On that note, has any of you viewed the Canadian movie, Hiroshima. 3 1/2 hours. Excellent film, developed much like "Tora, Tora, Tora" or "Midway."
I learned a lot from it and highly recommend it to all of you.
Wild Bill
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
What would happened if the D-Day had finished in a fiasco?
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
That was exactly Hitler´s main error. No US President could have told his land to declare war to Germany after Pearl Harbor. The US ressources would have been directed to the Pazific, what means no (or little) help for England and surely no help for Soviet Union.
But back to the film "Fatherland": In the book is an other history presented than in the film. In one Germany shot a V4 with a nuclear warhead on New York what lead to a stalemate, in the other Germany told the British they would dropp the bomb on London and so war ended.
To the questions of an ending of war: in Pacwar there is the possibility you loose the game as Allies when your losses of manpower are too high. The same persons that would have caused that end would also have forced the US Government to stopp war in Europe when D-Day would have been an error.
But with the end of war in the west all the supplies and weapons could have been used on the eastern front. ALL the tanks built, no tanks destroyed on the way to front by allied planes (that caused nearly 60% of all tank losses!) Oil would have been a little problem because without needing lots of aircraft fuel in the West the little number of panzerdivisions would have been supplied with fuel. The large number of German Army were infantry division without any lorries or anything needing lots of fuel.
I think havin lost D-Day would have been the end of the war in Europe in about 2 months. Hitler and Stalin would have made a stalemate and the Allies would have done so either. (Churchill was the only leader who really wanted this war and he wasn´t sure in the end of the war if it was right to fight against Germany, not against Soviet Union).
Having dropped a nuclear bomb on Germany would have lead to two things:
a) Hitler would have given ressources to making a German nuke (what would have been much easier in Germany than in the US, because Germany had/has great ressources of high qualitity weapon uran.
b) He would have allowed his generals to use chemical weapons. Germany had really lots of them, millions of liters in many depots all over Germany. The Kriegsmarine had prototypes of "strategic submarines" wich would have carried 3 V3 rockets to the coast of the US, for example New York. Having fired some of these V3 filled with Sarin or Tabun would have caused real panic in all US cities in a 200km zone along the Atlantic. The only way to stop the usage of this weapons was to go to Germany and take them.
You could not take anything by plane or by nuking.
But back to the film "Fatherland": In the book is an other history presented than in the film. In one Germany shot a V4 with a nuclear warhead on New York what lead to a stalemate, in the other Germany told the British they would dropp the bomb on London and so war ended.
To the questions of an ending of war: in Pacwar there is the possibility you loose the game as Allies when your losses of manpower are too high. The same persons that would have caused that end would also have forced the US Government to stopp war in Europe when D-Day would have been an error.
But with the end of war in the west all the supplies and weapons could have been used on the eastern front. ALL the tanks built, no tanks destroyed on the way to front by allied planes (that caused nearly 60% of all tank losses!) Oil would have been a little problem because without needing lots of aircraft fuel in the West the little number of panzerdivisions would have been supplied with fuel. The large number of German Army were infantry division without any lorries or anything needing lots of fuel.
I think havin lost D-Day would have been the end of the war in Europe in about 2 months. Hitler and Stalin would have made a stalemate and the Allies would have done so either. (Churchill was the only leader who really wanted this war and he wasn´t sure in the end of the war if it was right to fight against Germany, not against Soviet Union).
Having dropped a nuclear bomb on Germany would have lead to two things:
a) Hitler would have given ressources to making a German nuke (what would have been much easier in Germany than in the US, because Germany had/has great ressources of high qualitity weapon uran.
b) He would have allowed his generals to use chemical weapons. Germany had really lots of them, millions of liters in many depots all over Germany. The Kriegsmarine had prototypes of "strategic submarines" wich would have carried 3 V3 rockets to the coast of the US, for example New York. Having fired some of these V3 filled with Sarin or Tabun would have caused real panic in all US cities in a 200km zone along the Atlantic. The only way to stop the usage of this weapons was to go to Germany and take them.
You could not take anything by plane or by nuking.
