flying operationally during the war as well. With far more resources they could also build far more of them if the need ever existed.

- Better infantry weapons (StG-44 assault rifles, which were badly delayed because they had to be developed behind Hitler's back)

Yeah, an impossible to control assault rifles really going to be decisive, except its not and copying it would take about five minutes.

- Better tanks (Panthers, which they didn't have enough of because Hitler made them waste resources on the Tiger and King Tiger uber-wankjob heavy tanks)

Too bad the Russians where mass-producing the Stalin's, which raped any German tank to see service with a fraction of the weight. And then we have the Black Prince, 90mm gunned Sherman and a couple other designs that could have been produced had the allies not determined that German uber tanks where too rare to matter.

- Better submarines (Type 21, which is a paradigm leap ahead of any other WWII sub but was not put into mass production until it was too late)

The myth returns. The British modified a couple "conventionally" designed submarines and got better performance then the mighty

type 21, they then used them to develop effective countermeasures, the alterations cost a mere 15,000 bucks per escort and took a few days to install.

Freed of Hitler's stupidity could concievably have won a limited victory -- had they not squandered their air force over Britain and attacked Russia, they could have held Europe and Africa and negotiated for peace from that position, creating a three-way Cold War between the U.S., Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Nope, you see Germany started the war with 14.4% of the worlds Total Warmaking Potential, Italy 2.5% but all of it was poorly mobilized and under utilized because of resource shortages. They captured a few percent more, but couldn't utilize it very well. Russia, America and the UK meanwhile had 66% of the worlds Warmaking Potential, and had access to the necessary resources to fully utilize it. They also had excellent mobilization and a good chunk of what remained other thing Japan's little 3.5% chunk was in the hands of other allies or nations at least willing to sell.

German technology was nowhere near sufficient to reverse this disparity in resources. They would be defeated.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-10-14 05:03pm

The Axis can't win, Japan is screwed from the start of the war with America, and Germany is Screwed from the start of the war with Russia. Both of those situations are un-avoidable unless you re-work both nations national foreign policies, and then the borders/governments of the nations. BUt then you'd only have a hypothetical war with hypothetical nations, not world-war II.

Audrie_Dawn · Post by **Audrie_Dawn** » 2003-10-14 05:39pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Audrie_Dawn wrote:
- Better early-war fighters (Fw-190, which was not produced in large numbers due to stupid industrial politics)
20,000 is not a significant number?

They did produce the Fw-190, but the Bf-109 was their primary front-line fighter (especially during the Battle of Britain period) despite being vastly inferior and not significantly cheaper.

- Better late-war fighters (Me-262, which was used as a bomber at Hitler's personal insistence)
The Me-262 sucked, its engine life was nine hours, the guns jammed and it was incredible expensive. Plus and by the time any could be produced they also where being shot down as they landed and took off because the allies had the skies filled with long range fighters. All of them could have flown as fighters and the difference in the course of the war would be jack shit.

The engines and guns sucked because the factories were being bombed to hell and they had to rush-job with crappy materials, which doesn't apply to a smart-Germany scenario because they wouldn't have wasted the Luftwaffe over Britain and hence could put up an infinitely nastier fighter defense (in the best case, they could concievably score a reverse Battle of Britain). The Me-262 design was quite good and (amusingly enough) had almost exactly the same performance statistics as the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star.

And guess what? The first jet fighter to enter service was BRITISH, and America had jet fighters flying operationally during the war as well. With far more resources they could also build far more of them if the need ever existed.

The Meteor is no match for the Me-262, which is more heavily armed and has better performance, and the Bell P-59 Airacomet was universally agreed to be a joke (there's a reason they only ever built 66 of them before dumping the type completely and developing the P80). The P-80 is the only fighter that can take on a -262 in an even fight.

- Better infantry weapons (StG-44 assault rifles, which were badly delayed because they had to be developed behind Hitler's back)
Yeah, an impossible to control assault rifles really going to be decisive, except its not and copying it would take about five minutes.

Yes, the StG-44 was so impossible to control that every German soldier wanted one and the Russians based the AK-47 on it. FYI, the StG-44 isn't a battle-rifle gone auto like the M-14 or G3, it's a true assault rifle firing a reduced-power round precisely so that it IS controllable in full auto.

- Better tanks (Panthers, which they didn't have enough of because Hitler made them waste resources on the Tiger and King Tiger uber-wankjob heavy tanks)

Too bad the Russians where mass-producing the Stalin's, which raped any German tank to see service with a fraction of the weight. And then we have the Black Prince, 90mm gunned Sherman and a couple other designs that could have been produced had the allies not determined that German uber tanks where too rare to matter.

Not until towards the END of the war, wheras the Germans had the Panthers by the MIDDLE of the war. Tanks that can rape the enemy are no good to you if they're still in the middle of being designed!

- Better submarines (Type 21, which is a paradigm leap ahead of any other WWII sub but was not put into mass production until it was too late)
The myth returns. The British modified a couple "conventionally" designed submarines and got better performance then the mighty type 21, they then used them to develop effective countermeasures, the alterations cost a mere 15,000 bucks per escort and took a few days to install.

Proof? The Type-21 is considered one of the four truly revolutionary sub designs (the Holland for being the first sub, the Type-21 for being the first sub designed for underwater rather than surface operations, the Nautilus for nuclear power and the Albacore for the advanced hull design), and I seriously doubt that any minor retrofit can give you the equivalent of hydrodynamic streamlining, a torpedo autoloader system, radar-absorbent hull, a snorkel, and most importantly an overall design that was intended from the start to operate as an underwater submarine rather than a submergable torpedo boat.

Freed of Hitler's stupidity could concievably have won a limited victory -- had they not squandered their air force over Britain and attacked Russia, they could have held Europe and Africa and negotiated for peace from that position, creating a three-way Cold War between the U.S., Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Nope, you see Germany started the war with 14.4% of the worlds Total Warmaking Potential, Italy 2.5% but all of it was poorly mobilized and under utilized because of resource shortages. They captured a few percent more, but couldn't utilize it very well. Russia, America and the UK meanwhile had 66% of the worlds Warmaking Potential, and had access to the necessary resources to fully utilize it. They also had excellent mobilization and a good chunk of what remained other thing Japan's little 3.5% chunk was in the hands of other allies or nations at least willing to sell.

Except that Russia and Germany have a non-interference treaty and the U.S.A. is very, very far away. It's Germany against the U.K., for the most part, and reversing Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain alone make the U.K.'s position VERY bad.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-14 06:03pm

Audrie_Dawn wrote:
They did produce the Fw-190,

Way to back track

but the Bf-109 was their primary front-line fighter (especially during the Battle of Britain period) despite being vastly inferior and not significantly cheaper.

The Fu-190 didn't enter service until 1941; of course the Me109 was there main fighter in the battle of Britain.
And retooling the production base, Germany was very backward when it came to this and even the simple basics of mass production, would have cost them a vast amount of time in which the factories are producing nothing. The Me109 was one of countless less then optimum weapons which remained in production because numbers beat quality.

The engines and guns sucked because the factories were being bombed to hell and they had to rush-job with crappy materials, which doesn't apply to a smart-Germany scenario because they wouldn't have wasted the Luftwaffe over Britain and hence could put up an infinitely nastier fighter defense (in the best case, they could concievably score a reverse Battle of Britain).

Luftwaffe made good its losses over Britain and in fact reached its peak strength much later in the war you know, what they got was the best it was going to be. Night fighters are more expensive then single seat day fighters. As it was German night defenses had upwards of a thousand fighters in service at any one time, and could call on something like fifteen thousand heavy anti aircraft guns which fired off incredible amounts of ammunition, all manned by over one point five million men, plus another few million kept busy fixing damage.

There's not much that can be done to improve on that. The resource drain was already enormous and the nature of night attacks had a pesky aspect that an attack could never be turned back.

The Me-262 design was quite good and (amusingly enough) had almost exactly the same performance statistics as the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star.

Actually it was slightly better. But considering that the P-80 was deployed to Italy in 1944, its not exactly surprising that two planes of the same vintage would be roughly comparable now is it?

The Meteor is no match for the Me-262, which is more heavily armed and has better performance, and the Bell P-59 Airacomet was universally agreed to be a joke (there's a reason they only ever built 66 of them before dumping the type completely and developing the P80). The P-80 is the only fighter that can take on a -262 in an even fight.

