The what if thread -WW2- - Page 3




 
--
 
August 7th, 2009  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
A new post. What if the Germans had not wasted all that money on useless(iIMVHO )ships as Tirpitz,Bismarck,......... and used the money to build 200 u-Boats, could they have not starved the UK in 1940-1941 ? And why didn't they not it? Maube because Hitler gave Raeder all liberty and Raeder,not having learnt nor forgotten anything ,wanted a big fleet as in 1914(big fleet that was totally useless in WWI ,IMVHO )
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.
August 8th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense
Okay, so do you think that the 10-20% figures of 1944's armament production in 1940 was because germany didn't have the resources? Why they had them in 1944?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense
Do you think that they were mobilizing all resources they could in 1940? I cannot believe that.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense
All right, so lets see: in 1940 to 1942 AFV production increased from 1,800 to 4,200, then in 1943 it increased to 14,000 and 19,000 in 1944!
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense
And their european empire in 1941 didn't have the resources? Germany had more resources in early 1941 than in mid 1944, and in the latter period armament production was 4 to 6 times larger (in terms of planes and AFV).!
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense
The point is that in the first 40 months of the war germany was not producing what they could. This proved fatal in the long run. The question is: What if they had mobilized after France and Britain declared war on them instead of mobilizing after losing Stalingrad?
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.
August 10th, 2009  
LeEnfield
 
 
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
--
August 10th, 2009  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
What if Germany had turned all its attention to North Africa, took the Suez Canal closing down the Med to any allied force and then taken oilfields in the Middle East. Turkey and Spain would have know doubt joined the Axis then Germany could have attacked Russia with its full Army from two different directions.
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
August 24th, 2009  
ddg2sailor
 

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
August 24th, 2009  
SethC767
 
What if Hitler had an Alliance with the United States?
August 24th, 2009  
SethC767
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
This is a tough "what if" because it is such an all encompassing scenario but I guess I will start things off...

- I think it unlikely that the USA would have avoided WW2 after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

- However if we assume that the Japanese decided to take on British, French and Dutch possessions in Asia instead of attacking the USA I really don't know if the USA would have had an excuse to enter the war especially in the European theater.
I think however life for the British Commonwealth would have been very difficult without at least the material support of the USA.

In terms of the European theater I think very little would have changed without the USA, Britain could not have hoped to set foot on continental Europe but as long as Britain stayed in the war Russia would have eventually worn down the German army.

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
September 4th, 2009  
RCACS_FP
 
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?
September 4th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
It is an interesting question, had they taken out the fuel storage and dry docks it probably would have severly hampered the US Navys operations in 1942.
September 10th, 2009  
RCACS_FP
 
Thanks for the reply, MontyB.

I have another what if.

Suppose Japan had not invented the shallow running torpedo. Would the attack on Pearl Harbor be successful?
 


Similar Topics
Comparison of WW2 tank design and operational doctrine
Thread Merge Request Thread
Was my previous "Woohoo" thread deleted?