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
-
Ballacraine
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Isle of Man GB
I was watching a programme on Discovery channel the other day which covered this topic. Apparently Japanese diplomats gave the impression that if Hitler declared war on the USA, they would declare war on Russia. He did & they didn't !!!Originally posted by bbbf:
The interesting thing to me was why Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour.
I think this was the single largest strategic error of the Third Reich.
Why bring the nation with the biggest industrial potential into a conflict against you!
We had a lengthy discussion about this subject in the art of war forum a few weeks ago. This is what I said then, and I guess I still think it might be right.
I think the outcome would have been enormous. The allies would have had to regroup in England. No more invasion attempts for at least a year (A loss in Normandie would most certainly mean the loss of 2-4 armies as well). The fightings in Italy would have continued though, perhaps some invasion in greece or something. But they would still face autumn in the mountains and valleys of Italy. The rate of advance in 43 was abysmal, why would it be better in 44? (Historically it wasnt) Germany would most certainly reinforce
Italy as well.
The Germans would have been able to shift several divisions to the eastern front. Perhaps not enough to turn the tide. But probably enough to stop the Soviet steamroller. I think the Soviets would have *real* problems to pull off Bagration if the Germans could reinforce the east with 50+ divisions. Of these divisions 5 would be elite Waffen SS divisions (LAH, DR, HJ, Fru, Hoh) thats enough for two SS Pz Corps ala Kursk. I'd like to see the soviets try to do a blitzkrieg through that, throwing thousands of T-34's against an iron wall of Tigers, it would be a slaughter of epic proportions.
Ok, the Germans would probably not have been able to hold the frontlines of 1/1 1944, but they would have been able to hold say the old Polish-Soviet border. Here supply becomes a major factor for the soviets. The soviets were never that good at supplying their forces. And at the polish border its not a matter of rolling the T-34s out of the factory and into the front line, its out of the factory, on to the 300 mile road, then to the front.
So, with Europe entering 1946 we would see more and more German super tanks and jet
fighters/bombers. Perhaps the Yanks would have dropped both a-bombs over Germany.
But I doubt that would have convinced Hitler (If he survived) to surrender (After all he was willing to sacrifice most of the German population anyway). This would mean that Japan was still in the fight (No a-bombs to make them surrender) and the US would have had to invade those islands..there's a nightmare for ya.
The Germans would probably be able to hold a defensive line by some great river in the east, such as the Vistula or the Oder ( why? -soviet equipment and tactics facing desperate Germans, Soviets fighting at the end of an enormous long supply chain).
Stalemate in Italy and the west. Mounting civilian losses in England due to V-2 attacks (And then US with the V-4:s?), and jet bombers. Mounting losses to the US and UK strategic airforce due to German jets. New German submarines having a second "glory days" period due to new equipment (Scnorkels and new torpedoes). Japanese infantry with panzerfausts.
Combine all this with the tension between the allies and the soviet union, and you might reach the conclusion that a separate peace might not be that far away after all.
As for the German production. I seem to recall that the German production peaked in
august 44, that is compared to the entire war. Low on oil and some minerals sure, but not out of them. Rumanian oil fields still in German hands, Luftwaffe with jets protecting the reich...I'm not so sure the allies would pull that one off.
As for the German offensive weapons. The Brits would have a hard time on their island. New German subs would have made supplying that island hard again. Combine that with jet-bombers and V-2 rockets. And the brittish will to press on for an unconditional surrender might be undermined,
why not settle for peace? Why go for the throat?
Then the US, the Germans would have had
V-4:s ready for deployment in October 45. When they started landing in New York and
Chicago, perhaps public opinion in the US would have accepted peace?
Combine all this with the friction between the US and the UK (Never did like that Monty
anyway), and the friction between the allies and russia.
I think Germany would have surrendered (Probably after a succesful assasination of Hitler), but not unconditionally, and I dont think we would have had the kind of eastern-europe-communist-dictators we ended up with.
Well, thats my two cents anyway
Steve
------------------
Panzerjaeger Hortlund
-=Fear is only a state of mind=-
[This message has been edited by Panzerjaeger Hortlund (edited December 15, 2000).]
