ww2wargame.com
WWII: Struggle for Europe____WWII: Struggle for Asia => WWII discussion forum => Topic started by: herostratus on June 06, 2005, 04:12:05 PM
-
Suppose Hitler was utterly calculating, and had a realistic appreciation of how strong the United States was...
Dec 7th 1941: Japanese attack Pearl Harbor
Dec 9th 1941: Hitler denounces Japanese act of agression; pointedly refuses to activate Japanese alliance, which is defensive only.
Dec 12 1941: Hitler expels Japan from the Axis.
Dec 13 1941: Hitler declares war on Japan.
Hmmm. America is fighting only Japan. Germany is also fighting Japan, so America and Germany are perforce allies, in the Pacific anyway. But the UK (and the Netherlands) are also fighting Japan AS WELL AS Germany. So the USA is allied with both sides in Europe, who are fighting each other... eep.
Odd man out is Russia. They are fighting only Germany, a nominal US ally. Hard to see any American lend-lease going there.
What if Hitler offered to send the Tirpitz to the Pacific?
Remember, Roosevelt might have had a hard time getting a declaration of war against Germany as it was. If all this didn't keep the US off Hitler's back, it would at the least have complicated things...
-
Well, hindsight is 20/20 I guess. . .it certainly would have made the execution of Rainbow a challenge for ths US and thrown a wrench into Churchhill's and Roosevelt's plans.
The game does not allow for that much flexibility. As you alluded to, Germany very much underestimated the speed and magnitude of the ability of the US to be a major player in the European conflict. He also assumed the conflict with Japan would consume a much greater share of American resources. Both allowing him a much more free hand in the Battle of the Atlantic, isolating Great Britain.
History proved him wrong, but it would have been a tough call at the time - the US had the what, 12th largest army in the world? Even the Brits at the Arcadia conference had their doubts about the ability of the US to be much of an ally.
I guess both sides made significant blunders that we, with 60 years of history between us would not make. The game attempts to recreate a few 'certainties' such as war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as inevitable as well as war between Japan and the Allies and the entry of the US in the European conflict.
-
Hello,
I am Christoph form Germany and some of you might know me already from the forum at Harrisgamedesign.com.
First of all: Fortunately Hitler didn´t win the war. Could he have won it?
Hardly, because his main goal, as already disclosed in „Mein Kampf“, was conquering territory in the East. He actually never wanted the war against Great Britain due to his racial point of views. And even France was only conquered to prevent a two front war that finally emerged.
Underestimating Churchill and Roosevelt was one thing, but the biggest mistake was underestimating the ressources of the USSR. Even if Hitler wouldn´t have declared war on the US, he still had no chance winning against Stalin. Of course the Red Army was crippled by Stalins purges in 1938, but in 1942 the generals in command had learned their lessons and Stalin too. While Stalins generals got more and more commanding powers (i.e. operation Uranus was not Stalins idea) Hitlers generals were replaced more and more by commanders who followed Hitler blindly. After all, he still was the „bohemian private“ as Hindenburg once put it.Â
Already in 1942 the USSR alone outnumbered Germany in production figures of tanks and artillery, let alone man power. Of course it would have taken more time without heavy US lend lease support (without US beef Red Army soldiers would have had to fight with much poorer rations), but the outcome of the war would have been the same.
The US probably would have thrown more resources against Japan, killing them them first while still giving lots of lend lease support to UK. But there would have been no D-Day and no liberation of Europe. Instead pretty much of Europe would have come under soviet influence, replacing Hitlers oppression by Stalins.
Believe me, I am really grateful that it all went the other way. Changing the course of history is part of the fun playing a WWII game.
But remember: there would be no such game if the Art Academy in Vienna would have taken Hitler as a student. Unfortunately he even failed there...
Just some thoughts...
Christoph
-
I wonder. . .
The question is, would have Germany lost the war even if America was not directly involved in the European conflict.
I have gone back and forth on my opinion on this, but I am not entirely sure if it is a foregone conclusion that Germany would have lost and could not have fought the Soviet Union to a standstill. Its true that the Eastern Front consumed the vast majority of Germany's army, but without US direct involvement it may have been enough to tip the scales. It would have certainly been a closer conflict. It is true that the Soviet Union was outproducing Germany in 1942, but by 1944 Germany was producing many more tanks and planes than the Soviet Union.
