Page 46 of 46 FirstFirst ... 37383940414243444546
Results 676 to 685 of 685

Thread: WWII what-ifs

  1. #676
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Have you even read about Italian military performances during the war? Mussolini was no Hitler. The Italians barely won against the Ethiopians. The Germans had to rescue the Italians from the Brits and the Greeks.

    Mussolini's Italy was nothing like Hitler's Germany.
    Chimo

  2. #677
    New Member
    Join Date
    30 Jul 16
    Posts
    15
    This is a "what if" subforum and a ww2 "what if" thread. Hence the "what if" question.

  3. #678
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Sure. What if the Martians sided with Hitler?

    There has to be some sort of factual basis for this thread to work and those facts are the Germans have to be Germans, the Americans have to be Americans, the British have to be British, the Japanese have to be Japanese. What's more, Hitler has to be Hitler, Stalin has to be Stalin, Tojo has to be Tojo, Churchill has to be Churchill, FDR has to be FDR ... and the Italians have to be Italians and Mussolini has to be Mussolini.

    Otherwise, you can have Gandalf in command of the Deathstar in this thread.
    Chimo

  4. #679
    New Member
    Join Date
    30 Jul 16
    Posts
    15
    I failed to see that notice. If it exists somewhere, i am sorry for asking something against the rules. Usually what if ww2 scenarios are interesting precisely because they tests the balance of power to the point it changes sides. If only miniscule changes are allowed then absolutely every what if scenario ends with: Allies win eventually because of nukes and economy. Where's fun in that?

  5. #680
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbluesky View Post
    I failed to see that notice. If it exists somewhere, i am sorry for asking something against the rules.
    It's not a rule but you've got to set boundaries somewhere or as I said, we could insert Gandalf in command of the Deathstar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbluesky View Post
    Usually what if ww2 scenarios are interesting precisely because they tests the balance of power to the point it changes sides. If only miniscule changes are allowed then absolutely every what if scenario ends with: Allies win eventually because of nukes and economy. Where's fun in that?
    You're in a forum of combat vets. We're more interested in how the given what you've got, how could you achieve victory.

    In your example, Italian combat performances was subpar during the war. It makes no sense to give them SS-Waffle performance levels half way through the war.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 02 Aug 16, at 16:24.
    Chimo

  6. #681
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    But...

    To be fair, you can always kill Mussolini, swap his generals (what generals?), go back to 1920something and make a twist.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

  7. #682
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbluesky View Post
    What if Italy and italian populace was just as dedicated to the cause as germany and just as obediant to their leader as germany? furthermore, what if Italy was as technologically advanced as germany, and as industrialized as germany.

    Finally, as addition to all that, what if a canal network from mediterranean to north sea was worked on for years and completed by 1939, connecting those two, allowing for passage of small destroyers and most submarines.
    Italy's problem, like that of Japan and France was she was ahead of the game... too far ahead. Armies live and die by modernization cycles. Italy embarked on a major re-armament in the early 30's. This spent her bolt so even armed with the lessons of the Spanish Civil war, she lacked the finances needed to adopt them. The UK, USSR and Germany came to the dance late and started re-arming in the late 30's. Germany was able to use the same Spanish Civil War to decided what it needed to invest in. This might not seem like much but in many cases its an entire technological generation. Had WWII started in 1936, Italy would have looked much better in equipment comparisons. Instead she took a 1935 army into a 1940 war and that single 5 year gap made a huge difference.

  8. #683
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,973
    in this context, though, the people matter more than the tech. the Italian army was led by buffoons-- they had trouble beating the likes of Ethiopia and Greece.
    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

  9. #684
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,471
    A few thought/observations of my own.

    Italy, like Japan had some key technical and geographic weaknesses to overcome. For example it's air force (like Japan) stressed the importance of maneuverability over speed, armament and protection and like Japan pilot training emphasized the importance of dog fighting over all else. Which becomes a key issue when your enemies refuse to dog fight.

    Their navy had good modern designs but was crippled by ready access to reliable fuel supplies (again like Japan - later in the war at least) and early on when it mattered no radar, technology the Allies forces rushed to deploy asap. Their army had excellent, professional artillery units which by all accounts gave a good account of themselves in North Africa but their armor designs/units (again like the Japanese) were geared for infantry support and fighting colonial wars against enemies with little or no armor of their own. Not against Western powers fielding their own tank forces.

    As for the infantry - it was largely conscript based and poorly lead. Its soldiers would no doubt have achieved much better results historically if this last issue had been addressed by proper training and organizational changes during the prewar years but Mussolini's regime was more interested in political reliability than it was in military competence.

  10. #685
    New Member
    Join Date
    07 Sep 17
    Posts
    1
    What if Poland joined Axis and fought off Russians on the eastern front? Or - would Hitler still launch an invasion on Moscow?

    One of possible scenarios I found on it:

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How necessary were BB's in WWII?
    By USSWisconsin in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 14 Oct 10,, 22:54
  2. Who really won WWII?
    By Tarek Morgen in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 28 Apr 08,, 17:25
  3. WWII Germany Vs WWII Russia
    By Cosmobreeze in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 22:33
  4. WWII Germany Vs WWII U.S.A.
    By Cosmobreeze in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 22:29
  5. WMDs During WWII
    By Amled in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17 Jun 05,, 23:57

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •