Modelling > Other

Realistic alternate WWII, emphasis on German better/worse outcomes

<< < (4/4)

apophenia:

--- Quote from: Silver Fox on April 01, 2012, 04:02:41 AM ---Of course if you want to end the war early...

--- End quote ---

Wow, that is a scary scenario  :o

Silver Fox:
apophenia, scary?
 
Perhaps, but...
 
HX 106 was escorted by HMS Ramillies, and stalked by Gneisenau and Scharnhorst. HMS Ramillies' presence was enough to disuade the pocket-battleships and HX 106 didn't face the guns of the two powerful raiders. The battle surrounding HX 112 would be a turning point, the escorts prevailed and the Kreigsmarine would lose two U-boat aces including Otto von Kretschmeer of U-99. During the critical period of late 1940 to early 1941 the U-boats were winning... they very nearly closed the Atlantic. There is disagreement on that point, but the Germans several times exceeded 300,000 tons of shipping sunk in a month, the critical level that saw losses exceed build capacity. If the Germans had gone after the escorts before the permanent escort groups form? Well... who knows?
GTX, if your question was directed at me... feel free. :)

GTX_Admin:

--- Quote from: Silver Fox on April 01, 2012, 06:41:36 AM ---GTX, if your question was directed at me... feel free. :)

--- End quote ---

Yes it was.  Thanks!

elmayerle:

--- Quote from: upnorth on April 01, 2012, 02:31:39 AM ---
--- Quote from: GTX_Admin on December 30, 2011, 04:42:52 AM ---Looking at the other side, Hitler took a lot of gambles in the early war.   If the French/British had been able to launch proper attacks in '39/'40 things could have very quickly ended with WWII being a short war ending in 1940 at the latest.

Alternatively, what if the Germans and French/British got bogged down in the west in 1940 and then the USSR invaded from the East?  Would the Allies have joined with Germany to fight the USSR?

Regards,

Greg

--- End quote ---

Wasn't one of Hitler's biggest gambles early on related to how much favour he showed to building the Luftwaffe at the expense of the land and sea forces?  I've often heard it said that if he had spent a bit less on the Luftwaffe early on and more on the other two services, that things might have gone much differently on the ground and on the sea early on in the conflict.

As for France not being able to launch a "proper attack"; it's always been my understading that they did have the manpower and resources to do so, but it was more a matter that they were poorly deployed and suffered though questionable command decisions.

I'm by no means a WWII expert, and these are just things I've read and heard.

--- End quote ---
My understanding is that France had the men and the equipment but they didn't have an updated tactical and strategic doctrine to take into account the enhanced capabilities the new equipment gave; a prime example being their piecemeal use of tanks to support the infantry rather than as active formations of their own like the Germans did.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page