What was the point of Hitler's project?

[Triple C]

and if the Italian campaign was any indication, good luck to the panzers that have to evict an American division backed up by naval gunfire, if not aerial superiority.

Concentrations from naval guns were quite effective against tanks. In the earlier stages of Overlord, First Canadian and Second British Army defeated a lot of SS Panzer attacks with gunfire from cruisers. 6-in. guns fired shells about as heavy as 155-mm. and would probably have the same devastating effect.

[zraver]

Agreed,but then you have to land those 200 divisions against 200 Axis.And you don't really have that many choices to land within airpower range.Then you need to lose millions of men.
I still believe the Americans win the war,even with the Soviets out.In 1946,with a few nukes.Even then it can be a negociated peace,instead of surrender.But I'm aware that's evenmore speculative than any what if based on the wartime period.

I've said it before, time to say it again. Reds out or not, UK out or not the US could defeat the Axis by its lonesome. Once Japan is done, the entirety of Europe to a depth of 300 miles belongs to the USN any time they show up. The USN had more air power than the Luftwaffe and much better concentration of force. Once the US decides to liberate the UK, it does. Germany can't stop it. Once the UK is liberated, here come the B-29's. With the US not already in European skies, there is no push for the Germans to develop high altitude fighters, meanwhile the Pacific war still pushes the US to develop long range escort fighters. The Me262 might be present in bigger numbers, but they still can't be based in France or England where marauding American fighters can go rat catching. Those Me262's wont have massive flak back up either. The war drove German technology and without the US/UK air offensive there is no drive to build up massive flak defenses and the German efforts never switch from the tactical to the strategic.

Plus there would be no emphasis to build the West Wall so it is easier to get ashore, and the US will have experienced divisions to do it USMC and USAR. it doesn't matter how good the German Army is or how big it is, only so many units can be sustained in the face of American air power.

[zraver]

Concentrations from naval guns were quite effective against tanks. In the earlier stages of Overlord, First Canadian and Second British Army defeated a lot of SS Panzer attacks with gunfire from cruisers. 6-in. guns fired shells about as heavy as 155-mm. and would probably have the same devastating effect.

the US 6"/47 fired a 105lb HE shell 14.5 miles. The US 155mm Long Tom fired a 100lb HE shell to a maximum of 13.7 miles so the guns are comparable with a slight edge to the naval weapon. Both totally outclass the sFH16 that fired a 93lb shell to a range pf 9.3 miles.

The US 8" gun had a range of 18.1 miles while firing a 260lb shell. This means a US heavy cruiser could force German guns out of range of the beach.

[Stitch]

I've said it before, time to say it again. Reds out or not, UK out of not the US could defeat the Axis by its lonesome. Once Japan is done, the entirety of Europe to a depth of 300 miles belongs to the USN any time they show up. The USN had more airpower than the Luftwaffe and much better concentration of force. Once the US decides to liberate the UK it does. Germany can't stop it. Once the UK is liberated, here come the B-29's. With the US nit already in European skies, there is no push for the Germans to develop high altitude fighters, meanwhile the Pacific war still pushes the US to develop long range escort fighters. The Me262 might be present in bigger numbers, but they still can't be based in France or England where marauding American fighters can go rat catching. Those Me262's wont have massive flak back up either. The war drove German technology and without the US/UK air offensive there is no drive to build up massive flak defenses and the German efforts never switch from the tactical to the strategic.

The other thing to remember is that the intercontinental-range B-36 Peacemaker was already in development long before VJ (or even VE) day due to the fear that the UK would be (successfully) invaded by Nazi Germany; in fact, the USAAC actually ordered 100 B-36's back in 1943, so even IF we had lost the UK, we still would've been able to bomb Germany back into the stone age from either Greenland or the East Coast. And the B-36 cruised higher than the service ceiling of the Me 262 (but not the Ta 152); German interceptors would've had trouble intercepting the B-36 at that altitude.

[zraver]

The other thing to remember is that the intercontinental-range B-36 Peacemaker was already in development long before VJ (or even VE) day due to the fear that the UK would be (successfully) invaded by Nazi Germany; in fact, the USAAC actually ordered 100 B-36's back in 1943, so even IF we had lost the UK, we still would've been able to bomb Germany back into the stone age from either Greenland or the East Coast. And the B-36 cruised higher than the service ceiling of the Me 262 (but not the Ta 152); German interceptors would've had trouble intercepting the B-36 at that altitude.

What Ta-152? With development focus on the low level VVS there is no need for high altitude interceptors, advanced engines and aromatic additives, big flak guns, flak towers or even submarines etc. Lots of me109/ Fw190's and tanks, lots and lots of tanks plus a shiny but totally outclassed battleship.

[gunnut]

Fascinating thread.

