An exercise in Alternate History IV

[RedImperator]

Better yet, go to war with Russia first, hit them hard with the full might of the Nazi's warmachine, complete with uninjured air force, strike hard for Moscow, you might have a winner... I seriously doubt that the Soviets could have stood up against Germany with an intact Luftwaffe, no American support and proper tactics (getting the rail\industry center at Moscow, then strangling the rest of the nation)

And you intend to do that from Moscow how exactly? It has no key industries, its rail links serve areas you've already captured and its hundreds of miles from anything of real value, a thousand from the vital areas.

Conquering Russia in the 1940's is not logistically feasible. And what is feasible won't give you a knock out blow.

According to Heinz Guderian, Moscow was an importent communications hub, rail center, political center, and an important industrial area (page 159, Panzer Leader, by Heinz Guderian Chief of German Army General Staff)

At the outset of the German onslught the Russian army collapsed, if the turmoil had been fully exploited Russia wouldn't have survived until 1942. If Hitler had turned the German army first towards the East in 1939 I see little reason why the Soviets wouldn't have been completely crushed. Of course Hitler's stupidity might have made all the difference, but for this arguement arn't we assuming Hitler got a clue at some point and conducted the war properly? Unfathomable, totally preventable blunders like Stalingrad and the onset of harsh Russian winters are what defeated Germany. Take those blunders out of the equation, the commies are cooked.

Did you even bother to read what everyone else posted? Germany doesn't have the resources in 1939 to go to war with Russia, and to go to war with Russia it would have to first invade and conquer Eastern Europe, forcing a war with Britain and France and putting itself in a worse strategic position than it was in IRL. The Russians lost Kiev, Minsk, and had effectively lost Leningrad and showed no sign of giving up in real life--what makes you think taking Moscow would be some horrible death blow? Even if by some magic England and France don't declare war, all you've managed to do is place the Germans a few miles further east than they had gotten before, while Uncle Joe is safe in the Urals with all the factories the Russians transplanted from the west, at the cost of having an intact France in the west with a better idea of how effective blitzkreig tactics actually are and a starving homeland because you don't have the resources of western europe to draw from.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

In 1939, Germany had barely any medium tanks. And France and Britian were now at war with them.

[Falcon]

And you intend to do that from Moscow how exactly? It has no key industries, its rail links serve areas you've already captured and its hundreds of miles from anything of real value, a thousand from the vital areas

Conquering Russia in the 1940's is not logistically feasible. And what is feasible won't give you a knock out blow.

Yes it IS feasible when you are not fighting a war on another front, you have an unscathed massive, mechanized army, and airforce at you're disposal, and you are facing a disorganized, poorly trained and equipped enemy. And besides, you capture Mosow, and they will surrenders the rest with its capital city and government center occupied. Thats the way war goes.

The only thing Germany has to worry about is making sure its forces are prepared for the winter fighting which is not a problem.

The Germans WEREN'T fighting on another front and they DID have an unscathed, massive, machanized army at their disposal in real life.
Other than North Africa, the Germans weren't fighting anywhere but in Russia before 1944, and even after D-Day, 85% of the German army was on the Eastern Front.

Actually the real number is about 60%, 70% at the most.

The Luftwaffe will be in better shape, granted, but the Luftwaffe won't make enough of a difference.

Having control of the air was actually very important. A feat which Germany achieved early on in the war anyways. However, many bombers were lost in the BoB and many resources were expended (fuel, bombs, plane wear, etc..) not to mention that the air crews themselves were in need of rest and resupply (planes and men). Germany's lack of air power would be one of its death knells, and not having to have weakened itself against Britian would have been a significiant boon in the amount of firepower that could have been brought to bear against Russia.

So your plan basically puts the Germans in the same position they were in in real history, without having any veterans from the western campaign and without the resorces and labor pool of Western Europe.

How many fighters and bombers did the 'resources of the east' build to replace the 1\4 - 1\3 of the Luftwaffe that was destroyed over Britian? The Germans were so well trained and well equipped that 'veterans' from the mauling of France wouldn't have made much difference against Russia.

Worse, the French army is intact, so in all likelihood you'd probably need more and better troops to defend your western frontier than it took to occupy France and the Low Countries. All this is moot because to invade Russia, you still have to fight your way through Eastern Europe, and England and France will not just sit on their hands and let you establish an empire in the east.