Good thing it was ready for combat at the same time the Me262 was, major production then being delayed for the lack of a threat.

Yes, the StG-44 was so impossible to control that every German soldier wanted one and the Russians based the AK-47 on it.

So you're admitting its nothing more then a glorified overpowered submachine gun in action? Thanks for proving my point.

FYI, the StG-44 isn't a battle-rifle gone auto like the M-14 or G3, it's a true assault rifle firing a reduced-power round precisely so that it IS controllable in full auto.

No one has ever built a rifle over 7mm that can be controlled with fully automatic fire.

Not until towards the END of the war, wheras the Germans had the Panthers by the MIDDLE of the war. Tanks that can rape the enemy are no good to you if they're still in the middle of being designed!

The first Stalin's entered service in late 1943, though the potent KV-85 could have seen mass production well before then had more German heavy armor showed up, the first Panthers showed up in action in mid 1943 but remained unreliable junk until early 1944

Proof? The Type-21 is considered one of the four truly revolutionary sub designs (the Holland for being the first sub, the Type-21 for being the first sub designed for underwater rather than surface operations, the Nautilus for nuclear power and the Albacore for the advanced hull design), and I seriously doubt that any minor retrofit can give you the equivalent of hydrodynamic streamlining,

Actually it's really just a matter of welding on a few dozen tons of extra speed.

a torpedo autoloader system,

Which worked poorly at best.

radar-absorbent hull,

German RAM had a lifespan mesaured in days and worked poorly in the first place

a snorkel

And advanced feature found on Dutch boats dating back a decade plus, a captured boat is how the germans found out about it. Fitting one to any sub was easily, the US and UK converted dozens of subs.

and most importantly an overall design that was intended from the start to operate as an underwater submarine rather than a submergable torpedo boat.

Except that Russia and Germany have a non-interference treaty and the U.S.A. is very, very far away.

We all know how much the Russians value paper. In fact Stalin was planning an attack on Germany when the historic invasion came, and he was getting rather annoyed at the Germans anyway because they owed the Union a vast amount, which they simply could not pay, for raw materials.

America is ten days away for the average freighter and German never once reached its goal for the amount of shipping needed merely to defeat UK construction efforts. And you seem deluded into the fact that the US will stay out, it simply will not happen. Two US destroyers had already been torpedoed, and once the US is at war with Japan, another such attack will bring war with America one way or another.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-10-14 08:03pm

The Kernel wrote:If Germany had concentrated on Europe instead of attacking Russia, they could have annexed the UK which would have made it next to impossible for the US to launch an offensive without their forward base.

Doubtful. The Navy and Stukas would need far more researcjh, something would have to give. perhaps the panzers or so,mething the nuclear program wasn't expendable as it hadn't started it really until 1939 when Dr. Heisenberg took charge. If we ignore Hitler's love of Britain his industrial capaity was rather low though a contender to the Dying Empire in 1936. He would have also needed trnsports and done the right thing trying to kill the BEF and the RAF. What I'd suggest is a quick lading to hit the UK and roll out before attacking France. Though, about the US they could have easily landed. The logistics would be possible and the uS Navy could probably not be chanlleged. Also, if Ireland remained to would have been absorded before the hitting the mainland of Englund. Then the transportation of bombers well no more German infastructure everywhere. But what I'd suggest to the Germans is an alliance west with the UK and France and let Poland and Romania be a speed bump.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-14 08:12pm

The Kernel wrote:If Germany had concentrated on Europe instead of attacking Russia, they could have annexed the UK which would have made it next to impossible for the US to launch an offensive without their forward base.

Germany does not have the resources to defeat both the RAF and the RN - two prerequisites for an invasion of the United Kingdom. They don't have the sealift capability to establish a beachhead either: the river barges they planned to use had remarkably poor seakeeping abilities.

Even if Germany somehow manages to take the UK, the USN can stage a transatlantic invasion at some point with crushing local air superiority thanks to the massive carrier fleet that was built up. Torch, for example, was staged from the US - and that in 1942. This projected transatlantic invasion would take place much later, with all the Pacific amphibious knowledge available and a much larger fleet to do it with.

Finally, the USAAF will soon acquire a bomber that the Luftwaffe has no chance of intercepting.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-14 08:16pm

Way to bitchslap Audrie around. Stupid bimbo doesn't realize we do have
inertial compensators in the M-16 system already. It's in the butt-stock
as a springloaded tube to absorb recoil from the bolt.

I feel evil. Tell her about the almighty IS-3

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-10-14 08:34pm

phongn wrote:
Even if Germany somehow manages to take the UK,

Also, you have to take into account the pillboxes and crap we had littered throughout the countryside to make them fight tooth and nail for every inch. There was also alot of guerilla warfare stuff being taught to civilians, much as is being employed in Iraq right now.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-10-14 08:55pm

Rye wrote:
phongn wrote:
Even if Germany somehow manages to take the UK,
Also, you have to take into account the pillboxes and crap we had littered throughout the countryside to make them fight tooth and nail for every inch. There was also alot of guerilla warfare stuff being taught to civilians, much as is being employed in Iraq right now.

Yes, but the German Plan G.B. by Koch and Heinrich would deal with this. After the fight the people would be friendly subdued and the fighters woould have been hunted and lacked the supplies for a long term fight unlike the FFA which was supplied by the UK and Britain's special forces.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-14 09:02pm

phongn wrote:
Finally, the USAAF will soon acquire a bomber that the Luftwaffe has no chance of intercepting.

One armed with mass produced nuclear weaponry.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-10-14 09:35pm

What would have happened if Japan went into East Russia?

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-10-14 09:41pm

Gandalf wrote:What would have happened if Japan went into East Russia?

Soviets blow the rail line somewhere near Vladiastock if things go bad, the concession is worthless. Meanwhile, Siberian divisions come south to hand out a winter whopping. We all saw what happened when the Japenese Kwatung Army fought Zhukov. Not pretty at all. The Japenese may get far for nothing at all and if things are bad West just blow all bridges and depots and the Japs have fun in the Winter Wilderness while you bomb them to shit.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-14 09:44pm

What if Italy had no joined forces with Germany, but had gone off on it's own plans of conquest, staying away from the Axis alliance?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-10-14 09:52pm

HemlockGrey wrote:What if Italy had no joined forces with Germany, but had gone off on it's own plans of conquest, staying away from the Axis alliance?

Under normal circumstances, they might be able to take advantage of the chaos and come out better. This is, however, the Italian Army we're talking about.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-10-14 09:56pm

HemlockGrey wrote:What if Italy had no joined forces with Germany, but had gone off on it's own plans of conquest, staying away from the Axis alliance?

It may have helped Hitler in the long run east. No need for an Arifka Korps (it was intended for the defense of Libya) Also, Hitler has a nice, weak target down south ripe for conquest. Then onto the east all ready in early May. It was Hitler's intention to destroy Italy but he let them join the Axis alliance.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-14 09:57pm

Let's see. We're throwing the Axis against the three nations that are nearly impossible to invade.

First, America. To invade, you must head across the Atlantic or Pacific without being detected and destroyed by one of the most powerful navies of all time. Then you must fight through truly massive amounts of terrain as they blast the shit out of you. If it's post 1945, you will also be being hit with nuclear weaponry.

Second, Britain. Owner of the most powerful surface fleet at the time, and a potent airforce(Albeit they were better for defense than offense, especially given how they ran out of explosives for their bombers), not to mention an island that's defensible as hell. Even if Sealion had actual landing craft, you're looking at beaches which are easily defensible, terrain that was in the process of being dug in well in advance, and of course, all that pesky mustard gas ready to be deployed on shore.

Finally, Russian. Look, kids. There's a reason so many empires fail when attacking Russia in a conventional war. Just don't fucking do it, is it that hard a lesson?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-14 10:00pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:One armed with mass produced nuclear weaponry.

Four devices for normal operating range, but if we based them in the UK we probably could cram even more on it.

Balrog · Post by **Balrog** » 2003-10-14 10:06pm

I've heard of theories where if Churchill hadn't been made Prime Minister and the BEF was completely destroyed in Dunkirk, Britian might have surrendered. While I look for where I've heard of this, any truth to it?