What I have gathered so far are:

1. Red Army could have crushed IJA in Manchuria without breaking a sweat.
2. Red Army could hold its own on the Eastern Front even without LL or the Siberian forces moving up to Moscow.
3. IJE was not an "empire" without Manchuria and Korea.
4. Without IJE tying down USN and RN in the Pacific, there would be enough ships in the Atlantic for the US Army to march from New York harbor to Liverpool without getting their feet wet.
5. Germany crushed, maybe in 1944.

Colonel, I have some questions. Let's say Stalin crushed Kwantung army and took over Manchuria and Korea in July 1941 (assuming Japan and Germany planned their attacks in unison). What would Japan do? Would it surrender? I don't think it would. Would it still fight on in China? I don't think IJA would retreat from China. Would the Red Army swing south in the name of "pursuing the enemy" into China? Would the Red Army link up with the New 4th Army and the 8th Route Army to take out the KMT?

[Officer of Engineers]

Colonel, I have some questions. Let's say Stalin crushed Kwantung army and took over Manchuria and Korea in July 1941 (assuming Japan and Germany planned their attacks in unison). What would Japan do? Would it surrender? I don't think it would. Would it still fight on in China?

Before the IJN attack on Pearl and with a full American oil embargo, the IJE had enough oil production and strategic storage for 2 years but only 1 year if she continued her war in China. Slashed the Manchurian oil fields, she dropped down to 9 months without war and just 3 months of war (assuming she still was hell bent on clobberring CKS).

[gunnut]

Before the IJN attack on Pearl and with a full American oil embargo, the IJE had enough oil production and strategic storage for 2 years but only 1 year if she continued her war in China. Slashed the Manchurian oil fields, she dropped down to 9 months without war and just 3 months of war (assuming she still was hell bent on clobberring CKS).

Pretty much IJE would have to sue for peace in China to conserve energy. If IJN attacked southward to take oil in Malaya to supply the war effort, that would still draw US into the war, but with the Pacific fleet in full operation. Japan was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

How would that play out politically in the US? The rally cry after Pearl was "Avenge Pearl Harbor!" There was less enthusiasm to fight the Japanese in Malaya to help out the Euros in their colonial affairs. Do you think the public would support a rally cry of "Avenge the Philippines?"

[Officer of Engineers]

The Japanese could not allow the USN to sail from Pearl nor the air wing in the Phillipines to remain in tact and have any chance at the Dutch East Indies.

[gunnut]

The Japanese could not allow the USN to sail from Pearl nor the air wing in the Phillipines to remain in tact and have any chance at the Dutch East Indies.

Then they were screwed. Losing Manchura and Korea, then suing for peace in China, would bring down the government. Tojo would have to commit suicide. Japan would be out of the war. Stalin keeps Manchuria and Korea. China still plunges into civil war. USN, RN, ANZAC, and BIA forces moved to Middle East, Africa, and Atlantic. Germany crushed in 1944.

The only difference would be where the Soviet westward expansion stopped. Would it be the same in a Germany divided post-WW2? Would it be the western allies keeping all of Germany with Soviets stopping at the border of Poland and Czechoslovakia?


Japan's predicament in 1940 reminds me of this quote by Tony Stark while he was talking to Loki, stalling for time:

"You're missing the point! There's no throne, there is no version of this where you come out on top."

[Officer of Engineers]

Then they were screwed.

They were screwed once they took on China. 10 years free reign with all the oil at her disposal and the Chinese couldn't buy/beg/borrow/steal enough military support to scare a freaking mouse and the Japanese still couldn't deliver the knock out punch. Able Chinese generals were already making their show while Japanese arrogance still dictated the Banzai Charge as the End-All/Be-All of military brilliance.

[astralis]

gunnut,

If IJN attacked southward to take oil in Malaya to supply the war effort, that would still draw US into the war, but with the Pacific fleet in full operation. Japan was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

How would that play out politically in the US? The rally cry after Pearl was "Avenge Pearl Harbor!" There was less enthusiasm to fight the Japanese in Malaya to help out the Euros in their colonial affairs. Do you think the public would support a rally cry of "Avenge the Philippines?"

The Japanese could not allow the USN to sail from Pearl nor the air wing in the Phillipines to remain in tact and have any chance at the Dutch East Indies.

this all rests on the (most likely mistaken) Japanese assumption that the US -would- militarily intervene. they saw how the US was helping out the UK in the european theater, and with the sanctions believed that the US was inevitably going to go to war with them.

but protecting the UK home islands and far-flung UK/dutch colonial possessions were a completely different kettle of fish. the US public wouldn't have stood for war with japan, let alone a grinding island-hopping campaign, without a Pearl.

frankly a lot of this can be attributed to the strategic foresight of FDR: he wanted to fight the Axis early on, particularly Germany. i don't believe the conspiracy theory that he turned a blind eye to get a surprise attack on Pearl*, but it was clear that he was trying to intimidate Japan and dare Japan to do something about it.

*if he really knew the Japanese were coming, and was that Machiavellian, he would have known that even a FAILED Japanese attack on Pearl would have rallied the US. warn the Navy, and the resulting carnage would probably have wrecked something along the lines of 40% of Japan's naval/aircraft strength in a stroke of strategic genius.

i'd actually love to read someone do a good alternate history there. Yamamoto probably would have committed Seppuku on the spot.

[astralis]

They were screwed once they took on China. 10 years free reign with all the oil at her disposal and the Chinese couldn't buy/beg/borrow/steal enough military support to scare a freaking mouse and the Japanese still couldn't deliver the knock out punch. Able Chinese generals were already making their show while Japanese arrogance still dictated the Banzai Charge as the End-All/Be-All of military brilliance.

i wouldn't condemn Japan -that- bad. they resorted to using that when USN choked off their supplies and the American artillery was smothering them with firepower. makes sense as the IJA was facing a WWII army with WWII weapons...while they were a WW1 army with WW2 weapons, with sketchily trained conscripts too.

on the other hand, the Chinese were a WW1 army mostly armed with...WW1 weapons. it wasn't until 1944-1945 when enough LL had trickled in that they finally got WW2 levels of capability, kinda-sorta. even then the Japanese beat the Chinese pretty bad in Operation Ichigo.

this actually got me thinking. FDR pretty much dared hitler at the same time he dared tojo. the japanese (perhaps not that surprisingly) punched back first.

say hitler is the one that takes the bait and declares war on the US, while japan decides to execute her invasion of HK/SE Asia without touching the Americans.

that would be one weird war. the US wouldn't mobilize as much and as fast as she did in OTL, because without the deep groundswell of anger, FDR would still need to deal with an unruly minority of isolationists blaming FDR for pushing the US into war. USN and USMC are freed up for action in the Atlantic, but the US would still need time to mobilize and train millions of men. faster defeat of the Kriegsmarine, though, might mean that FDR tries his hand at an European invasion in 1943 instead of going through Africa first.

wonder what happens in china. if the japanese take malaya and SE Asia that would relieve a lot of her resource constraints. no bombing of the home islands/Korea/Manchuria, no deaths of hundreds of thousands at the hands of the USMC and USN and USAAF, IJN still intact...china might still win in the end (well, win as in pushing Japan back to the water's edge) but she'd probably suffer 3-4x the casualties she did on OTL...which would mean even worse losses than the USSR. CKS nor Mao had Stalin's grip on power, either.

[Blademaster]

Instead of an raid on Pearl Harbor, how about an invasion of Pearl Harbor? Will that change anything? Instead of an unsinkable base in the middle of Pacific Ocean, USA would have to start from its West Coast. Can Japan foment an insurgency in Philippines and Hawaii and then lend material support and tie down American forces? How about supporting Mexico and pushing Mexico to get America into a conflict with Mexico and tie down America's attention?

[Officer of Engineers]

i wouldn't condemn Japan -that- bad. they resorted to using that when USN choked off their supplies and the American artillery was smothering them with firepower. makes sense as the IJA was facing a WWII army with WWII weapons...while they were a WW1 army with WW2 weapons, with sketchily trained conscripts too.

They were using that throughout the war no matter which oppenant they were facing. They even tried Banzai Charges against T-34s.

on the other hand, the Chinese were a WW1 army mostly armed with...WW1 weapons. it wasn't until 1944-1945 when enough LL had trickled in that they finally got WW2 levels of capability, kinda-sorta. even then the Japanese beat the Chinese pretty bad in Operation Ichigo.

The Chinese reached a stalemate in 1939 but I'm speaking of Generals like Xue who had beaten the Japanese by out-thinking them.

ICHIGO, however, represented the failure of the IJA. They could defeat the Chinese but not destroy them and had insufficent staying power when the Chinese came back for a 2nd round.

this actually got me thinking. FDR pretty much dared hitler at the same time he dared tojo. the japanese (perhaps not that surprisingly) punched back first.

say hitler is the one that takes the bait and declares war on the US, while japan decides to execute her invasion of HK/SE Asia without touching the Americans.

Instead of an raid on Pearl Harbor, how about an invasion of Pearl Harbor? Will that change anything? Instead of an unsinkable base in the middle of Pacific Ocean, USA would have to start from its West Coast. Can Japan foment an insurgency in Philippines and Hawaii and then lend material support and tie down American forces? How about supporting Mexico and pushing Mexico to get America into a conflict with Mexico and tie down America's attention?

My head hurts.