France had no love for the Russians and the reluctance of the west to start a pre-emptive war with Germany or even enforce their treaties (which were blatently violated) makes one wonder just why France would want to invade Germany...

pull back to the Urals and wait for winter to do its job.

Thats where the vastly more powerful Luftwaffe comes into play, bombing and strafing retreating Russians and their eastern bases. Not to mention Germany gets the Southern parts of Russia (oil, food) .

Surviving the winter will not just be a matter of getting better winter gear (and despite how you dismiss that as a trivially easy matter, the Germans weren't much warmer and happier in the winter of 42-43 than they were in 31-42). The Russians have EXPERIENCE fighting in the winter, the soldiers are used to living and working in it in peacetime, and their equipment doesn't fail in the cold the way the Germans' did.

Problem: Germans never got their winter gear, even when they had it much of it sat hundreds of miles away in warehouses or on rail stations. We're assuming that this war is run properly, maxmium advantage during warm weather, proper planning (for things like the winter), and the dropping of stupid tactics (letting whole armies die for no reason).

WWII was unwinnable for Germany. Russia was too big, too populous, and had too many resources for Germany to conquer unasisted. The western powers weren't about to help Germany, and the Japanese were bogged down in China and couldn't spare the men to invade Siberia. Even without western assistance, Russia wins this war, no matter how you fiddle-fuck with the timeline.

You've got to be kidding me, Russia would have been owned. Big time.

[Sea Skimmer]

Having control of the air was actually very important. A feat which Germany achieved early on in the war anyways. However, many bombers were lost in the BoB and many resources were expended (fuel, bombs, plane wear, etc..) not to mention that the air crews themselves were in need of rest and resupply (planes and men). Germany's lack of air power would be one of its death knells, and not having to have weakened itself against Britian would have been a significiant boon in the amount of firepower that could have been brought to bear against Russia..

The Germans had several months in which the majority of their bomber and fighter forces did nothing but replenish and rest. It didn't help. By the time German invaded Russia its aircraft numbers where back up the 1940 levels and its strength actually expanded through 1943. Didn't matter, Russia still out built them by massive margins and its planes where equal or better in quality.

How many fighters and bombers did the 'resources of the east' build to replace the 1\4 - 1\3 of the Luftwaffe that was destroyed over Britian? The Germans were so well trained and well equipped that 'veterans' from the mauling of France wouldn't have made much difference against Russia.

Germans have more then an air force you know, there's that whole army aspect. They got tens of thousands of tanks, trucks and artillery pieces from France and French factories alone. Much of those resources went east. They also got a fair amount of food production, a huge boost in iron ore and coal they can't do without and millions of laborers.

France had no love for the Russians and the reluctance of the west to start a pre-emptive war with Germany or even enforce their treaties (which were blatently violated) makes one wonder just why France would want to invade Germany...

They do however give a damn about Poland, which is a requirement for an invasion of Russia by Germany.

Thats where the vastly more powerful Luftwaffe comes into play, bombing and strafing retreating Russians and their eastern bases. Not to mention Germany gets the Southern parts of Russia (oil, food) .

So Germany now has thousands of B-29's and B-36's by the winter of 1941? Its over 800 miles from Moscow to the Urals, several thousand to the central Asian production areas and Siberia. Nothing short of those two planes is going to do it.

Every heavy bomber that gets built is several tactical aircraft that don't.

Problem: Germans never got their winter gear, even when they had it much of it sat hundreds of miles away in warehouses or on rail stations. We're assuming that this war is run properly, maxmium advantage during warm weather, proper planning (for things like the winter), and the dropping of stupid tactics (letting whole armies die for no reason).

It took the Germans two Russian winters to get things working moderately well in such conditions. Its far more then cloths. They need totally different tanks, trucks, wider wheels on artillery. A whole new army.

Going to pull that out of your ass as well?

[Icehawk]

All right. I concede on the sole base that I ignorantly neglected the fact that Germany would have to go through Poland first which would touch off war with the allies.

However, I am still convinced that Germany could have won the war if they had left the Soviets alone completely and focused on securing Europe along with earlier development of tech that was completely neglected at first and had better management of their Luftwaffe and had focussed on developing and perfecting there long range bomber programs as well as producing a much stronger more advanced Uboat arm rather than building actual battleships.