I think the outcome would have been enormous. The allies would have had to regroup in England. No more invasion attempts for at least a year (A loss in Normandie would most certainly mean the loss of 2-4 armies as well). The fightings in Italy would have continued though, perhaps some invasion in greece or something. But they would still face autumn in the mountains and valleys of Italy. The rate of advance in 43 was abysmal, why would it be better in 44? (Historically it wasnt) Germany would most certainly reinforce
Italy as well.
The Germans would have been able to shift several divisions to the eastern front. Perhaps not enough to turn the tide. But probably enough to stop the Soviet steamroller. I think the Soviets would have *real* problems to pull off Bagration if the Germans could reinforce the east with 50+ divisions. Of these divisions 5 would be elite Waffen SS divisions (LAH, DR, HJ, Fru, Hoh) thats enough for two SS Pz Corps ala Kursk. I'd like to see the soviets try to do a blitzkrieg through that, throwing thousands of T-34's against an iron wall of Tigers, it would be a slaughter of epic proportions.
Ok, the Germans would probably not have been able to hold the frontlines of 1/1 1944, but they would have been able to hold say the old Polish-Soviet border. Here supply becomes a major factor for the soviets. The soviets were never that good at supplying their forces. And at the polish border its not a matter of rolling the T-34s out of the factory and into the front line, its out of the factory, on to the 300 mile road, then to the front.
So, with Europe entering 1946 we would see more and more German super tanks and jet
fighters/bombers. Perhaps the Yanks would have dropped both a-bombs over Germany.
But I doubt that would have convinced Hitler (If he survived) to surrender (After all he was willing to sacrifice most of the German population anyway). This would mean that Japan was still in the fight (No a-bombs to make them surrender) and the US would have had to invade those islands..there's a nightmare for ya.
The Germans would probably be able to hold a defensive line by some great river in the east, such as the Vistula or the Oder ( why? -soviet equipment and tactics facing desperate Germans, Soviets fighting at the end of an enormous long supply chain).
Stalemate in Italy and the west. Mounting civilian losses in England due to V-2 attacks (And then US with the V-4:s?), and jet bombers. Mounting losses to the US and UK strategic airforce due to German jets. New German submarines having a second "glory days" period due to new equipment (Scnorkels and new torpedoes). Japanese infantry with panzerfausts.
Combine all this with the tension between the allies and the soviet union, and you might reach the conclusion that a separate peace might not be that far away after all.
As for the German production. I seem to recall that the German production peaked in
august 44, that is compared to the entire war. Low on oil and some minerals sure, but not out of them. Rumanian oil fields still in German hands, Luftwaffe with jets protecting the reich...I'm not so sure the allies would pull that one off.
As for the German offensive weapons. The Brits would have a hard time on their island. New German subs would have made supplying that island hard again. Combine that with jet-bombers and V-2 rockets. And the brittish will to press on for an unconditional surrender might be undermined,
why not settle for peace? Why go for the throat?
Then the US, the Germans would have had
V-4:s ready for deployment in October 45. When they started landing in New York and
Chicago, perhaps public opinion in the US would have accepted peace?
Combine all this with the friction between the US and the UK (Never did like that Monty
anyway), and the friction between the allies and russia.
I think Germany would have surrendered (Probably after a succesful assasination of Hitler), but not unconditionally, and I dont think we would have had the kind of eastern-europe-communist-dictators we ended up with.
Well, thats my two cents anyway
Steve
------------------
Panzerjaeger Hortlund
-=Fear is only a state of mind=-
[This message has been edited by Panzerjaeger Hortlund (edited December 15, 2000).]
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
-
GrinningDwarf
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Payne's Creek, CA USA
At least, no one has admitted to doing that badly, huh?Originally posted by Wild Bill:
The 2nd alternate battle of Utah to the Rhine is an evacuation of Utah Beach under fire.
I don't think anyone has done badly enough to play that one, so we may just convert it into a scenario in itself. Interesting.
Sergeant to new replacements on the line: I may not have time to tell you to duck, but if you see me dive for the ground you might want to think about why I'm doing it.
A failed landing at Normandy would have been similar to the results of the Canadian landings at Dieppe (19 August 1942). Only on a much larger scale. I am unaware of British and American casulty figures from that day. The British landed with two Commando groups with a third in reserve (this one included part a US Ranger battalion). Just over 5000 Canadians were involved in the landings-- 2210 returned to England, many were wounded; 1946 were captured, again many were wounded, 907 died on that day. The Calgary Tank Regiment lost every single Churchill tank, only one crew made it back to England.
What ever the reasons for the landing, the mistakes made here led to the sucess of Normandy. Yet, it was a high price to pay for that knowledge.
I forgot to mention earlier the losses the Germans took- 333 casulties, 121 of which were killed.
There was no pre landing bombardment from ship or aircraft.
We took them by surprise.
Perry
pro patria
[This message has been edited by PerryC (edited December 15, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by PerryC (edited December 15, 2000).]
What ever the reasons for the landing, the mistakes made here led to the sucess of Normandy. Yet, it was a high price to pay for that knowledge.
I forgot to mention earlier the losses the Germans took- 333 casulties, 121 of which were killed.
There was no pre landing bombardment from ship or aircraft.
We took them by surprise.
Perry
pro patria
[This message has been edited by PerryC (edited December 15, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by PerryC (edited December 15, 2000).]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rhone:
I am quite certain that if the Allies had to make a choice between 100,000 German civilians or 250,000 Allied troops, they would have dropped the bomb on Germany.
Intersting reasoning, yet faulty in one significan regard.
Politics.
The bomb was not political trouble to drop on Japan. Why? Because then, and now really, there was no significant Japanese voting block. However, in the '40s, there were whole states, and some important ones, domninated by the German-American (to use a modern term) vote.
So, while militarily one could argue that a bomb drop on the Reich, after a failed Overlord would have been useful, and I'd argue that, by the way, the political fallout would have been tremendous. I don't think FRD would have even considered it, nor, Truman, who was more in tune with the politcal feelings of that part of the country.
Also, as a side note, was the bomb even realitically droppable? Enola Gay was basically unopposed in her drop on Hiroshima, the limited enemy aircraft available being drawn off by side sorties, as the planners, if I recall correctly, didn't want to risk an escort getting caught in the blast. So, what are the odds of a lone B-17 or B-24 getting though to a decent target in Germany?
The above said, had one been dropped on the Reich, my target of choice would have been Kiel.
Alex
I am quite certain that if the Allies had to make a choice between 100,000 German civilians or 250,000 Allied troops, they would have dropped the bomb on Germany.
Intersting reasoning, yet faulty in one significan regard.
Politics.
The bomb was not political trouble to drop on Japan. Why? Because then, and now really, there was no significant Japanese voting block. However, in the '40s, there were whole states, and some important ones, domninated by the German-American (to use a modern term) vote.
So, while militarily one could argue that a bomb drop on the Reich, after a failed Overlord would have been useful, and I'd argue that, by the way, the political fallout would have been tremendous. I don't think FRD would have even considered it, nor, Truman, who was more in tune with the politcal feelings of that part of the country.
Also, as a side note, was the bomb even realitically droppable? Enola Gay was basically unopposed in her drop on Hiroshima, the limited enemy aircraft available being drawn off by side sorties, as the planners, if I recall correctly, didn't want to risk an escort getting caught in the blast. So, what are the odds of a lone B-17 or B-24 getting though to a decent target in Germany?
The above said, had one been dropped on the Reich, my target of choice would have been Kiel.
Alex
"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.
Originally posted by Alexandra:
I do not think that this argument is valid, simply because I do not think Truman regarded the nuclear bomb as fundamentaly different from other weapons. It was just a question of destroying a city in one big bang, instead of many smaller ones. Was the bombing of Hiroshima that bad, compared to e.g. Dredsen (sp?)? The american air force took part in that bombing. It is first later, when the effects of radiation has become evident, and the civilization has been on the brink of annihilation, that the nuclear bomb has been regarded as fundamentally different from other weapons.Originally posted by Rhone:
I am quite certain that if the Allies had to make a choice between 100,000 German civilians or 250,000 Allied troops, they would have dropped the bomb on Germany.
