Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
And the US and Japan would still have gone to war. Which would have ended earlier because the US would have concentrated all its forces in the Pacific.
There were NO ICBM's. Germany wasn't even close to having them. Remember, we took most of Germany's best rocket scientists at the end of the war to work for us, and it was years before we had anything resembling an ICBM.
So how do you think Germany would've gotten chemical/biological weapons over here? Other than maybe an occasional raid by an odd U-boat here and there, nothing significant.
And again, Germany's industrial output was nothing compared to ours. Yes, they were resourceful in getting stuff built under adverse conditions, but even if they weren't being bombed, they could never have come close to our production.
Hitler actually refused to believe our productions figures of bombers when he was told, saying it was "impossible".....and the fact was that the number he was given was LOW.
Umm I hate to burst your bubble but U-Boats patrolled right up to the eastern Coast of America. In fact, there is tons of archive footage of uboats taking pictures of the New York skyline through their periscope
Our problem was we were to arrogant to believe that we could even be touched by the enemy on our home land (Does 9-11 ring a bell on this also). If it was not for the invention of sonar ,the U-boats could have possibly single handly won the war for Germany.Sysadmin
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
The germans could not get into England because the were trying the blitzkrieg approach. Only England had developed a decent radar system which allowed the outnumbered spitfires to be directed where they needed to be. And if a pilot survived being shot down he was over his own territory.
But give the Nazis some time and one could only imagine the the weapons they could have developed. Dont forget where our nuclear bomb and space programs came from.
nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
Originally posted by: Sysadmin
Umm I hate to burst your bubble but U-Boats patrolled right up to the eastern Coast of America. In fact, there is tons of archive footage of uboats taking pictures of the New York skyline through their periscope
Sysadmin
i hate to burst YOUR bubble, but i had already said i knew that. but there is a HUGE difference between a few uboats off of our shore and an invasion fleet....
The Germans really knew dick about building a navy. Look at that list of ships you just listed. There isn't a single battleship on there. Sure the Graf Spee was a "Pocket Battleship", and the Bismark and Tirpitz were "Heavy battlecruisers" but they either lacked the weapons or the armor to be classed as battleships. The Royal Navy, which included several battlecruisers, battleships and AIRCRAFT CARRIERS (!) would have POUNDED any german fleet into DUST. Don't forget, the Royal Navy also had the resourses of the Canadian Navy and the Australian Navy at it's disposal. So, you take the Royal Navy, of about 200 ships, many large ones, add another 75 from the Canadian Fleet, add 50 from the Australian fleet, and there you have a flotilla of more than 320 ships. against the German fleet, it's no contest. Yes, I'm factoring in U-Boats as well. Most of the Canadian ships, which were designed as convoy escorts, has the ASDIC system (Sonar). They would take the task of protecting the flotilla's flanks, and thus u-boats wouldn't have a chance either.
Don't forget that the Royal Navy has nearly 500 years of history under it's belt as well.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,765
- 614
- 126
Under better leadership, it could have been a very different war. If Hitler hadn't foolishly attacked Russia forcing the Country to fight a costly two front war it would have been difficult, maybe to costly, to invade germany. That was Hitler's biggest mistake IMO. Remember, Russia didn't want anything to do with the war and signed a nonaggression treaty with Hitler...Hitler broke that treaty basically because he didn't want to lose momentum after the attacks on the British mainland proved feeble. If he had concentrated all his efforts on England and developed a stronger navy quickly it would have been very different. Without England as a jumpoff point the United States would have a very, very hard time invading.
Also, Hitler foolishly squandered resources on the 'final solution' even when he was losing ground in Russia. The atomic weapons program may have been more successful if he hadn't spread thin all of his best scientists over tons of different 'super weapons' programs. The Nazi's were in development of all kinds of crazy things...a submarine that could launch a plane for instance. How useful is one plane? The super weapons program clearly had some success with the V2 rocket, but if they'd focused on developing just the atomic bomb and the New York missile, and didn't squander all their resources fighting Russia they very well could have beaten us. But those are all what ifs.
Yes, we supplied the Russians...but its the Russians that really won the war against Germany IMO, not us. It was Soviet blood all over those fields. It was the Soviets that suffered massive loses agains the Germans...never giving up, even when they were starving and cut off. The Germans underestimated them, and overestimated their ability to cover that much ground with only that many men. The Soviets had a huge army, and the blitzkreig tactics didn't work against them as well. The Germans would try to break through the lines only to find another line, an another line behind it.
The war in the pacific actually went better than planned for the US because they won a few early, lucky victories. It was still a brutal war and I would have much rather been fighting the Germans than the Japanese. Originally, we just wanted to hold them off while we got Europe under control...but ended up more successful than expected.