By the time the Russians were supposedly going to attack in late 42, or 43 (which I still don't think would have happened at all but am letting go for this debate). Britain would have been taken care of thanks in large part to better use of the Italian and German Navies, and the Russians would have to deal with a newly fortified Europe and expierienced German forces, as well as a Luftwaffe with loads of new Jet fighters and heavy bombers.

[Sea Skimmer]

Absolutely everything is against the KM and RM fleets in combating the Royal Navy. And not building battleships frees up more British resources then German. A one dimensional sub surface campaign against British Commerce has little chance of succeeding. Hell even when the RN paraded convoy after convoy past the North cape the Germans managed to inflict heavy losses on just one of them. And for that they had three heavy cruisers, a battleship, a battlecruiser, a dozen destroyers along with about 20 U-boats and 150 bombers.

Defeating the UK via commence attacks is an unlikely event. And a renewed campaign of air attacks doesn't have a chance in hell.

[Falcon]

And you intend to do that from Moscow how exactly? It has no key industries, its rail links serve areas you've already captured and its hundreds of miles from anything of real value, a thousand from the vital areas.

Conquering Russia in the 1940's is not logistically feasible. And what is feasible won't give you a knock out blow.

According to Heinz Guderian, Moscow was an importent communications hub, rail center, political center, and an important industrial area (page 159, Panzer Leader, by Heinz Guderian Chief of German Army General Staff)

At the outset of the German onslught the Russian army collapsed, if the turmoil had been fully exploited Russia wouldn't have survived until 1942. If Hitler had turned the German army first towards the East in 1939 I see little reason why the Soviets wouldn't have been completely crushed. Of course Hitler's stupidity might have made all the difference, but for this arguement arn't we assuming Hitler got a clue at some point and conducted the war properly? Unfathomable, totally preventable blunders like Stalingrad and the onset of harsh Russian winters are what defeated Germany. Take those blunders out of the equation, the commies are cooked.

Did you even bother to read what everyone else posted? Germany doesn't have the resources in 1939 to go to war with Russia, and to go to war with Russia it would have to first invade and conquer Eastern Europe, forcing a war with Britain and France and putting itself in a worse strategic position than it was in IRL.

If they had left Poland alone they could have still went through Romania. An alliance might have been made with Romania without actually warring with them for it. That would have made Britain the aggressor in any war it might launch. This might have stopped lend-lease from happening, in which case Russia would have been hurting even more. The Americans gave Russia thousands upon thousands of jeeps and troop transports. We upgraded their factories (including an entire aluminum plant), and donated millions of tons of raw materials (enough for two years of production). Even at the end of the war 15% of all Russian mobility was lend-lease based.

Even if the conquest of France was necessary, the Battle of Britian was not. Though I've never seen any statistics on the great contribution of the French to the war effort, I'd be interested to see your claim.

The Russians lost Kiev, Minsk, and had effectively lost Leningrad and showed no sign of giving up in real life--what makes you think taking Moscow would be some horrible death blow?

It wouldn't be a horrible death blow, but it would have been a great step forwards.

Even if by some magic England and France don't declare war, all you've managed to do is place the Germans a few miles further east than they had gotten before, while Uncle Joe is safe in the Urals with all the factories the Russians transplanted from the west, at the cost of having an intact France in the west with a better idea of how effective blitzkreig tactics actually are and a starving homeland because you don't have the resources of western europe to draw from.

That would have been great, then Germany would have been able to capture the vital oil fields, then follow Russia on into the Urals. Russia already knew about Blitz taticts in real life, they got smashed by them anyways. Russia lost millions of people in WW2, this is not the sign of a formidable force. They were formidable at burning everything as they fled, scruffing through winters and dying, thats about all. With proper preperations and tactics its still a German victory, Urals or no.

I'm not buying the 'resources of western Europe' part either until I see some production statistics...

[Icehawk]

Absolutely everything is against the KM and RM fleets in combating the Royal Navy. And not building battleships frees up more British resources then German. A one dimensional sub surface campaign against British Commerce has little chance of succeeding. Hell even when the RN paraded convoy after convoy past the North cape the Germans managed to inflict heavy losses on just one of them. And for that they had three heavy cruisers, a battleship, a battlecruiser, a dozen destroyers along with about 20 U-boats and 150 bombers.

Defeating the UK via commence attacks is an unlikely event. And a renewed campaign of air attacks doesn't have a chance in hell.

Which is why I said there would be better use of both navies than what was done in real history. It would also not be "one dimensional" as there would be heavily concentrated airstrikes fully coordinated with strikes by the new Uboat arm by advanced bombers better suited to the maritime attack role than what was originally used.

Im sorry but the British Navy is not invincible and could be dealt with given the proper tactics and equipment which is what I am giving them in this debate.

[Falcon]

Having control of the air was actually very important. A feat which Germany achieved early on in the war anyways. However, many bombers were lost in the BoB and many resources were expended (fuel, bombs, plane wear, etc..) not to mention that the air crews themselves were in need of rest and resupply (planes and men). Germany's lack of air power would be one of its death knells, and not having to have weakened itself against Britian would have been a significiant boon in the amount of firepower that could have been brought to bear against Russia..

The Germans had several months in which the majority of their bomber and fighter forces did nothing but replenish and rest. It didn't help. By the time German invaded Russia its aircraft numbers where back up the 1940 levels and its strength actually expanded through 1943. Didn't matter, Russia still out built them by massive margins and its planes where equal or better in quality.

Balony, Germany might have brought itself back up to 1940 levels, but without the BoB it would have been 1940 levels plus another few thousand. As for the Russian air force, its was pathetic in the beginning, which is what matters here, most of its planes were antiquated, over 8,000 of all classes were destroyed by Dec 11, 1941.

How many fighters and bombers did the 'resources of the east' build to replace the 1\4 - 1\3 of the Luftwaffe that was destroyed over Britian? The Germans were so well trained and well equipped that 'veterans' from the mauling of France wouldn't have made much difference against Russia.

Germans have more then an air force you know, there's that whole army aspect. They got tens of thousands of tanks, trucks and artillery pieces from France and French factories alone. Much of those resources went east. They also got a fair amount of food production, a huge boost in iron ore and coal they can't do without and millions of laborers.

Dive bombers and air power was a vital part of Blitz tactics. As for the resources they got from France I am unsure of the exact numbers, I'll have to consult my research tomorrow unless you care to provide some actual numbers here. Needless to say, brash claims of Germany running out of food and supplies without France is dubious at best.

France had no love for the Russians and the reluctance of the west to start a pre-emptive war with Germany or even enforce their treaties (which were blatently violated) makes one wonder just why France would want to invade Germany...

They do however give a damn about Poland, which is a requirement for an invasion of Russia by Germany.

I think they could have went around them, but its possible that there was other treaties to be considered. I won't squibble over that, even if the conquest of Poland and France was necessary, forgoing an attack on Britain and using better tactics against Russia would have still equaled victory.

Thats where the vastly more powerful Luftwaffe comes into play, bombing and strafing retreating Russians and their eastern bases. Not to mention Germany gets the Southern parts of Russia (oil, food) .

So Germany now has thousands of B-29's and B-36's by the winter of 1941? Its over 800 miles from Moscow to the Urals, several thousand to the central Asian production areas and Siberia. Nothing short of those two planes is going to do it.

No silly, with moscow gone, skipping pointless wastes at Stalingrad and gaining the oil centers to the south, then Germany could have continued its push east.

Every heavy bomber that gets built is several tactical aircraft that don't.

BoB again

Problem: Germans never got their winter gear, even when they had it much of it sat hundreds of miles away in warehouses or on rail stations. We're assuming that this war is run properly, maxmium advantage during warm weather, proper planning (for things like the winter), and the dropping of stupid tactics (letting whole armies die for no reason).

It took the Germans two Russian winters to get things working moderately well in such conditions. Its far more then cloths. They need totally different tanks, trucks, wider wheels on artillery. A whole new army.

Going to pull that out of your ass as well?

You'd have that ready before you attack, remember, the context of this discussion is that Germany does it properly, not going in half ready, losing huge armies, etc...

[Sea Skimmer]

That would have been great, then Germany would have been able to capture the vital oil fields, then follow Russia on into the Urals. Russia already knew about Blitz taticts in real life, they got smashed by them anyways. Russia lost millions of people in WW2, this is not the sign of a formidable force. They were formidable at burning everything as they fled, scruffing through winters and dying, thats about all. With proper preperations and tactics its still a German victory, Urals or no.

I'm not buying the 'resources of western Europe' part either until I see some production statistics...

Please provide statistics of German production that will allow for the overwhelming of Russia, the ability of the German army to traverse another 800 miles form the Ural to Moscow, the ability of Germany to support an invasion of Russia without railway lines running through Poland, the ability of Germany to bridge the river Volga under fire, the ability of Germany to defeat a million Siberian troops who historically kicked the Germans asses.

You're the one making the claims. You back them up.

[RedImperator]

Yes it IS feasible when you are not fighting a war on another front, you have an unscathed massive, mechanized army, and airforce at you're disposal, and you are facing a disorganized, poorly trained and equipped enemy. And besides, you capture Mosow, and they will surrenders the rest with its capital city and government center occupied. Thats the way war goes.

The only thing Germany has to worry about is making sure its forces are prepared for the winter fighting which is not a problem.

The Germans WEREN'T fighting on another front and they DID have an unscathed, massive, machanized army at their disposal in real life.
Other than North Africa, the Germans weren't fighting anywhere but in Russia before 1944, and even after D-Day, 85% of the German army was on the Eastern Front.

Actually the real number is about 60%, 70% at the most.

If you mean 60-70% after D-Day, I'll concede this because I don't have references on hand. I think it's bullshit, but it doesn't matter anyway. If you mean in 1941, are you seriously suggesting that 40% of the German army was in North Africa? This is news to me, and it sure as fuck would have surprised Rommel, too. In 1941, for all intents and purposes the entire German army was sent into Russia.

The Luftwaffe will be in better shape, granted, but the Luftwaffe won't make enough of a difference.

Having control of the air was actually very important. A feat which Germany achieved early on in the war anyways. However, many bombers were lost in the BoB and many resources were expended (fuel, bombs, plane wear, etc..) not to mention that the air crews themselves were in need of rest and resupply (planes and men). Germany's lack of air power would be one of its death knells, and not having to have weakened itself against Britian would have been a significiant boon in the amount of firepower that could have been brought to bear against Russia.

Planes cannot take and hold territory, and the Germans had no heavy bombers. The Germans had control of the air in 1941 and--oh, look, they didn't win the war. Having the Luftwaffe intact helps, but it doesn't correct the overall German deficency in manpower on the ground or the huge territory that has to be taken and controlled.

So your plan basically puts the Germans in the same position they were in in real history, without having any veterans from the western campaign and without the resorces and labor pool of Western Europe.

How many fighters and bombers did the 'resources of the east' build to replace the 1\4 - 1\3 of the Luftwaffe that was destroyed over Britian? The Germans were so well trained and well equipped that 'veterans' from the mauling of France wouldn't have made much difference against Russia.

You've got this Luftwaffe hangup that's blinding you to the reality of the situation. France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Chzechoslovaka, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria all supplied men, food, oil, uniforms, tanks, planes, trucks, spare parts, and every other vital necessity for a war with Russia. In 1939, you've got Chzechoslovakia. The number of planes they produced in real life is irrevelant. Without the rest of Europe, Germany starves.

As for your assertion that having well trained rookies compensates for a complete lack of battle veterans and a complete lack of officers familiar with blitzkrieg tactics, I'll leave that for the SD.net military contingent to deal with.

Worse, the French army is intact, so in all likelihood you'd probably need more and better troops to defend your western frontier than it took to occupy France and the Low Countries. All this is moot because to invade Russia, you still have to fight your way through Eastern Europe, and England and France will not just sit on their hands and let you establish an empire in the east.

France had no love for the Russians and the reluctance of the west to start a pre-emptive war with Germany or even enforce their treaties (which were blatently violated) makes one wonder just why France would want to invade Germany...

Maybe I need to start using smaller words. FRANCE AND ENGLAND WILL NOT SIT BACK AND ALLOW GERMANY TO GAIN A HEGEMONY IN EASTERN EUROPE. That's national suicide, and even the most dovish British or French politician would recognize that. France and England rolled over at Munich because both countries believe Hitler was more powerful than he actually was. Chamberlain especially thought England was woefully unprepared for a war against Germany in 1937. In 1939, the material situation of both countries had improved to the point that they felt they could go to war with Germany. Do you honestly believe that Paris and London will just sit and let Germany build an invincible empire when they've got a chance to strike her while all her attention is turned towards Stalin? You're grossly underestimating the intelligence of the leaders of those countries, which until now I didn't think was possible.

Germany will either have to A) Commit 95% of its forces to the war in the East, leaving it vulnerable to attack at any time from the west, or B) Guard the border and leave the army spread even more thinly on the ground in Russia. And you totally disregarded what I and several others said about having to invade Poland to get to Russia--WHICH DREW FRANCE AND ENGLAND INTO THE WAR IN REAL LIFE!!! And even if, by magic, you could invade Russia without crossing Poland, do you suppose France is going to just watch while Germany's border is undefended? You can defend the border, which means you get pounded even harder in Russia come winter, and lose the war, or you can leave the border undefended, in which case France rolls in, captures the Ruhr valley, and you lose the war.

pull back to the Urals and wait for winter to do its job.

Thats where the vastly more powerful Luftwaffe comes into play, bombing and strafing retreating Russians and their eastern bases. Not to mention Germany gets the Southern parts of Russia (oil, food) .

The Luftwaffe is not "vastly more powerful". It's in better condition than it was in real life, but so much more powerful that it successfully accomplished what it UTTERLY FAILED TO DO in reality, namely, prevent the Russian retrenchment in the Urals.

And now all of the sudden the Germans have gone from capturing Moscow to capturing the Caucusus as well. Are you going to bother trying to prove that, or was I supposed to not notice that little grossly unjustified assumption?

Surviving the winter will not just be a matter of getting better winter gear (and despite how you dismiss that as a trivially easy matter, the Germans weren't much warmer and happier in the winter of 42-43 than they were in 31-42). The Russians have EXPERIENCE fighting in the winter, the soldiers are used to living and working in it in peacetime, and their equipment doesn't fail in the cold the way the Germans' did.

Problem: Germans never got their winter gear, even when they had it much of it sat hundreds of miles away in warehouses or on rail stations. We're assuming that this war is run properly, maxmium advantage during warm weather, proper planning (for things like the winter), and the dropping of stupid tactics (letting whole armies die for no reason).

Lets pretend for a minute that every last German soldier gets proper winter gear. Hell, let's pretend they get RUSSIAN winter gear. How in the name of sweet fuck does that stop their guns from jamming and their vehicles from breaking down? German equipment was for shit in the winter, and as GAT pointed out, the Germans would have to redesign almost all their weapons and vehicles and retool all their production lines.

WWII was unwinnable for Germany. Russia was too big, too populous, and had too many resources for Germany to conquer unasisted. The western powers weren't about to help Germany, and the Japanese were bogged down in China and couldn't spare the men to invade Siberia. Even without western assistance, Russia wins this war, no matter how you fiddle-fuck with the timeline.

You've got to be kidding me, Russia would have been owned. Big time.

I've been giving you a great big break by not pointing out that the German army in 1939 was in nowhere near the shape it was in by 1941, in terms of experience, numbers, quality and quantity of equipment, or docterine. Your scenario puts Germany in a worse strategic, tactical, and political situation than it was in in 1941, and we all know how that went. I don't give a rat's ass how many planes the Luftwaffe lost over England, which seems to be the center of your whole argument. It's the army that was going to have to win the war, and the army couldn't do it. Simple as that.

[Enforcer Talen]

from what I've read, moscow wasnt that important in and of itself, but it was a good symbol. march towards it, and stalin throws all his armies in the way. where they get slaughtered quite nicely.

[Sea Skimmer]

Absolutely everything is against the KM and RM fleets in combating the Royal Navy. And not building battleships frees up more British resources then German. A one dimensional sub surface campaign against British Commerce has little chance of succeeding. Hell even when the RN paraded convoy after convoy past the North cape the Germans managed to inflict heavy losses on just one of them. And for that they had three heavy cruisers, a battleship, a battlecruiser, a dozen destroyers along with about 20 U-boats and 150 bombers.

Defeating the UK via commence attacks is an unlikely event. And a renewed campaign of air attacks doesn't have a chance in hell.

