Or if war han't started for a few more years & the Graf Zepplin had been finished... One overlooked aspect is the Germans had faulty torpedo fuses early on just like US subs did. Many more ships, both RN & merchant, would have gone down. One sub got a shot @ a Battleship carrying the 1st Sea Lord of the Admiralty. Considering the way British Battleships had of blowing up, history might have been very different. Has it was, nothing happened.
The what if thread -WW2-
Panzercracker
Active member
Actually 44 was the absolute peak of German capability, even German tanks had lower grade steel, same tank produced in 43 would have a significantly better protection.
Exactly, Hitler did not order to build new tanks in 1940, Wehrmacht did not expand fast at all, in 40-41 Germany is still significantly under its true production capacity in order to keep the population happy with goods.
That would be because more factories were open and more efficient assembly lines were put up but again Germany had a finite amount of steel, rubber and other resources, while 44 is their peak notice how sharply production drops in 45 and thats even before their factories are moonscape or overrun, it wasnt just the question of having X factories to produce Y tanks, rubber and synthetic materials were in short supply, steel too.
The problem again is that Germany did not begin to fully develop its industrial capacity untill 42, when you read up on Hitler you notice how German industry kept producing domestic goods to keep people happy, after the failure of Moscow and the Russian counteroffensive they shifted to full gear and reached peak production by 44 but by then resource shortages were already visible.
As for resources, their steel came from the Nordic countries, oil came from Romania and synthetic sources (and to a small degree from Austria) and it was just not enough, Germany has been constrained by natural resources more than simple industrial capacity, why do you think they invaded Russia?
While i agree that Germans were not producing what they could you have to reallize that Germany was not America, the industrial shift could not be as fast due to specifics of industry organisation plus the big thing was to keep people happy, Hitler needed popular support and Germans loved him, he gave them homes, cars, free holidays and all that was taxing the industry.
So yes Germany was not at its full capacity untill 43/44 but no it could mobilise fully unless faced with stalemate or defeat and when it did it was already too late.
Also even if Germany would mobilise and attacked Russia with shall we say 8.000 tanks instead of 3.500, they would still get bogged down in the snow, they would still face a massively superior force of Russian divisions and Moscow would still be unlikely to get overrun since Russians proved at Stalingrad just how stubborn they were.
LeEnfield
Active member
Germany could keep producing goods rather than arms, as the Germans were using captured plants and factories to make arms for them using slave labour from the the countries that they had over run. The giant Skoda plants are a prime example as they had them churning out tanks and many other weapons
you know the distance from the Suez Canal to Irak ? You ever have seen pictures of the Caucasus? March trough those mountains with a motorised army ? The military value of Spain and Turkey was 0,0000 . The oil of the Caucasus was not indispensable to the USSR.In 1940:Baku,Grozny and Maikop:26,6 million ton ;in 1945:13,1
ddg2sailor
Active member
Its been to long since I have had time to check this topic. The results have been to say the least interesting. Some will lay on the border of "Highly unlikly to happen" even if you accept my notion of a certain fluidity of events that have now passed.
Robert
Robert
I respectfully disagree, I think that if America didnt enter the war then the Germans would send more and more soldiers to Russia. Britain wouldnt really do anything. But i believe that if the Germans hadn't shifted their forces to Normandy, they would have won in the East. Just my opinion :sniper:
Just a quick question for those out there:
What would have happen at Pearl Harbor if the IJN was able to get at least 2 carriers in port and sink them? Wouldn't that made it impossible for the American to project/support any major sea action for at least half a year? That would allow Japan to invade the Midway Islands right?
Also, what would have happened if the IJN was able to knock out the fuel depot at Pearl Harbor?
What would have happen at Pearl Harbor if the IJN was able to get at least 2 carriers in port and sink them? Wouldn't that made it impossible for the American to project/support any major sea action for at least half a year? That would allow Japan to invade the Midway Islands right?
Also, what would have happened if the IJN was able to knock out the fuel depot at Pearl Harbor?
Japan got the inspiration from the British attack on the Italian Fleet @ Toranto. Getting the Carriers would have stopped offensive Ops for quite a while, except for the subs. Seems to me I read where they bombed a ball field where the fuel tanks were supposed to have been built, but weren't, but was marked on the raiders map as being there.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
To be honest I think had Japan concentrated more on its bombing ability and less on its torpedo's Pearl Harbor would have been much more successful, for as much as they sunk a sizable number of ships most of them were raised and returned to service within a year. I personally think had they concentrated on bombing infrastructure (submarine facilities, fuel storage, dry docks etc.) they would have had a far more long term effect on the US navy.
I know I might sound a bit annoying now but here is an "add on" to that.
Would a third strike be possible? It would meant that the pilots would have to land in the dark after the attack BUT the attack would have targeted the base instead of ships.
I believe it would be a good idea for the IJN but they would run into the risk of running into light to medium ships that "went looking" for them.
What do you guys think?
Would a third strike be possible? It would meant that the pilots would have to land in the dark after the attack BUT the attack would have targeted the base instead of ships.
I believe it would be a good idea for the IJN but they would run into the risk of running into light to medium ships that "went looking" for them.
What do you guys think?
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I would suggest that they could have launched strikes until they ran out of fuel and ammunition as there wasn't a lot the US could do at the time, as I recall the US carriers would not have posed much of a threat as they were on their way back from delivering aircraft to Wake Island (?) and ships leaving Pearl Harbor would have been a Japanese wet dream especially if they could have sunk some in the navigation channels.
Unfortunately for the Japanese Nagumo lost his nerve (which he made a habit of) and headed for Japan as soon as he could.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Had Trinity failed I suspect there would have been 2 possible outcomes:
1) The Allies invade Japan and suffer huge numbers of casualties before finally winning.
2) Russia invades Northern Japan and suffer huge casualties before Japan surrenders to the Allies.
Never going to happen, Japan did not have the manpower or plans to invade Australia, there is no way they would have planned a US invasion.
The closest they could have got was an invasion of the Hawaiian Islands in conjunction with the Pearl Harbor raid.
What if Patton had been allowed to push the Red Army back into the Soviet Union?
(can you say WW2 all the way to 2000? )