Also, Hitler foolishly squandered resources on the 'final solution' even when he was losing ground in Russia. The atomic weapons program may have been more successful if he hadn't spread thin all of his best scientists over tons of different 'super weapons' programs. The Nazi's were in development of all kinds of crazy things...a submarine that could launch a plane for instance. How useful is one plane? The super weapons program clearly had some success with the V2 rocket, but if they'd focused on developing just the atomic bomb and the New York missile, and didn't squander all their resources fighting Russia they very well could have beaten us. But those are all what ifs.
Yes, we supplied the Russians...but its the Russians that really won the war against Germany IMO, not us. It was Soviet blood all over those fields. It was the Soviets that suffered massive loses agains the Germans...never giving up, even when they were starving and cut off. The Germans underestimated them, and overestimated their ability to cover that much ground with only that many men. The Soviets had a huge army, and the blitzkreig tactics didn't work against them as well. The Germans would try to break through the lines only to find another line, an another line behind it.
The war in the pacific actually went better than planned for the US because they won a few early, lucky victories. It was still a brutal war and I would have much rather been fighting the Germans than the Japanese. Originally, we just wanted to hold them off while we got Europe under control...but ended up more successful than expected.
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Sysadmin
Umm I hate to burst your bubble but U-Boats patrolled right up to the eastern Coast of America. In fact, there is tons of archive footage of uboats taking pictures of the New York skyline through their periscope
Sysadmin
i hate to burst YOUR bubble, but i had already said i knew that. but there is a HUGE difference between a few uboats off of our shore and an invasion fleet....
Hmm, and I was suppose to know that fact by your previous Comments?
Sysadmin
I am talking about when the U-boats sunks hundres of thousands of tons of American cargo ships before we got off our ass and did something about it
Sysadmin
Better check again. The Bismarck and Tirpitz were most definitely BATTLESHIPS, not battle cruisers. Battle cruisers are basically very large cruisers, with battleship-size main guns and not much armor, except for speed.
The Biz and Tirpitz were 50,000 ton first-rate battleships.....a match one-on-one for any top of the line British ship at the time. They weren't the most powerful ships afloat, but were plenty strong.
Bismarck had a deadly reputation at the time because it sank the HMS Hood.....which was a battle cruiser and had no business at all facing the Bismarck.
The Graf Spee was called a pocket battleship because it had 11" guns on a small hull. In reality it, along with it's sister ship, the Admiral Scheer, were really large armored cruisers.
The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were battle cruisers that were decently armored.....they were battleship size, with 11" guns, but didn't have enough armor to be classified as battleships.
Plus, in WW2 if you didn't have at least 14" guns you didn't have much of a battleship....as Scharnhorst found out when it faced the HMS Duke of York.
Bottom line, though, is the Germans weren't expecting to go to war until 1945 or '46, and were building their navy with that timeline in mind. By 1945 they would have had a very formidable fleet.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 53,355
- 47,767
- 136
Operation Drumbeat ' Paukenschlag' was the name for the U-boat campaign against costal U.S. shipping beginning in early 1942. The main reason for the U-boat's success of the North American seaboard had a lot to do with not enough patrol ships and aircraft being available at the time. Any hull that floated and had a gun on it was doing convoy duty in the North Atlantic. This left some coast guard ships and a few converted yachts to patrol the coast until more ships were ready or could be reallocated.
Also, a convoy system was not in place for costal shipping yet. In my view the delay in setting up a system in the face of such extensive losses is severe failure of the Navy.
By the second half of 1942 the convoy system as instituted along the cost and losses dropped dramatically. With more ships and costal defense aircraft available it became very dangerous to attempt U-boat action against the convoys.
Also, a convoy system was not in place for costal shipping yet. In my view the delay in setting up a system in the face of such extensive losses is severe failure of the Navy.
By the second half of 1942 the convoy system as instituted along the cost and losses dropped dramatically. With more ships and costal defense aircraft available it became very dangerous to attempt U-boat action against the convoys.
Hitler wasn't a fool militarily.....he was a complete, blundering IDIOT. He definitely was the driving force behind Germany starting the war, and he was also a huge part of their losing it.
If he had started the ball rolling and simply gotten out of the way of his generals, history would be much different.
Fortunately, Hitler was a tactical moron.
A few U-boats are much different than an invasion fleet. The Germans at no point could ever have mounted an invasion of the United States. Too much water and not enough navy.....and too much of the US Navy.Originally posted by: Sysadmin
Umm I hate to burst your bubble but U-Boats patrolled right up to the eastern Coast of America. In fact, there is tons of archive footage of uboats taking pictures of the New York skyline through their periscope
Sysadmin
Interesting thread OP.
There are actually some books on this subject (well, maybe not THIS specific subject).
One author that comes to mind is Harry Turtledove. Turtledove books at Am@zon
This author has books that introduce "non-sense" scenarios to see how the outcome of a war would have been changed. (For example, if the South had modern day machine guns during the civil war - given to them by time travellers of course...)
