Time for a historical discussion

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Armandillo]

I heard a simular thing Armandillo. More recent research & stories of scientists have indeed pointed out that the German nuclear research has been significantly underestimated by the americans. (One explanation for this is that the russians extracted a lot of German scientists & material, if not most at the end of the war, using their knowledge in hopes of developing a bomb themself. Obviously this wasn't shared with the Americans...)

Yeah pretty much unknown. I've read this article on this new evidence of new theories that try to show more light in the subject.
So it turns out Dunny that they were actually doing a lot of progress.
Also they wanted to share the knowledge with the japanese, who also were researching on the matter.
They sent a sub with resources and info, but it was sunk before it made it.

If Hitler has the atomic bomb, would he use it ?
I think yeah.

[salan]

he would have bombed london no doubt.

[Smithy17]

D-Day would still happen even if Britain was taken over.

If Britain fell to Germany in the early 1940's maybe the war would have ended sooner. !943 the war has started to turn on the axis forces on the East Front supply lines are falling apart and the war in North Africa has come to a close do to mostly lack of supplies and units. If Germany took over Britain that would make a living hell for their supply lines quicker then before. Under this the need to send fuel and other war time goods to the battle front would be less then before. With the mass number of troops and other goods the Russians had at the time and end; the German East Front would have broken faster. Think about all the shipping the German ships would be needed to supply their forces in Britain. I think that the people in England would keep on fighting just like their allied in France. Ports would be hell for the Germans and also it would be easy to raid their ships on the high seas with what ever British ships where left. Other thing is that those ships that the axis are using is also taking up fuel that is very well needed by the late war.

Claiming that the war would have ended sooner if britain had been take is ridiculous. Are you saying that a resistance movement would have caused move problems for the germans than the british army? You can't really say that the channel is the high seas - if britain was taken the germans would easily be able to ship stuff back and forth especially as the navy would be deprived of all its bases of operation, they would have to come all the way for gibraltar or somewhere. Also whatever small amount of fuel was needed to transport stuff would surely be made up for by the lack of submarine warfare.

Also you seem to be fogetting the point that Britain was one of the most industrialised countries in the world. Capturing it would remove the source of supplies for the british armed forces and allow the germans even more in the way of productive power.

D-Day lunched in Britain but it didn't have to be lunch there if Britain fell. The allies had North Africa great area to have a build up arms. Could have more points on where to land on the axis shore line. But, over all maybe the war in Europe could have ended in late 1942 or the start of 1944. 

It depends what you mean by d-day. I would think it would be a bit difficult to land in northern france from africa and the allies did make landings in sicily italy and southern france.

Also the capture of britain would probably have meant the defeat of the british army as a fighting force allowing the virtual unopposed occupation of the mediteranean. So now its going to have to be an entirely american force (+canada but relying on america for equipment) landing an army somewhere in europe with norht america as the starting point. It would be bound to work...

[salan]

i got a question.

if you say it was bound to work, would not the opposite also be potentially true then too?

If they had conquered england, and been able to focus completely on the eastern front from that point and retaking africa/ or stopping africa's loss. 

Could germany of not starting planning the invasion of north america, and that too would have perhaps been possible with the production of a unified europe under its wings.

[Unkn0wn]

Also you seem to be fogetting the point that Britain was one of the most industrialised countries in the world. Capturing it would remove the source of supplies for the british armed forces and allow the germans even more in the way of productive power.

By 1940, Britain was only the 4th largest producing power in the world, passed by the US, Russia & Germany . And during the war Great Britain could only keep up because of the American Cash & Carry and Lend-lease acts.

I don't think there would be a lot of industry to salvage & use for the Germans if they would've ever gotten to capture GB. At least not in the initial years of the war. That being said, I'm not even sure Germany needed more production. Manpower, fuel & steady supplies were there biggest issues. Production onl became problematic once the massive allied bombings kicked in.

Anyway, operation Sealion was impossible to pull off. Even if the initial phase was won.
Control of Gibraltar & large bombing operations on British industrial centers however would've done the trick in keeping GB K.O for quite some time.

If they had conquered england, and been able to focus completely on the eastern front from that point and retaking africa/ or stopping africa's loss.

I don't think knocking out Britain would've freed up a lot more men & material for the Eastern front.
Although not needing troops in Africa & planes in Britain could've made some impact... I guess. But even with the island conquered, it's likely that GB would continue fighting in Africa.

Germany really had every little bit of extra sent to the eastern front, even if GB was secured they would've still needed 'Festungs' divisions at the Atlantik wall for a possible American invasion. That being said, I'd say It's mainly strategical errors that caused Germany to lose the Eastern Front.

[Smithy17]

i got a question.

if you say it was bound to work, would not the opposite also be potentially true then too?

I was joking about the bound to work bit

By 1940, Britain was only the 4th largest producing power in the world, passed by the US, Russia & Germany . And during the war Great Britain could only keep up because of the American Cash & Carry and Lend-lease acts.

Well I would say that 4th would rank it as one of the most industrialised countries


With the british army defeated in england it seems unlikely that there would be much hope of defending africa very easily


And Unkn0wn throughout this thread there has been people saying that they suspended this project or that to do something else - so they probably could have done with the production capacity.

[Thtb]

You never attack Russia. Evryone that does attack Russia lose horrible.

[Prydain]

All that I can say to Operation Sealion is:
The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Oh hold me Johannssen, I think im going to cry.

[Armandillo]

You never attack Russia. Evryone that does attack Russia lose horrible.

Yeah Germany could never have taken Russia, even if all the ifs.

[They Call Me SpitFire]

Okay Germany probably could have taken Russia if:
1. They had a higher productive rate.
2.Attacked in the Summer, not the Winter.
3. They weren't at war in Western Europe
4. If Hitler didn't split his attacking army in two as he attacked (half to some oil fields, and the other half to Stalingrad)
5.IF they had more tanks and infantry; contrary to #1
6.They didn't underestimate the Russians
7.Snipers. (Research The Battle of Stalingrad; you'll get my point)

                                         They might not have taken over Russia, but they sure as hell would have done better.

[snipes]

didnt us have to have britan to even be a part of d day?

[Prydain]

7.Snipers. (Research The Battle of Stalingrad; you'll get my point)

... Snipers are not battle winning soldiers. I am not sure if you know how to deal with snipers and how they are utilised but they are only really effective when not firing their weapons and doing some proper Recce instead of pissing around slotting people.

Don't go all BF2 on me and start saying they are AWERSROMEZ1337beTtERtHanTaNX!!!11!.

[Unkn0wn]

I think he watched too many movies like 'Enemy at the Gates' rofl.

[Crono]

It comes down to this, Russia would have fallen to germany had it not been for the allies, lots of manpower and resources had been deployed in the conflict with Russia.  As well if germany had developed a heavy bomber, they would have been able to apply force and destroy industrial targets more effectively.

[userstupidname]

..umh does anyone forget that .... THEY MAYBE HAD A DAM Reason invading britain.

were talking grain manpower fuel

the british ships would have been greatly reduced in they fighting ability

one less possible allie for america wich would apply great pressure on them the gold reserves and whole loads of crap specially theyr industrial capabilitys.

and can pepole pleas stop this bull of thinking all industries are the same ?
it wasent really easy redirecting industry and also main reason would be metall and oil.

but what really saved russia ? WINTER not the dam russians it was the winter and that barbarossa lacked strategical depth

[They Call Me SpitFire]

7.Snipers. (Research The Battle of Stalingrad; you'll get my point)

... Snipers are not battle winning soldiers. I am not sure if you know how to deal with snipers and how they are utilised but they are only really effective when not firing their weapons and doing some proper Recce instead of pissing around slotting people.

Don't go all BF2 on me and start saying they are AWERSROMEZ1337beTtERtHanTaNX!!!11!.

Umm research dumbasses the Russians kept the Germans from Reccing the city with thier snipers, but the Germans didn't have enough snipers to really countersnipe. I don't play  BF2 or watch movies like Enemy at the Gates. I did proper research on the battle and the effect of the Russian Snipers. If the Germans could of countersniped, it would have stopped delaying them from advancing. As I said in #2 The Russian Winter. And as well I had a 1-7# list  1 being the most important and 7 being the least. Duh snipers weren't battle winning soldiers look what they did for Germany in Italy,Normandy, and so on. They delay attacks. And when did I say snipers pwn tanks. That wasn't me I think that was you.

 TOO DAMN COLD!!!

[PrydainII]

Soviet snipers where sooo played out by the Red Star and other propaganda newspapers. I have too read about the snipers in Moscow, Voronezh and of course Stalingrad. One thing many historians point out is the fact the Soviet supply line over the Volga was limited through the Autumn of 1942 and pretty much none existent through the winter when the Volga froze, so unless the snipers where hogging all of the ammo, they had none. Engagements would be taking up all of the factory supply.

The Lazure plant salient was where Zaytsev was apparently training the his snipers, yet this was forgetting that the 389th Infantry Division, 24th Panzer Division and 295th Infantry Division was on rotation to attack. It was overrun twice and Mamayev Kurgan was held for a brief period because the Soviets had no ammo.

[Unkn0wn]

Nuh uh, vasily wtfpwned evereyone trying to get into the factory.

[userstupidname]

nuits snipers was not the reason.... if you talk small arms germany speically lacked semi guns like russian svt and the mp40 germans grand smg was not good for city fightin  (due to the ammo you couldent for example lay down
but russians had entire companys equipped whit smgs

[Niftyeye]

Well I think the Russians could of out produced the russians, the German 'Lightning War' lost its momentum as it got bogged down, Russia is an extremely large country, and while the Russian Army had centuries of fighting in the winter, the German army suffered, I think Armour refused to work, while the russian tanks had backup power.


And who said that the German tanks were superior? The russian T34 had sloped armour, wide tracks (which helped it cope better in the cold conditions), and it was mass produced.

However German crews were better trained and had a crew of 5, while the soviets only had 4.



I think Hitler should of sealed the fate of the western front before trying to take on russia, which every army has failed to conquer, apart from the Mongols.