Which is why I said there would be better use of both navies than what was done in real history. It would also not be "one dimensional" as there would be heavily concentrated airstrikes fully coordinated with strikes by the new Uboat arm by advanced bombers better suited to the maritime attack role than what was originally used.

Im sorry but the British Navy is not invincible and could be dealt with given the proper tactics and equipment which is what I am giving them in this debate.

The Italian navy went to sea whenever fuel allowed it. Got its ass kicked by second-rate British ships every time. Not many fleets have had there cruisers out shot by destroyers. Italy had it happen three times, sending five cruisers to the bottom for no RN losses.

The RM was a waste of steel. And Germany can't build better or more then what it had unless you wish to detract heavily from its army or airforce.

[Icehawk]

The Italian navy went to sea whenever fuel allowed it. Got its ass kicked by second-rate British ships every time. Not many fleets have had there cruisers out shot by destroyers. Italy had it happen three times, sending five cruisers to the bottom for no RN losses.

The RM was a waste of steel. And Germany can't build better or more then what it had unless you wish to detract heavily from its army or airforce.

This is alternate history we are talking about, you seem to be stuck too heavily in real history. They would not make the same mistakes in this case, and yes Germany could design and build better maritime attack craft, I never said they would build more, but better can be done without stretching resources.

[RedImperator]

This may be alternate history, but you can only extrapolate so far from actual events before it devolves into wanking. If you're going to say, "Well the Germans will make better decisions and design better ships", then you'd better have some sort of realistic idea as to what those better decisions are, how those designs are improved, and why things worked out that way instead of how it worked in real life.

[Vympel]

Watching everyone demolish this idiocy has been most amusing.

If Hitler had turned the German army first towards the East in 1939 I see little reason why the Soviets wouldn't have been completely crushed

You are obviously out of your mind. In 1939 the German Army wasn't nearly as well equipped as it was in 1941- especially in regards to tanks (the main models used were the Panzer I equipped with a machine gun and the Panzer II equipped with a piddly 20mm cannon) and mechanization of it's forces (it was still largely horse drawn). The conquest of France in 1940 especially got Germany a lot of equipment which it eagerly pressed into service for Operation Barbarossa.

The Germans were so well trained and well equipped that 'veterans' from the mauling of France wouldn't have made much difference against Russia.

The Germans were well trained, not well equipped.

Thats where the vastly more powerful Luftwaffe comes into play, bombing and strafing retreating Russians and their eastern bases. Not to mention Germany gets the Southern parts of Russia (oil, food) .

Out of your mind. No German aircraft had the range to reach anywhere close to the Urals, not to mention that they couldn't stop the movement of industry when war actually happened in 41.

That would have been great, then Germany would have been able to capture the vital oil fields, then follow Russia on into the Urals. Russia already knew about Blitz taticts in real life, they got smashed by them anyways. Russia lost millions of people in WW2, this is not the sign of a formidable force. They were formidable at burning everything as they fled, scruffing through winters and dying, thats about all. With proper preperations and tactics its still a German victory, Urals or no.

You're a moron. Have you ever heard of someone called Zhukov? Koniev? These are renowned WW2 generals. And despite your ignorant cliched pronouncements of the Eastern Front being some sort of great German shooting gallery, I think you'll find it was the Germans who lost the initiative in 1943, and never, ever regained it- from then on it was Russian victory after Russian victory. See Operation Bagration, for example, where Army Group Centre was smashed in a strategic masterstroke that carried the Red Army all the way to Germany.

I'm not buying the 'resources of western Europe' part either until I see some production statistics...

Hhahahahaha! You're not buying it. How quaint. You didn't know that the resources provided by France in terms of both industrial strength, captured equipment (especially tanks- hundreds of which were pressed into service for Barbarossa and many more converted for other important wartime uses) bases for U-Boats etc. were important?

Balony, Germany might have brought itself back up to 1940 levels, but without the BoB it would have been 1940 levels plus another few thousand. As for the Russian air force, its was pathetic in the beginning, which is what matters here, most of its planes were antiquated, over 8,000 of all classes were destroyed by Dec 11, 1941.

Germany attacking in 1939 as you propose would actually see the Russian Air Force MORE prepared to face off a German air attack- two years makes a lot of difference in aviation- and you'd see 1939 models of German aircraft flying instead of the 1941 models.