Without an invasion of Italy or of France and with no daylight bombing of German industry and the drain that Western airpower had on the Luftwaffe, the Germans may have been able to fight the Soviet Union to a stalemate. The UK and the Commonwealth, with U.S. lend lease, would have still been a thorn in the side, but would not have poised nearly the same strategic threat than that with the US added to the mix did. I'm not saying it is a sure thing it would have resulted in some form of armistice, but it would be worth simulating. . . ;D
-
Considering where America was at the time, that is a very interesting scenario, because we all know what happenned after the war... no Korea, no vietnam, no afganastan. However, we could introduce a whole other catagory that way, and, who knows, we could have had a 3rd world war eventually because of american influental dominance over the world as we see it today. They're are way too many people in this world that wishes we would just dissappear. So, looking back, when we had Russia to deal with, we genarally had most of the world on our back...Nnnot the case anymore.
Let it also be known, that I have no doubt that after Japan was gone, the U.s. would have invaded pacific Russia, and we would have easilly defeated them, then what?
-
Germany was not outproducing Russia in tanks and planes in 1944, but Russia would have to curtail some tank production to make trucks without lend-lease. The Germans were worn down by Dec. 1941 anyway. They had to strip the north and center to launch Blau, and even then used a lot of allied divisions on the flanks. I don't see much changing until late 1942 or early 1943.
Once Manstein tries to releive Stalingrad, things get interesting. Panzers arrive sooner in 1942 rather than occupy the rest of France, can they breakthrough and save some of Sixth Army?
-
Germany was not outproducing Russia in tanks and planes in 1944. . .
I know there are varying statistics on production figures in WW2, but in Collin's Atlas of WWII and in Keegan's book on WWII, they have the following numbers:
German 1942 Armor production at 9,300 and in 1944 it was at 27,300
Soviet production in 1942 was 24,000 (rising to 29,000 in 1943 and dropping to 20,500 in 1944). The Western Allies also chewed up the bulk of the German airforce. I'm just saying, with no Western front in French North Africa, Italy, France and in the skies over Germany - it may have been possible for the Eastern Front to have been fought to a point of stalemate.
-
You may be misreading Keegan and Collins.
Kirosheev gives received in 1944 as 4,000 heavy, 17,000 medium and 200 light for the Soviets, tanks only, not SPs. . Ellis gives Total tank and SP with 75mm and above for 1944 for Russia 28,483, for Germany, 18,576. I don't remember 29,000 for German tanks in 1944, let along tanks and SPs total for that year. Panzer Truppen lists of new Pz. 3 (including 5.0 cm) Pz, IV Panthers and Tigers do not total 29,000 for the 1944, maybe half that at most. the breakdown is month by month, but few months total 3,000.
-
Alas it appears I was comparing apples and oranges. . .My soviet figures did not include SPs which accounted for 6-7k in 1944.
However, there are conflicting sources on German total tank and SP production and they appear to have come close according to some sources
from the Wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
which cites Richard Overy, Russia's War, page 155. And from "Campaigns of World War II : Day By Day" written by Chris Bishop and Chris Mcnab, pages 244-252
Summary of Axis and Soviet Tanks and self-
propelled gun production during the war
Tanks and self-propelled guns
     Soviet   German
1941Â 6,590Â Â Â Â Â 5,200
1942Â 24,446Â Â Â Â 9,300Â
1943Â 24,089Â Â Â 19,800
1944Â 28,963Â Â Â 27,300
Though I have to admit, there are varying numbers depending on where you look. Other statistics for the Germans are below (but it is unclear whether they include all of the Jagdpanzers and SPs Germany produced in 44).
 Pre-war          1944 Â
   Â
Panzer IIÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 151Â Â
Panzer 38(t)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 2,356
Panzer IIIÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 4,752
Panzer IVÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 6,625
Panzer V Panther   4,003
Panzer VI Tiger I, IIÂ Â 1,069Â Â
Total             18,956
Â
However, with that, I will concede you are correct, the Soviet's outproduced the Germans in tanks throughout the war (Though maybe you could allow me to say the Germans narrowed the gap in 1944).