Intersting reasoning, yet faulty in one significan regard.
Politics.
The bomb was not political trouble to drop on Japan. Why? Because then, and now really, there was no significant Japanese voting block. However, in the '40s, there were whole states, and some important ones, domninated by the German-American (to use a modern term) vote.
Alex
It is very dubious to interpret our experience and attitudes into the decisions taken in the past.
I belive that Germany would have been nuked, if events had developed in a way that would make that seem necessary or desirable.
I also belive that part of the reason for using the bomb was to force a quick decision of the Pacific War in order to prevent the Soviet Union from gaining unduly benefits in South East Asia from their war against Japan.
Another reason was probably to show Stalin that the West possesed such a weapon, and was willing to use it.
These kind of reasoning would have been even more important if the westerwn allied had demonstrated weakness by being defeated in France, and a situation where a prolonged war would result in a total Soviet dominance of Westeren Europe.
Of course, one might fear that nukeing Germany would make it even easier for USSR to dominate Westeren Europe, but that is the only reason I can imagine that would make USA refraining from using the bomb againts Germany in this scenario.
[This message has been edited by JR (edited December 15, 2000).]
As for the selection of targets, the main purpose of the nukes was to demostrate the destructive power, hence targets was choosen that was not severly damaged by bombing in advance. Thus any important target is excluded, because any important target was already more or less destroyed. Hence neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was a important city. Probaly the same would ahve been done i Germany.Originally posted by Rhone:
BTW,
My target would have been Frankfurt, so long as the atomic winds blew away from Wiesbaden.
Another reason not to destroy the capital city is that if you do that, then there is nobody left with the authority to surrender.
I seem to remember that two camera B-29s accompanied the Enola Gay and Bock's Car on their raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Naturally such a small group did not in the defender's eyes merit a strong response. How could they know what those bombers carried?
And if they had shot them down, would the bomb have detonated anyway when it reached the correct altitude? Questions, questions.
WB
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
Naturally such a small group did not in the defender's eyes merit a strong response. How could they know what those bombers carried?
And if they had shot them down, would the bomb have detonated anyway when it reached the correct altitude? Questions, questions.
WB
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
On the friction between the USA and UK: Relationship between Roosvelt and Churchill was mostly very good. Then it does not really matter that Patton & co. did not like Monty.Originally posted by Panzerjaeger Hortlund:
Combine all this with the friction between the US and the UK (Never did like that Monty
anyway), and the friction between the allies and russia.
I think Germany would have surrendered (Probably after a succesful assasination of Hitler), but not unconditionally, and I dont think we would have had the kind of eastern-europe-communist-dictators we ended up with.
Well, thats my two cents anyway
Steve
As for post-war Europe: USSR would probably have beaten Germany in any case, with or without american nukes, but if the Red Army had been the only one left standing on the battlefield it would be easier, nor more difficult, for Stalin to dominate Europe.
-
Don Doom
- Posts: 1984
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Lost somewhere in the upper backwoods of Michigan!
Wild Bill the only why fat man or , could have gone off is if the engineer had armed the bomb before the plane went down. I.E. before the plane reach the outer fighter defence ring.
Interesting thought though. Watch plane get shot down and expect normal bang when it hits the ground and BOOM, your talking to Saint Peter.
Don
Interesting thought though. Watch plane get shot down and expect normal bang when it hits the ground and BOOM, your talking to Saint Peter.
Don
Doom
Vet of the Russian General Winter
For death is only the begining
Vet of the Russian General Winter
For death is only the begining
-
troopie
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
I do not believe the war would have turned out much different if Normandy had been a fiasco. Germany would not have been able to make large numbers of jets, nor would she have been able to develop nuclear weapons.
