Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WWII what-ifs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
    British invasion in Greece/Yugosalvia...
    Italy's problem. Your focus is still Moscow.

    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    More importantly by not contesting the Med you give the UK a huge advantage in the North Atlantic by cutting thousands of miles off of the trip needed to be made by tankers from the Gulf, raw materials from Africa and food from Australia. This would greatly increase the amount of freight that could be moved by a single ship over the course of the year. The goal of the submarine war is to decrease the cargo reaching England and anything that makes cargo getting to England easier is bad for Germany.
    So what? Again, from Hitler's perspective. There was no alliance between the GB and Russia. He certainly could not have foreseen American LL to the USSR. As far as Hitler could see, Churchill would have been happy watching two titans whacking each other. Maybe a snip here and there but certainly nothing that could impede his campaign against Stalin. GB, effectively, was knocked out of the European continent.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • You can't starve the British out of the war by making 70% of the UK's shipping routes unreachable by uboat...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
        You can't starve the British out of the war by making 70% of the UK's shipping routes unreachable by uboat...
        It doesn't matter what the facts are. It matters what Hitler believed. He went to North Africa to rescue Mussolini, not that the Brits represented an intolerable threat from Egypt.

        So again, the only reason why you want Egypt is to free up the DAK. Well, don't send it in the first place.
        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 30 Nov 15,, 04:50.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          It doesn't matter what the facts are. It matters what Hitler believed. He went to North Africa to rescue Mussolini, not that the Brits represented an intolerable threat from Egypt.

          So again, the only reason why you want Egypt is to free up the DAK. Well, don't send it in the first place.
          But he had to rescue the Italians or cede the meds to the Brits. He didn't want to, he thought Italy could handle it, until they proved they couldn't.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zraver View Post
            You can't starve the British out of the war by making 70% of the UK's shipping routes unreachable by uboat...
            Donitz hated sending U-Boats to the Med. No U-Boat sent to the Med (62) ever made it out. The water is shallow and clear. Also the currents around Gibraltar were so strong that a U-Boat could not exit the Med while submerged. Those boats that were not sunk by the Allies had to be scuttled

            Although they sank 95 allied merchant ships most were small. Total tonnage was 449 thousand.

            Those 62 U-Boats could have done a lot more damage around the home islands and the north sea.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
              If Italy had tried a surprise attack from the sea as soon as it declared war then maybe, but Italy had no paras to speak of, so as soon as Malta is taking defence seriously there is not much chance. Also remember the Allies were reading enough Axis communication to get a decent warning.
              Malta was guven up by the Brits. Maltesians even asked the Brits why they are giving up on them.

              There were virtually no defences on the island in 1940, but Il Duce thought there are.
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                Malta was guven up by the Brits. Maltesians even asked the Brits why they are giving up on them.

                There were virtually no defences on the island in 1940, but Il Duce thought there are.
                It is hard to find a single major decision of WW2 that Mussolini got right, starting with getting involved. Had he stayed an Axis-leaning neutral and been a bit less ambitious he would have made a fortune selling stuff to the combatants, and been in a position to join the winning side late in the war. With Britain & France weakened by war Italy would be the predominant power in the Med during the postwar period.

                Moron.
                sigpic

                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                  It is hard to find a single major decision of WW2 that Mussolini got right, starting with getting involved. Had he stayed an Axis-leaning neutral and been a bit less ambitious he would have made a fortune selling stuff to the combatants, and been in a position to join the winning side late in the war. With Britain & France weakened by war Italy would be the predominant power in the Med during the postwar period.

                  Moron.
                  Indeed. But, can you really blame him? Looked like Hitler is winning BIG and he wanted the spoils. Too bad (or not) he never had Franco's vision.
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                    Indeed. But, can you really blame him? Looked like Hitler is winning BIG and he wanted the spoils. Too bad (or not) he never had Franco's vision.
                    Sure I can blame him. He deluded himself about his nation's military capabilities at every turn. Had he possessed an understanding of that he would not have dug Italy into so deep a hole. Had he possessed Franco's caution & patience he would have won either war. He could have sent 'volunteers' to help Hitler without joining the war as Franco did - in even larger numbers if he chose. He could have helped in a variety of ways, not least dodging Allied blockades. Had Hitler prevailed Mussolini would have been in a strong position to secure territory in the Balkans & perhaps Africa. He just needed caution, patience and a basic understanding of his nation's capabilities.
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                      Donitz hated sending U-Boats to the Med. No U-Boat sent to the Med (62) ever made it out. The water is shallow and clear. Also the currents around Gibraltar were so strong that a U-Boat could not exit the Med while submerged. Those boats that were not sunk by the Allies had to be scuttled

                      Although they sank 95 allied merchant ships most were small. Total tonnage was 449 thousand.

                      Those 62 U-Boats could have done a lot more damage around the home islands and the north sea.
                      Take Malta and Alexandria and you don't need to keep sending U-boats in cause the whole thing is shut down. Uboat.net says 62 U-boats sent in, they sank 44 warships including 2 carriers and a battleship and 194 merchant vessels for 694,000 tons. The biggest merchant vessel sunk was the Viceroy of India a troop transport at just under 20,000 tons. This against 31 sunk in action inside the straits of Gibraltar and a further 2 sunk attempting to get past The Rock. Their presence there also diverted hundreds of aircraft and dozens of warships from the Atlantic.

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=Officer of Engineers;999888]Like what? A British invasion of Italy from North Africa when the bulk of the RN was fighting for Britain's survival in the Atlantic? [QUOTE]

                        It's ASW forces yes but GB still had a large battle fleet with elements that could be and were assigned to the Mediterranean Theater. It strained British resources to the limit but the Italian Navy never really came close to challenging British surface forces for control of the Med. Credit where credit is due the Italians had some very good CA and BB designs as well as brave and well trained crews but they lacked sufficient fuel reserves even early in the war to sail as often and as aggressively as they needed to and they also lacked radar which hampered their efforts when they did make contact. Axis air and submarine attacks on their supply convoys were the British weak point not surface combatants. So for the Germans shipping large numbers of troops to North African was never going to be practical until the Royal Navy was defeated in the Med.
                        Last edited by Monash; 30 Nov 15,, 15:11.
                        If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          But he had to rescue the Italians or cede the meds to the Brits. He didn't want to, he thought Italy could handle it, until they proved they couldn't.
                          He did cede the Med. He was never determined. He assigned DAK and Rommel to rescue the Italians but never supported him. As you stated, he never took Malta and the BS with Franco not taking Gibraltar. Contrast those with Moscow and Stalingrad where he was determined to stand his ground. Never rescued DAK, never did his version of Dunkirk to save that army.

                          Given that action, I can see Hitler to say the hell with Italian adventures.

                          Originally posted by Monash View Post
                          It's ASW forces yes but GB still had a large battle fleet with elements that could be and were assigned to the Mediterranean Theater. It strained British resources to the limit but the Italian Navy never really came close to challenging British surface forces for control of the Med. Credit where credit is due the Italians had some very good CA and BB designs but they lacked sufficient fuel reserves even early in the war to patrol as aggressively as they needed to and also radar which hampered their efforts when they did make contact. Axis air and submarine attacks on their supply convoys were the British weak point not surface combatants. So for the Germans shipping large numbers of troops to North African was never going to be practical until the Royal Navy was defeated in the Med.
                          And it would be a British disaster in the making. This was a force before Dieppe, with all their misconceptions still in their heads. And such a disaster would most certainly boost Italian morale at the least, and more Italian adventures at the worst.
                          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 30 Nov 15,, 14:37.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • Which brings me to another point. I have never understood why, given the critical importance that Malta was to play in the war the Axis never made better use of Pantelleria's strategic location which if you look at a map pretty much parallels Malta's in terms of its potential as choke point for any mercantile traffic transiting the Med. Unless of course as my earlier post suggests it was because this small island, like Malta was simply too vulnerable to large caliber naval gunfire to risk basing significant air assets on. After all the guns of any (then) modern CA or BB would easily bracket the entirety of both islands, putting at risk any airfields and associated infrastructure placed there. This being the case perhaps placing significant air power at bases in such locations was simply too risky for the Axis to contemplate while British capital ships dominated the Med. The Germans and Italians could bomb Malta but they couldn't shell it at will which is what the British could do to any isolated island garrisons the Axis might have been tempted to install in order to achieve their own 'Malta'.
                            Last edited by Monash; 30 Nov 15,, 15:04.
                            If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                            Comment


                            • One last comment, while all this historical speculation is extremely interesting the basic problem remains the same. For Germany to win the war it had to fight and win on not two but three separate and very long, fronts. Given its then available manpower, technology and industrial capacity it could certainly be strong on one of those fronts (and by default 'win' there) but not on all three, not simultaneously. And if it doesn't win on all three it eventually looses the war - even if it takes a year or two longer than it did historically. Concentrate on Britain and Russia gets stronger every month while it holds out - before attacking at a time and place of it's choosing. Take Africa from the British and you cripple them yes but only at the cost of weakening yourself critically elsewhere. And none of the victories the Germans need can be achieved quickly, not while there is the English channel, a Royal Navy and Russia's vast landscapes (and winter). And lets face it speed is of the essence for Germany because the USA is coming and when it gets there in force it's just a matter of how long it takes for Germany to be defeated, not if.

                              Even the USA, the most industrialized nation on Earth at the time had to choose which of the 'fronts' it faced was its immediate priority - effectively assigning far fewer resources to Japan than it could have if Germany hadn't been the most obvious threat. Sans Germany the US would have rolled over the Japanese in what? 2 years at most, even assuming a successful initial strike by the Japanese. It's asking a hell of a lot of the Germans to pull off all the theoretical victories described here against its equally determined US, Russian and Commonwealth opposition, not with the combined weight of all three powers against them, and certainly not when they are led by an egomaniac like Hitler.
                              Last edited by Monash; 30 Nov 15,, 15:10.
                              If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                              Comment


                              • Monash,

                                Sans Germany the US would have rolled over the Japanese in what? 2 years at most, even assuming a successful initial strike by the Japanese.
                                i doubt this. despite the talk being "germany first", the war against Japan was largely constrained by space and time up until "break out" when the US retook the Philippines.
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X