In total aircraft production, it seems that the Germans and the Russians were just about even by 1944.
-
I admit the Germans narrowed the gap, and had they been fighting only Russia it would have made a BIG difference. And add that, if no lend-lease, the soviets would need to curtail tankproduction for trucks or have a very slow moving army, and the Germans have some viable options.
-
I have just finished reading a book on this subject which sheds alot of light on the what-if. The writer makes a point which i agree on that if Hitler transferd 3 or 4 panzer divisions to rommel he could have teken the suez canal and also the middle east countrys cutting off lend-lease through Iran. This would have casue the Med. to become a Axis lake and also force Turky to come to the Axis side or allow movment in there country. this in turn would make stalin avoid any conflicts with USSR. Due to Stalin not wanting to loose the oil fields. I belive that if done before operation Barbaroosa could have made the situation way better for the axis. If the invasion of the USSr had all readdy occured then Stalin would be in a tough spot to have and spread his army out over 3 fronts.
-
But I thought the problem was supply in the desert, it was hard to supply even the small number of forces the axis had in Africa. With only one road it is relatively easy to break the supply line.
Another problem was of course the small amount of oil to keep the Italian navy fighting. Without that it would be very hard to beat the Royal Navy, remember that the Allies sat on a huge majority of the oil wells in the world.
-
But the reason of supply was Hitler was not sending him what he neeeded to get the job done. And what was being sent was being intercepted by the royal Navy and the fighters from Malta. In the campagian in the med. Hitler should have taken Malta first instaid of Crete.
-
One of the successful ways I have seen the Axis pull off a victory in the game is to pour most of the German Luftwaffe into the Med following the defeat of France - that usually keeps the British Navy out of the way and sea lanes clear to transport troops to North Africa for a push on Cario.
Could this have worked during the real war? why not?
-
Came across a 2 disk CD covering several blunders of WWII. One of the major Axis blunders was Germany NOT going to full wartime production, especially on armor & aircraft, until late 42 or early 43 & by then it was way too late. Their factories were unable to keep up with these material losses at the front. Another major blunder for both Japan & Germany was the loss of veteran pilots. The loss of knowledgeable & experienced veterans broke a vital link of training. Most experienced personnel were killed, wounded, or captured and not being recycled back to help train new personnel and show them what works and what was stupid!
-
I am just throwing this out there.
My professor once said that Germany was still active in terms of propaganda. Some of the biggest proprgandas was that,
1). Germany lost the war because of the Harsh Soviet winter
2). Germay didn't ever get to full production.
3). etc.
Well the winter didn't help matters at all. But in all honest truth they didn't plan well enough the assualt onto Russia. They thought it would be easy. After all they had beat them once already in the First war. The supply lines is what got them and that came from the partisians and, well lack of planning.
It wasn't a matter of going to war time production because they didn't decide to go to war production. It is because of other things that prevented it from going to full production.
Now I have a book they are teaching on campus (of course it is just one opinion which all history is ) I will have to find it and post what and who it is from for folks to read. It is a great book.
Sean
-
What you'll need to find is some literature from the German perspective as to why they lost the war.
-
Yea your porably right on that one.
Although with that perspective you might not get the total truth either. That was part of the argument of the book I had read for the class was that the german military has conventinatly blamed most if not all of its failures on Hitler or other things but not on actually any short comings the "military" made on tactical decisions.
Proably have to come up with your own opinion after getting both or even three or more different perspectives of it.
I rally need to find the book so I can at least put the title out there.
Sean
-
Another thing kind of off the subject here was that Russia would of been lost with out the US help that we gave them.
This book also explores that (it was like 1500 pages or so) as well.
It brings to light that the Russian army actually did alot on its own and actually beat the Germans in numerous battles before the US was even in the war......
I will make a point to find the book..... ::)
Sean
-
Yea I would really like to know what book that is. Im interested into that kind of stuff and would like to get a hand on one of them.
-
Okay went and dug it up out of the garage. I really need to get unpacked.
The book is "A World at Arms" by Gerhard L. Weinberg
"The author was born in Germany and spent the first year of World War II in England and served in the U.S. army occupation in Japan. After recieving his Ph.D from the University of Chicago in 1951 he worked on Columbia Universitie's War Documentation Project, directed the American Historical Association's project for microfilming captured German documents, and found and edited Hitlers second book. He is the author fo numerous books and articles on the orgins and course of World War II, including a prize winning two-volume study of the Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany. He has taught at the universites of Chicago, kentucky, and Michigan, was a visting professor at Bonn University and at the U.S. Air Force Academy, and since 1974 has been William Rand Kenan Jr. Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. " excerpt from the inside cover.
It actually is a pretty good book and I was mistaken about the length of it. The actual "reading" part of it is 920 pages then anotther 250 pages of notes to the pages and maps and index.
Sean King
-
Hi guys...I played a few years ago at GenCon and I just bwanted to add my piece!!
I totally agree with Christoph 100%! Germany had no chance of winning the war once they invaded the USSR. The track record of the war shows that the Nazis only defeated countries that were economically or industrially weaker than themselves. It took the USSr some time but the industrial potential they had was too great. All the bombing the Allies did on GErmany really did not have a huge impact on their ability to produce weapons of war...in some cases, their output increased in 1943-1944. The problem with the Nazis was that their industrial base was not designed for a long war......they were developed to produce weapons of quality, but it would take extra time to produce these., and maintainance was a bitch since the machines (especially the tanks) tended to be so complicated (but beautiful) in design.
They couldn't possibly get close to the USSR industrial base in the Urals because their bombers were not long range in design. Basically it all came down to the numbers, which the Nazis couldn't match the Soviets in.
Those vast Russin Steppes........they just gobbled the Wehrmacht up!!!
-
Wow- Chad is back!
For those of you who don't know - One of the best German players out of the gates by the way - first time playing the game and he nearly schooled folks that had been playing the game for a couple years. . .
Hope you can make it to Origins or GenCon this Summer - we have a new challenge for you - Eric from Detroit is gunning for the best rookie award.
-
Hi Chad!
What does your schedule look like this year? Can you make any major cons? ;D
John
-
Just remember folks, everything we do here is 20/20 hindsight. All the blunders made by the Axis we learned from long after the after action reports were analyzed and the end results were determined to be blunders. Now we can reapply better strategy in a game and try to realize how BLEAK things really could have been if the strategy had gone in a different direction and BETTER planning had been accomplished.
-
Just a thought. Some people believe that it would have been possible to create a stalemate with Russia in the areas of white russia and the ukraine/polish borders. Despite their overwhelming superiority in numbers, the Russians still struggled to plan effective offensives and were almost always tactically inferior to the germans. The success of their offensives (uranus, bagration, etc) were almost universally aided by german incompetence in the form of Hitler overruling his generals with ludicrous demands (although the stalingrad disaster was also due to paulus's poor response to the soviet offensive and misuse of his tanks). Had Hitler left the management of the eastern front to his more effective generals (manstein and balck spring to mind) I consider it very possible that a stalemate could have been achieved on the eastern to the point where neither side had the forces left to mount an effective offensive. It is hard to believe that the Russians could run out of manpower but consider that by 1944-45 the russians had lost most of their "fit" fighting men and were filling out divisions with older and younger conscripts not as suited to offensive operations.
other evidence might include mansteins successful fighting withdrawal of army group south after the failure of the Stalingrad offensive. in bitter weather against overwhelming numbers of fresh russian troops and material, and with tired worn out, understrength divisions of his own, manstein.....
1. managed to mount a counteroffensive against stalingrad that might have succeeded had things fallen a little differently
2. managed to extricate almost all of army group b and army group a from their tenuous positions, and retreat under incredibly difficult conditions while being pursued by a superior enemy with large armored forces
3. mount an effective counterattack on russian forces
4. reform lines and stabilize the front
end note: he pretty much saved the entire southern front from collapsing and managed to save most of his troops in the process. I personally consider this retreat campaign one of the greatest military accomplishments in history.
For the overall point consider the massive casualties manstein managed to inflict on the soviets during the dnieper offensive while being hobbled by hitlers incredibly stupid command decisions. Also consider the initial difficulty the soviets had tactically against vastly inferior opponents in many engagements-ex. their struggles during the battle of the seklow heights during the final drive on berlin.
overall i think stalemate with russia would have been possible. yes the axis would almost certainty lost the war eventually but things would be very different
-
seelow heights*