I think they could have went around them, but its possible that there was other treaties to be considered. I won't squibble over that, even if the conquest of Poland and France was necessary, forgoing an attack on Britain and using better tactics against Russia would have still equaled victory.

Define these better tactics. You seem to have swallowed Guderian's POV that they should've gone all out for Moscow hook, line and sinker. EXTREMELY RISKY.

You'd have that ready before you attack, remember, the context of this discussion is that Germany does it properly, not going in half ready, losing huge armies, etc...

You don't know what you're on about. If Germany attacked in 1939 it would certainly be less than the 'half-ready' you claim for 1941.

[Icehawk]

This may be alternate history, but you can only extrapolate so far from actual events before it devolves into wanking. If you're going to say, "Well the Germans will make better decisions and design better ships", then you'd better have some sort of realistic idea as to what those better decisions are, how those designs are improved, and why things worked out that way instead of how it worked in real life.

Which is what im trying to do, however I will admit when it comes to the maritime warfare aspect in WW2 im a bit ill informed on the technical aspects. So untill I can get access to more information, I am generally going by the belief that whatever was done, could have been done better as flimsy a stance as it may be. I do know that the FW 200 Condor which was a luftwaffe maritime craft had some serious structural flaws that could have been avoided, and that if the R&D of Turbo propulsion had been given top priority earlier on when it should have, that they could likely have come up with some particularily lethal attack craft and torpedo bombers beyond the abilities of the british at the time.

[RedImperator]

The problem, as always, is resources. Developing a torpedo bomber would have drawn resources away from other types of aircraft. the Germans never even got around to developing a 4-engine heavy bomber, which arguably would have been more useful against England. Torpedo bombers would have been useless against destroyers on convoy duty out in the mid-Atlantic, and unless you're going to actually try to mount Sealion, attacking the RN home fleet is a waste of resources.

Trying to find any way to make Germany win the second world war is an uphill battle. Ultimately, the Nazis were too isolated and too weak to pull it out against the Soviet Union, the British Empire, and the United States. You can certainly find ways to make the Germans perform better, and maybe even get a better deal than "unconditional surrender", but the nightmare German hegemon stretching from the Urals to the Bay of Biscay simply was never going to happen.

[Icehawk]

The problem, as always, is resources. Developing a torpedo bomber would have drawn resources away from other types of aircraft. the Germans never even got around to developing a 4-engine heavy bomber, which arguably would have been more useful against England. Torpedo bombers would have been useless against destroyers on convoy duty out in the mid-Atlantic, and unless you're going to actually try to mount Sealion, attacking the RN home fleet is a waste of resources.

The Germans did develope torpedo bombers before the war and used them but the ones they could have developed, particularily if they had earlier and top priority R&D into Jet tech could have helped them significantly. Also, the Germans DID actually have several heavy bombers The Junkers Ju290 which lead to the monstrous 6 engined Ju390, the Heinkel 177, and the FW 200 Condor I mentioned. They were however, all given very low priority and were never focused on or developed enough because of idiots like Goering and Hitler who were only interested in smaller bombers like the clumbsy He 111 and Ju87, and we all know how well those worked in the long run.

Trying to find any way to make Germany win the second world war is an uphill battle. Ultimately, the Nazis were too isolated and too weak to pull it out against the Soviet Union, the British Empire, and the United States. You can certainly find ways to make the Germans perform better, and maybe even get a better deal than "unconditional surrender", but the nightmare German hegemon stretching from the Urals to the Bay of Biscay simply was never going to happen.

That is very true, which is why my main ideas are to have Germany leave the Russians alone entirely and focus on Europe exclusively. Ultimately the Russians may or may not have attacked in 42 or 43 and if I were running Germany I would have made sure there were at least warmer relations between the two nations before hand to minimize as much as possible an unprovoked surprise attack from Stalin.

When it all comes down to things, I have little doubt that if Germany had made better decisions earlier on such as top priority R&D into Jet propulsion and Heavy bomber programs coupled with more priority for Uboat research and development, and focused exclusively on Europe with better coordination with the Italian surface fleet and better communication with Japan, that Germany could have edged out a victory over Britain. It would definately be close and bloody and they may only manage a stalemate but I still believe that Germany has a possibility of victory in Europe if they make the right moves and don't provoke the Russians.

[jaeger115]

I go to sleep for 14 hours and this thread runs away.