Reasons: Besides petroleum, Germany was critically short of two other strategic materials, tungsten and chromium. Tungsten was used for the core of APCR rounds, they managed to get along without that, but chrome. Chrome is used for lining weapon barrels, everything from rifles to heavy artillery. Without chrome linings, barrels wear out faster, and have to be replaced faster. Chrome is used to line jet engines. If you don't do so, they will burn out and be useless after 45 hours. No plane can function effectively with that short an engine flight life. Germany got its chromium from Turkey. The allies got theirs from the Soviet Union, Canada, Southern Rhodesia, and the Belgian Congo. Turkish production was barely sufficient for Germany's needs as it was. A greatly expanded jet construction production programme would have meant fewer tanks, guns, rifles. It's a hard choice, more jets means the Soviets would eat you alive on the ground.
Next. Germany had a critical shortage of skilled workers. Greatly expanding one weapon type would have meant diverting workers from other weapon types.
As far as the atom bomb is concerned. Dr. Wernher Heisenberg has described the Germans as being on the wrong theoretical track. There are thousands of possible options when you are beginning nuclear weapons research. Some seem to be correct, but lead to dead ends. Now that all the theoretical work has been done, researchers know what paths to take. But then, they did not. Germany did not have the scientific resources to investigate large numbers of the paths simultaneously. The US and UK, together did.
German research led to a dead end. The Manhattan Project led to a bomb. The Allies had access to large deposits of uranium from Australia, Canada, and the American Southwest. If many bombs had been really needed, they could have been built.
And, there seems to be excessive admiration for German 'wonder weapons'. Yes they invented an ATGM, but it was controlled by an operator with a stick. How long before he becomes a target. Research on infrared sensors began in the US in 1944. The first IR guided AAM came out in 1949. It was a rear aspect weapon, inaccurate and not effective against prop driven aircraft. But against jets it worked much better. Under the pressure of a shooting war it would have been say three years earlier. Helicopters: The Germans had a transpoet squadron of 2. The US deployed hundreds. The R-4, with a stronger frame, more powerful engines and targeting systems andweapons on board, would have made a rather effective gunship.
more perhaps later.
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
Reasons: Besides petroleum, Germany was critically short of two other strategic materials, tungsten and chromium. Tungsten was used for the core of APCR rounds, they managed to get along without that, but chrome. Chrome is used for lining weapon barrels, everything from rifles to heavy artillery. Without chrome linings, barrels wear out faster, and have to be replaced faster. Chrome is used to line jet engines. If you don't do so, they will burn out and be useless after 45 hours. No plane can function effectively with that short an engine flight life. Germany got its chromium from Turkey. The allies got theirs from the Soviet Union, Canada, Southern Rhodesia, and the Belgian Congo. Turkish production was barely sufficient for Germany's needs as it was. A greatly expanded jet construction production programme would have meant fewer tanks, guns, rifles. It's a hard choice, more jets means the Soviets would eat you alive on the ground.
Next. Germany had a critical shortage of skilled workers. Greatly expanding one weapon type would have meant diverting workers from other weapon types.
As far as the atom bomb is concerned. Dr. Wernher Heisenberg has described the Germans as being on the wrong theoretical track. There are thousands of possible options when you are beginning nuclear weapons research. Some seem to be correct, but lead to dead ends. Now that all the theoretical work has been done, researchers know what paths to take. But then, they did not. Germany did not have the scientific resources to investigate large numbers of the paths simultaneously. The US and UK, together did.
German research led to a dead end. The Manhattan Project led to a bomb. The Allies had access to large deposits of uranium from Australia, Canada, and the American Southwest. If many bombs had been really needed, they could have been built.
And, there seems to be excessive admiration for German 'wonder weapons'. Yes they invented an ATGM, but it was controlled by an operator with a stick. How long before he becomes a target. Research on infrared sensors began in the US in 1944. The first IR guided AAM came out in 1949. It was a rear aspect weapon, inaccurate and not effective against prop driven aircraft. But against jets it worked much better. Under the pressure of a shooting war it would have been say three years earlier. Helicopters: The Germans had a transpoet squadron of 2. The US deployed hundreds. The R-4, with a stronger frame, more powerful engines and targeting systems andweapons on board, would have made a rather effective gunship.
more perhaps later.
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
Pamwe Chete
Originally posted by Panzerjaeger Hortlund:
This would mean that Japan was still in the fight (No a-bombs to make them surrender)
But Japan was already prepared to surrender, when the bombs were droped. Yanks just had to show their power and test new weapon.
New German submarines having a second "glory days" period due to new equipment
I've just watched Decisive Weapons (BBC's documentary) and they said that U-boats had "glory days" during two time periods. The second one was at begining of 1943, when americans started sending convoys, and were complety uncapable for fight against U-boats.
It took them about three months to assign some protection to that ships.
This would mean that Japan was still in the fight (No a-bombs to make them surrender)
But Japan was already prepared to surrender, when the bombs were droped. Yanks just had to show their power and test new weapon.
New German submarines having a second "glory days" period due to new equipment
I've just watched Decisive Weapons (BBC's documentary) and they said that U-boats had "glory days" during two time periods. The second one was at begining of 1943, when americans started sending convoys, and were complety uncapable for fight against U-boats.
It took them about three months to assign some protection to that ships.
[QUOTE]As for the German production. I seem to recall that the German production peaked in august 44, that is compared to the entire war. Low on oil and some minerals sure, but not out of them. Rumanian oil fields still in German hands, Luftwaffe with jets protecting the reich...I'm not so sure the allies would pull that one off.[/QOUTE]
Maybe true, but the one thing you're forgetting is the heavy carpet bombing of German production by the Allies.
Unless the Luftwaffe were to suddenly spring back to it's '41-'42 combat strength and experience, the Allies, having lost at Normandy, would continue the bombing of the Ruhr valley, along with railheads, bridges, and dams, in order to shut down German production. Sure, they had materials. But when you have no work force (other than conscripts and POWs), no transportation network, and no power to run the machines, you cannot produce complex machines.
The Kriegsmarine was defeated, so Britain was secure from an invasion. The Luftwaffe decimated, so air power was firmly in Allied hands. What could Hitler do to stop Allied air attacks? Eventually, even the German people would turn on him, when he is unable to protect them from the bombs. A nuke probably wouldn't have been necessary...and with US production at an all-time high, more and more weapons would be made, ferried to Britain, and sent over the German lands.
------------------
The Motor Pool
http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550
kmcferren@cvn.net
Maybe true, but the one thing you're forgetting is the heavy carpet bombing of German production by the Allies.
Unless the Luftwaffe were to suddenly spring back to it's '41-'42 combat strength and experience, the Allies, having lost at Normandy, would continue the bombing of the Ruhr valley, along with railheads, bridges, and dams, in order to shut down German production. Sure, they had materials. But when you have no work force (other than conscripts and POWs), no transportation network, and no power to run the machines, you cannot produce complex machines.
The Kriegsmarine was defeated, so Britain was secure from an invasion. The Luftwaffe decimated, so air power was firmly in Allied hands. What could Hitler do to stop Allied air attacks? Eventually, even the German people would turn on him, when he is unable to protect them from the bombs. A nuke probably wouldn't have been necessary...and with US production at an all-time high, more and more weapons would be made, ferried to Britain, and sent over the German lands.
------------------
The Motor Pool
http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550
kmcferren@cvn.net
-
troopie
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Re Truman and the atomic bomb and Germany: I read that he was asked if he would have used the A-bomb against Germany. He said something like "Damn right I would have."
Germany did not use its chemical weapons for two possible reasons. 1: Hitler had been gassed in WW1. He may have had a strong inhibition against using gas.
The Allies had large supplies of chemical weapons. Germany was open to a devastating chemical response.
As for V-4s striking America. Any want to guess that the American people's response might not have been, "Nuke 'em 'til they glow"?
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
Germany did not use its chemical weapons for two possible reasons. 1: Hitler had been gassed in WW1. He may have had a strong inhibition against using gas.
The Allies had large supplies of chemical weapons. Germany was open to a devastating chemical response.
As for V-4s striking America. Any want to guess that the American people's response might not have been, "Nuke 'em 'til they glow"?
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
Pamwe Chete