I think the link above contains a book that deals with World War II scenarios that are similar to the "Guns of the South".
A friend of mine (History major in college) read that one and recommended it. He said if you can get through the far fetched "cause/event" happening and concentrate on the "effect", it's a pretty interesting read.
-Matt
There are actually some books on this subject (well, maybe not THIS specific subject).
One author that comes to mind is Harry Turtledove. Turtledove books at Am@zon
This author has books that introduce "non-sense" scenarios to see how the outcome of a war would have been changed. (For example, if the South had modern day machine guns during the civil war - given to them by time travellers of course...)
I think the link above contains a book that deals with World War II scenarios that are similar to the "Guns of the South".
A friend of mine (History major in college) read that one and recommended it. He said if you can get through the far fetched "cause/event" happening and concentrate on the "effect", it's a pretty interesting read.
-Matt
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,487
- 20,025
- 146
My take:
Many people have all or nothing opinions on this. To me, that is simplistic.
IF the US had stayed neutral, yet supported the Axis rather than the allies, the outcome would have been very different. Hitler's plan to starve England would have most certainly succeeded without the constant supply of food and material from the US. Not only that, but the U-boats would have never been defeated without US support.
Without two fronts to fight, Hitler could have thrown the majority of his resources at the USSR.
The only question now is: Could he have either won, or at least held the USSR back long enough to achieve a stalemate?
People here seem to be underestimating the effect lend/lease had on the USSR's ability to hold back the Germans. It took over a year for the USSR to mount an effective defense because of Stalin's prewar purges and the lack of an industrial base. Lend-lease was a major reason Germany's advances were slowed during the first year.
After that, it was a war of attrition. IF the US was supplying Germany with material, the outcome would have been very different.
Without a western front and with material support from the US, it is very possible Germany could have achieved at the very least, a stalemate with the USSR, provided they were more able to protect and strengthen their supply lines and had access to the virtually endless supply of war material from the US.
BTW, I love doing "what ifs" on WWII. It's the most what-ifable war in history.
Many people have all or nothing opinions on this. To me, that is simplistic.
IF the US had stayed neutral, yet supported the Axis rather than the allies, the outcome would have been very different. Hitler's plan to starve England would have most certainly succeeded without the constant supply of food and material from the US. Not only that, but the U-boats would have never been defeated without US support.
Without two fronts to fight, Hitler could have thrown the majority of his resources at the USSR.
The only question now is: Could he have either won, or at least held the USSR back long enough to achieve a stalemate?
People here seem to be underestimating the effect lend/lease had on the USSR's ability to hold back the Germans. It took over a year for the USSR to mount an effective defense because of Stalin's prewar purges and the lack of an industrial base. Lend-lease was a major reason Germany's advances were slowed during the first year.
After that, it was a war of attrition. IF the US was supplying Germany with material, the outcome would have been very different.
Without a western front and with material support from the US, it is very possible Germany could have achieved at the very least, a stalemate with the USSR, provided they were more able to protect and strengthen their supply lines and had access to the virtually endless supply of war material from the US.
BTW, I love doing "what ifs" on WWII. It's the most what-ifable war in history.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,765
- 614
- 126
I love WWII history...there's just so much to it. Its a war of machines and technology...but unlike modern war it is still a war of men and heroism, so many nations and tactics. (Not to detract from heros in modern warfare...but lets face it its a push button war nowadays) And there's just so many stories to tell about it.
My girlfriend hates it though...she gets annoyed when I watch an hour long show on the history channel about one German Tank or something.
I am dying of anticipation waiting for the next Band of Brothers that takes place in the Pacific. The first one was amazing.
My girlfriend hates it though...she gets annoyed when I watch an hour long show on the history channel about one German Tank or something.
I am dying of anticipation waiting for the next Band of Brothers that takes place in the Pacific. The first one was amazing.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,405
- 8,585
- 126
ummm... wtf? the bismarck and tirpitz are widely considered to be super dreadnaughts along the lines of the iowa class... sure, they're no yamato class, but then what was?
the iowa class should be recommissioned. the things almost rival carriers in striking power and range.
the iowa class should be recommissioned. the things almost rival carriers in striking power and range.
If the USA was supplying Germany, Canada would have invaded the US... uh oh.
That being said, if Germany would have remained allied w/ the USSR, rather than invade them, the war could have turned out much differently. By focusing their attention on Britain, they most certainly would have wiped it out, although I'm sure the british resistance would have been uncontrollable in the long run. Invading a people that doesn't want to be invaded isn't too successful in the long run.
That being said, if Germany would have remained allied w/ the USSR, rather than invade them, the war could have turned out much differently. By focusing their attention on Britain, they most certainly would have wiped it out, although I'm sure the british resistance would have been uncontrollable in the long run. Invading a people that doesn't want to be invaded isn't too successful in the long run.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter