Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Leadership Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: WW11 What ifs?
Johnny Frost    7/11/2003 4:21:01 AM
What do people thoughts on the most interesting "What ifs" of ww11. I immediately think of Hitler not ordering his armour to overrun the Dunkirk and Calais beaches allowing BEF and French Forces to escape. Would this have changed the outcome? What about the decision to switch the targets from the airfields to the cities by the Germans in the battle of Britain. What if Hitler had pushed for Moscow and not the Caucuses in 1941. What if Japan had attacked Russia and not the US, from Manturia?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
Johnny Frost    Axis air power   8/10/2003 2:46:45 PM
If the Axis wanted to put more troops into north Africa then it was not a shortage of boats that was the problem, it was a shortage of air power. If Hitler had put alot of planes in the med the italian navy could have performed much better. I think the key would also be Spain, if Hitler had been able to entice into atacking Gibralter. If this could have been take then the British supply situation would be dire.
 
Quote    Reply

jlb    RE:NA: Shaka   8/10/2003 4:17:53 PM
There's a very thorough study of DAK logistics in Van Creveld's Supplying War. Malta was indeed a thorn in the Axis side but it could be suppressed. During the X Fliegerkorps offensives against the island, it was all Malta could do just to defend itself and supply convoy losses were negligible. When Malta was left alone however, losses often exceeded 20%. The total supply requirement for the Axis armies in Africa were about 70,000t per month, and the Reggia Marina managed to deliver most of the time, often far exceeding that amount - 125,000t were unloaded in Africa in June, 1941, for instance. The distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is about 950km, and it's another 450 to Tobruk. 70,000t per month equate to about 2,330t per day. Tobruk harbour could on average unload 600t per day and Benghazi 900t, so under the best of circumstances if the DAK operated 150km further to the east in the Halfaya pass area it required 150x600 + 450x900 + 1550x830 = 1,735,000 t.km of lift per day. If Tobruk was unavailable the requirement climbed to 2,575,000 t.km per day, with Benghazi unavailable it reached 3,430,000 t.km per day. I don't have data on Axis truck columns, but Allied supply columns in France in 1944 managed about 110Km of forward lift per day with much better roads than the Via Balbia, so assuming 90km per day in Lybia and 75% availability (that's quite optimistic actually), the Axis needed about 25,600t/38,000t/50,800t of lift capacity depending on which ports could be operated. To supply the same army at El Alamein would require an additional 11,800t of lift. I don't have figures for the Axis motor pool in NA, but in January 1942 there were 14,000 trucks total on the Russian front for a total lift capacity of perhaps 50,000t, roughly what Rommel would have needed to adequately supply an offensive on the Nile delta. The Germans simply couldn't conquer Egypt and wage war in Russia simultaneously.
 
Quote    Reply

jlb    RE:Axis air power   8/10/2003 4:22:04 PM
An Axis conquest of Gibraltar wouldn't have changed the British supply situation in Egypt very much, since almost all convoys to Egypt except a handful like the famous Tiger one went around the Cape during the campaign.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Axis air power   8/10/2003 5:19:03 PM
The German efforts in the Balkans sometimes strike me as a case as much of momentum and inertia driving policy as anything. Once Hitler began to address them as a serious issue, Germany was dragged from one area of involvement to the next, till it wound up in Crete. Frankly, I've always thought the whole effort was a waste of time and resources. This was an area to mop up, later. Not to allow causing resources to be diverted from more important efforts. There just wasn't enough force in the entire region, combined, to seriously threaten Italy, let alone Germany, in the worst conceivable case. And, each country had geography in it's favor, with mountain borders facing the Balkans. The only real threat was the USSR would move large forces into the area, to threaten the Axis from another direction. However, Barbarossa was going to take care of this, by taking the war to the Russians, first. Britain had no ability to stage major armies out of the Balkans in that era. It didn't even have the forces, at all, even if it COULD move and support them, there. I can think of no other area in the world, or instance during WW2, or the various areas of fighting in the world immediately preceding, where so little additional force could have had such major implications to the whole world as the Mediterranean theater of early WW2. For all the speculation addressing the possibility that Germany WOULD have tried Sea Lion, and all the huge casualties that could have caused, even if successful, a mere few percent of the same effort could have driven Britain from the Eastern Mediterranean, ME, cost them their major source of oil, cut of the whole Indian Subcontinent from all but the most roundabout, difficult lines of communications. Brought Turkey into the war on the Axis side. Threatened Russia much more effectively. Even brought Spain into the Axis, in the fallout from an Axis victory in the Med. Conceivably allowed Germany and Japan to meet in the Raj. We could have seen a European element of WW2 which swung to the Axis all the way to the point of the Atomic bomb.
 
Quote    Reply

greytraveller    RE:WW11 What ifs? ... Shaka   8/11/2003 12:24:53 PM
I am trying to point out that the Germans waited too long to send troops to North Africa. The axis could have supplied an extra two divisions of panzers in late 1940. At that time the British only had 3 or 4 divisions in Egypt. Had the Germans coerced the Italians to allow German panzers to support their invasion of Egypt then the axis most probably would have captured Alexandria and Suez in 1940. Instead the German Afrika Corps did not begin to arive in Libya until Spring 1941. Had Egypt been taken in 1940 then Malta could have been invaded later, especially as the Royal Navy would have been forced out of the eastern Med.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:WW11 What ifs? Japan   8/12/2003 7:21:07 AM
Been away. thanks Shaka - a nagging question now makes sense. I agree with bsl as to the reason for attacking the USA - and the occupation of the Phillipines. As to the timing: Japan renounced the Washington treaty of 1923 in 1936 (I think). This gave the Japanese Navy a head start; but the US was laying down capital ships at an alarming rate, so the USA HAD to be eliminated when it was at its weakest.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:WW11 What ifs? Japan   8/12/2003 6:21:22 PM
The timing of the start of the (expanded) WW2 was a serious issue for everyone. Both Britain and Germany had undertaken huge armament programs in the mid/late1930s. IIRC, they were scheduled to peak around 1943, for both countries. Similarly, both Japan and America had begun to arm in earnest before December of 1941. However, here, Japan faced a worse comparative threat with respect to America than Germany faced with respect to the UK. American productive capacities were not just larger than Japan's; they were immensely larger. Once a real arms race began between the two countries, Japan was doomed to fall rapidly behind. In this sense, if there was to be war, Japan had a huge interest in seeing it come as early as possible, when Japanese capabilities were large, but America was still suffering from the reduced military of the 1920s.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:WW11 What ifs? Germany - bsl   8/13/2003 1:10:19 AM
I think Germany was different but easier in a way. The Hossbach-notes indicate an optimal-war-break out in 1944 - and I find no reason to doubt the time given from technical considerations; but Hitler was running the german economy into the ground - he could not wait. His "annexation" was a way to gain time.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:WW11 What ifs? Germany - bsl   8/13/2003 5:01:26 PM
Thomas, I am unaware of German economic performance in that era. My impression was that Hitler's timing was more a matter of geopolitical judgment than any desire to wait till German production was optimized. In the event, Germany seemed to wait overlong to fully mobilize the German economy for war. That happened when Speer took over that Ministry, did it not?
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:WW11 What ifs? Germany - bsl   8/13/2003 7:03:40 PM
Speer should have been in charge since the very beginning. Wasn't one of Hitlers moron pets running the show for a bit?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics