Who had the best chance of winning? Japan vs Germany

[DXfoxman]

I was watching something about axis secret aircraft and it starting talking about that maybe if the axis had mroe time, they could have won out of superior technology. And it got me wondering; Who had the best chance of winning individually, as in, in their part of the war? Japan or Germany.
Post away.

[admiral_yamoto]

Japan was too weak, techonlogically and resourewise. germany had a way better chance of winning WW2 if only they retreated from stalingrad and regrouped.
japan was bound to lose. like one of the articles say, "Japan can only win the game"

[Lt M Cotten]

Alright, I'll go first. I say that Germany had a better chance of winning. At several points if a battle had gone a different way Russia may have been defeated and then the Germans would have been more likely to win.

I can recall no point where it looked as though Japan may be victorious.

[Moderator Sinister]

Well I do have to say that if japan wasn't fighting china, the pacific would have been way worse for the americans. At one point I think 2/3 of the manpower of the Japanese armed forces were fighting the chinese and 1/3 the Americans.

This kinda parrells the whole "why attack russia?" and open a two front war. If both of these powers had just one front, the war would have been much, much, more costly for the allies.

Other factors like just plain awful luck plagued the japanese. Fear caused a second strike to be called off on pearl, some aircraft carriers weren't at pearl. The american planes find the japanese carriers at midway, Kurita believes that Hasley hasn't taken the bait at Leyte, again and again it just seems like the japanese never got a break.

I do have to say that from what I've learned it seems the Japanese never really intended to "win", they were hoping for some islands and some political concessions from the US and then a truce to be signed. Their biggest mistake was in thinking that the US wouldn't react the way they did to an attack on Pearl.

[Lt M Cotten]

Well I do have to say that if japan wasn't fighting china, the pacific would have been way worse for the americans. At one point I think 2/3 of the manpower of the Japanese armed forces were fighting the chinese and 1/3 the Americans.

This kinda parrells the whole "why attack russia?" and open a two front war. If both of these powers had just one front, the war would have been much, much, more costly for the allies.

I agree both nations tried to take on a "two front" war when winning one was questionable already. Good for us, bad for them.

[admiral_yamoto]

I agree with both of you, germany should have gone all out on britain.
japan shouldve gone all out on china or us or the british empire

[sherminator1]

I think germany had a better chance of winning. Germany had actual resources where as japan only entered the war to gain resources, if they hadn't taken most of china they would have run out of oil within several years

[RuHurt]

If Germany hadn't lost so much in Russia, particularly Stalingrad, they would quite possibly have won, or at least not lost. Of course, had Japan played smarter against the Americans (specifically by not attacking them at Pearl), they could have done very well.

[DXfoxman]

If Hitler didn't try to do everything himself, and acually listened to his generals, I beleive russia would have fallen. Either before the Russian winter, or a counter-attack after the winter.

But I disagree about Japan's doom. They had alot of secret things going on. On the show I watched, it talked about all the secret aircraft and bombs and such that Japan was reasearching.
Japan, as the U.S. started to island hop, wanted a "weapon of mass destruction". Japanese scientist said that an atom bomb was posible, but they lacked the materials to build it. Japan then talked about putting bubonic plague, or another biological agent, on bombs, and dropping them across the western USA.
Also, they had subs in testing that would go in the middle of the pacific, These weres half sub/half aircraft carrier. They would raise up a long range plane hidden in its hull, and it would fly off the end of the sub. The plane would basically fly to the Panama Canal(or maybe another key place) and destroy it.

Any of these could have done alot of damage to the US, or posibly brought up a treaty or a cease-fire.

[Moderator Sinister]

Dx is right,

Unit 731, japan's secret biological warfare unit was very scary.

[admiral_yamoto]

wow, i guess japan did have some power. however, they wouldve eventually fallen due to their economical crappiness

[dma02]

crapo. I actually wanted to vote for Japan but I accidently voted germany. Main reason I chose (wanted to choose) Japan was beacuse it is all up to her to save Germany's butt. Germany can only hold off from Russia and UK, and keep shucking territories waiting for her ally to creep up behind russia and save the day.

[steben]

Germany of course!!! What a question.
The pact with Japan was a stupid thing. It served German (Edited). It only dragged the US with more ease in a war with germany. Even a pact with Italy had its disadvantages. I guess the Italian fleet was a nice issue.

I agree with the first UK above Russia tactic. The question is whether Germany was in fact better at winning against russia than against the UK. A mass island invasion? Germany wasn't ready at all for that kind of thing. They lacked the ships, the airplanes and the reserve personel to crew new planes. Of course they could have trained them and they could have produced more fighters. But they didn't.

[admiral_yamoto]

crapo. I actually wanted to vote for Japan but I accidently voted germany. Main reason I chose (wanted to choose) Japan was beacuse it is all up to her to save Germany's butt. Germany can only hold off from Russia and UK, and keep shucking territories waiting for her ally to creep up behind russia and save the day.
i have to admit, japan is cooler :D, but they would seriously lose against a superpower like germany, they couldnt even take over a crappy, insecure country like china

[dma02]

Japan got screwed because they attacked America and got them involved in the war. The Americans brought in a fresh supply of soldiers, planes, tanks ...etc and had a massive industrial effort pushing their war machine. This practicaly saved the day after the rest of them had exauhsted themselves previously.

But all in all I do think that If only focusing on Asia and the Pacific (leaving America alone), Japan would have had quite a good time.

[TomJag3]

Those who point out all the things that could have went right for Germany tend to overlook all the things that did go right for them. It brings to mind the saying, "If wishes were horsed then beggars would ride." People tend to overlook everything that went right for Germany in their invasion of Russia. What if the Soviets had believed their agents' reports that Germany was going to invade?

Concentrating on England wouldn't have done it for Germany. Their fighters didn't have the range to escort their bombers. Even if they had won the air war, what of it? They didn't have the barges to invade England or supply the invasion. SeaLion was nothing more than an exercise in 'what if'. Germany didn't have the capabilities during the Battle of Britain to pull it off.

[Moderator Sinister]

Those who point out all the things that could have went right for Germany tend to overlook all the things that did go right for them. It brings to mind the saying, "If wishes were horsed then beggars would ride." People tend to overlook everything that went right for Germany in their invasion of Russia. What if the Soviets had believed their agents' reports that Germany was going to invade?

Concentrating on England wouldn't have done it for Germany. Their fighters didn't have the range to escort their bombers. Even if they had won the air war, what of it? They didn't have the barges to invade England or supply the invasion. SeaLion was nothing more than an exercise in 'what if'. Germany didn't have the capabilities during the Battle of Britain to pull it off.

I think that if germany had concentrated on just the UK (and not a two front war) and had the americans not entered the war germany could have easily invaded. You can use all those war materials and instead of replacing fighters and bombers you could be building transports. And with the U-boats in charge of the sea and the german air power in charge of the skies, Britian would have had to bunker down and expect the worse.

[TomJag3]

That's a lot of 'ifs'. U-boats don't work in the English Channel and getting across the English Channel isn't like a river crossing. If you research the barges the Germans were building for Sealion you'll find that most of them were being built along the Baltic and many of them foundered while being towed along the coastline. That's an empty barge sinking close to land. Getting barges across the English Channel would be far more difficult. Germany did not have the navy to control the English Channel, not even for an invasion. U-boats are a good strategic weapon, but would be ineffective for controlling the sea lanes during an invasion. They are too vulnerable to air power and armed naval vessels when close to shore. You're talking about Germany building transports. How long would it take to build a transport? They weren't set up like the US shipyards. Germany lacked the shipbuilding capacity of the US. It takes time to convert production from one item to another. If they're going to build transports, they'll stop building subs. You can't build ships in an airplane factory.

[Guerrilla Guy]

Japan has always been the last man standing in my games!

[Moderator Sinister]

That's a lot of 'ifs'. U-boats don't work in the English Channel and getting across the English Channel isn't like a river crossing. If you research the barges the Germans were building for Sealion you'll find that most of them were being built along the Baltic and many of them foundered while being towed along the coastline. That's an empty barge sinking close to land. Getting barges across the English Channel would be far more difficult. Germany did not have the navy to control the English Channel, not even for an invasion. U-boats are a good strategic weapon, but would be ineffective for controlling the sea lanes during an invasion. They are too vulnerable to air power and armed naval vessels when close to shore. You're talking about Germany building transports. How long would it take to build a transport? They weren't set up like the US shipyards. Germany lacked the shipbuilding capacity of the US. It takes time to convert production from one item to another. If they're going to build transports, they'll stop building subs. You can't build ships in an airplane factory.



Maybe what we are disagreeing on is the time table. I don't think Germany could have waltzed in at the conlusion of the battle of britain but with control of the air and sea and no chance for britain to fight their way out, Germany could have taken their own sweet time with invasion plans.

1. Commerically Uboats could keep lots of resources entering the UK
2. You keep talking about the UK having air power, if the germans win the battle of britian the UK has no air power.
3. If the brits are all holed in up britian unable to launch fighters or ships, I would say Germans would have had tons of time to begin shipbuilding and never underestimate their production capabilities, which was incredible.

[Hey dude]

That's a lot of 'ifs'. U-boats don't work in the English Channel and getting across the English Channel isn't like a river crossing. If you research the barges the Germans were building for Sealion you'll find that most of them were being built along the Baltic and many of them foundered while being towed along the coastline. That's an empty barge sinking close to land. Getting barges across the English Channel would be far more difficult. Germany did not have the navy to control the English Channel, not even for an invasion. U-boats are a good strategic weapon, but would be ineffective for controlling the sea lanes during an invasion. They are too vulnerable to air power and armed naval vessels when close to shore. You're talking about Germany building transports. How long would it take to build a transport? They weren't set up like the US shipyards. Germany lacked the shipbuilding capacity of the US. It takes time to convert production from one item to another. If they're going to build transports, they'll stop building subs. You can't build ships in an airplane factory.True, but you can sink ships with planes. That's why Sealion's success depended on wiping out the RAF. At that point the Luftwaffe could have used their planes to lay down mines (leaving paths open for their transports, of course) to prevent involvement by the royal navy. There is an excellent, meticulously researched book called INVASION! that deals with this subject. Can lay out the authors name if you like.

[admiral_yamoto]

Maybe what we are disagreeing on is the time table. I don't think Germany could have waltzed in at the conlusion of the battle of britain but with control of the air and sea and no chance for britain to fight their way out, Germany could have taken their own sweet time with invasion plans.

1. Commerically Uboats could keep lots of resources entering the UK
2. You keep talking about the UK having air power, if the germans win the battle of britian the UK has no air power.
3. If the brits are all holed in up britian unable to launch fighters or ships, I would say Germans would have had tons of time to begin shipbuilding and never underestimate their production capabilities, which was incredible.
yeah, i agree with you, it would be like a seige. UK would lose. The UK is like japan, small islands with hardly no resources, have empires (although japan's didnt last very long). If the U.S. could crush japan like they did, germany could crush U.K. if they went full-out

[DXfoxman]

germany could crush U.K. if they went full-out

Ya, but what about Russia? They were planning on attacking Germany, even before Germany attacked them.

[admiral_yamoto]

I bet if the germans fortified the russo-euro borders, the russians couldnt get in. The way to counter the russains is to kill a huge mass of them because mostly all they do is out number then capture in a battle, oh wait, was that china???. well, i bet the germans could've defended very well against a soviet attack

[Beast1313131]

Germany always wins. the have a massive ground force and could just drive to the eastern Asian coast and somehow get some ships, and Sieg! Victory!

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

If Hitler was not such a nit-picky person, changing battle plans in the middle of the Russian campaign and had not switched from attacking British airbases to british cities, they had a very real chance to sign treaties w/Russia and invade Britain.

But fortunately, Hitler was no general.

Also, if the Japanese had waited until they had crushed British colonial resistance before Pearl Harbor they might have been able to survive. MIGHT. At least a little longer. But still, their future was not a pleasant one.

So...definitely Germany.

[Da Black Gobo]

Germany came so close on more than one occassion. Hitler was his own worse enemy, and germany would have been better off if he had been assassinated during the early years after the fall of france. Attacking Russia before securing victory over England was just stupid. Geramny could have beaten england if Hitler had left the operations to more competant generals instead of his pets.

Sean

[admiral_yamoto]

yes, it was indeed hitler's fault that germany lost the war. if only he listened to his generals and withdrawed and regrouped his troops for another attack instead of doing psychological warfare with the russsains

[Drax Kramer]

Geramny could have beaten england if Hitler had left the operations to more competant generals instead of his pets.



I am interested how was Germany going to beat Britain. A challenge is to everyone to post a reasonable plan for Germany to force Britain to sue for peace. Personally, I don't think it could have happened short of conquest of Russia.


Drax

[RuHurt]

Devote much of the materiel used in the Russian war to building U-Boats, and strangle England's supply. Oh, and don't declare war on America, even if they do declare war on Japan.

England couldn't have held out against concentrated submarine warfare, especially without any allies on the Continent.

[Da Black Gobo]

I am interested how was Germany going to beat Britain. A challenge is to everyone to post a reasonable plan for Germany to force Britain to sue for peace. Personally, I don't think it could have happened short of conquest of Russia.


Drax

England could not support itself without it's colonies and USA support, if you could remove the support, and if Hitler had been removed from power, allowing a more moderate solution to the problem. England would have and could have sued for peace. One of the biggest mistakes in the war with England was the terror bombing of the English population centers. A more moderate approuch would have had the population with time demanding a peaceful solution. It was the terror bombing the stimulated not only English resolve, but active USA support.

Sean

Sean

[Hey dude]

yes, it was indeed hitler's fault that germany lost the war. if only he listened to his generals and withdrawed and regrouped his troops for another attack instead of doing psychological warfare with the russsainsIf Hitler had listened to his generals, there would have been a route of the German army during the battle for Moscow. The brass wanted to retreat but Hitler insisted on holding fast. Sure, things got bad, but if the troops would have retreated it would have been far worse.

[Hey dude]

Devote much of the materiel used in the Russian war to building U-Boats, and strangle England's supply. Oh, and don't declare war on America, even if they do declare war on Japan.

England couldn't have held out against concentrated submarine warfare, especially without any allies on the Continent.I agree. Build merchant raiders and anti-shipping aircraft as well. Hit the UK in Africa & the Middle East until you link hands with the Japanese

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

They wanted to retreat from what? Are you talking about before or after the Soviets great counteroffensive? The original plans for Barbarrossa were for 3 army groups. Hitler kept moving forces from the Moscow group (Army Group Center) to the south. Please clarify.

[OctavianNT]

I think that Germany had a better chance than japan of winning but it was almost impossible for both. The allies were just to ecomonicly superior.

[admiral_yamoto]

personally, i think america won the war. japan, a tiny country, went against the american economic giant. that was their downfall

[Drax Kramer]

Devote much of the materiel used in the Russian war to building U-Boats, and strangle England's supply. Oh, and don't declare war on America, even if they do declare war on Japan.

England couldn't have held out against concentrated submarine warfare, especially without any allies on the Continent.

Britain was doing just fine against U-boats in 1941. That was the year when three top scoring aces (Prien, Schepke and Kraetschmer) were eliminated by RN. If you take a look at the growth of U-boat fleet you'll see that the number of operational submarines doubled and tripled as the war in Russia continued, but with gradually less impact on Allied production.

Submarines were technologically incapable of winning a war against determined and technologically advanced opponent such as Britain.


Drax

[Drax Kramer]

England could not support itself without it's colonies and USA support, if you could remove the support, and if Hitler had been removed from power, allowing a more moderate solution to the problem.

How was Hitler going to be removed from the power while he was victorious as in 1940? Britain knew very well it needed to control the oceans in order to survive, that's why she built all those escorts and merchants to keep up.

England would have and could have sued for peace.

Why? Why would Britain let a single continental power control Europe and the vital ports in Low Countries? For centuries, the constant point of British foreign policy was to never allow a single continental power to control Europe nor Low Countries. That's why Britain fought Spain, France and Germany. The continued existance of nazi regime was a deadly threat to existance of Britain.


Drax

[dma02]

The continued existance of nazi regime was a deadly threat to existance of Britain.

You say it as if the lives of every British person was at stake of death. It was more like an economic threat, as it is consisten with Britan's history not to let 1 power dominate continental Europe. They thrived on trade and commerce with Europe and if 1 power dominated it and cut off trade with Britain... bye bye economy. Though Germany never intended to be enemies with the UK at first, though things change.

[Adlertag]

Germany came so close on more than one occassion. Hitler was his own worse enemy, and germany would have been better off if he had been assassinated during the early years after the fall of france. Attacking Russia before securing victory over England was just stupid. Geramny could have beaten england if Hitler had left the operations to more competant generals instead of his pets.

Sean

Lots of attitude here. I dont know what you kids learn in school over there, but Germany would NEVER come so close to victory if it was'nt for Hitler.
Hitler was a very clever politician, and a great gambler.

"Attacking Russia before UK was finished was plain stupid"
Who are you to tell ?
The SURPRICE factor is often decesive, and Stalin was taken by surprice, since he would never belilve that Hitler dared to attacking him before the war in west was ended.

Sealion
was fantazy, and would never have succeedet. UK's shipyard capasity was twice of Germanys, and aircrafts didn't have any supreme rank over naval units that early.

You kids are so trigger-happy, you think the only way to win a war is killing as many nice fellows as possible. But in reality, Hitlers big opportunity was to take 338 000 allied prisoners of war at Dunkirk. They would be nice negotiations pawns in the diplomatic peace-talk. Then take France off the hook, maybe in trade for some colonies, and USA would NEVER joined the war.

Whit this settled, Germany could seize the Middle-East oil, and have a solid template for any Sovjet Feltzuge.

Danke.

[admiral_yamoto]

Maybe germany should've gotten japan involved with russia instead of America. The Japanese player usally attacks russia in the game

[sherminator1]

Why don't we just play it out with a&a?

[Da Black Gobo]

Why don't we just play it out with a&a?

LOL! :)., that is the best answer yet!!

[Moderator Sinister]

it would be fun to play russia and japan is out of bounds an let germany duke it out with the UK and USA (as if they fought a one front war)

Likewise it would be neat to spot Japan 50 IPCs (say they didn't attack china (2/3 of the army was fighting china)) and put russian and germany as out of bounds

Neat stuff

[RuHurt]

In the Germany vs. UK and US game, Germany would win; they'd be able to concentrate on a killer sea and air force, and could take UK fairly quickly. As for Japan vs. UK and US... that would be very interesting, I don't know who'd win :D.

[admiral_yamoto]

well, which axis power is easier to play in A&AR?

[RuHurt]

Japan, definitely. The Allies are usually concentrating on Germany, and Japan just has to know how to use his resources to move through Russia.

[Maj.Striker]

Just for history's sake...Germany stood the best chance of winning the war (or at least fighting to an unfavorable truce for the Allies). If America had not entered the war then I see Germany as the winner. Without America there wouldn't have been D-Day...the British, although strong and resilient would have been far more reluctant to attempt such an invasion on its own. Considering how close D-Day actually came to being a failure I wouldn't be surprised that IF UK alone had tried an invasion (which I think would have been pushed back several years) it would have probably failed. No D-Day means no serious Western Front...no Western Front means the Tiger tanks go to the Russian Front and although the Soviets had a good tank in the T-34...it was no match for a Tiger and a renewed German offensive.

Assuming at least half of the forces on the Western front were able to be transferred to the Eastern front, the Soviet offensive would have at least been temporarily halted. Another year or two of fighting sees Germany with jet fighters and improved tank technology. Russia falls...it's over.

On Hitler, in his early days he was brilliant...the master politician. He was unparalleled in his ability to gauge his opponents and opposing military strength. Unfortunately, as with almost all the famous conquerors, success led him to believe he was greater than he truly was. The decision to invade Russia was not a mistake as most people might think (although it perhaps was still not the wisest course of action at the time it was decided), if you'll research the early Russian Offensive however you'll find that Germany almost took Moscow...the early stages of Barbarossa saw the Russian army almost completely crumple...thousands of Russian Tanks and planes were obliterated. The offensive almost succeeded...even later in the effort, (as others have mentioned) Stalingrad, was another point were a strategic withdrawal could have allowed for a renewed offensive. The decision to invade Russia was a necessary one for Hitler couldn't allow Stalin to remain at his back forever...but Hitler's mistakes much later in the game sabotaged his war.

[TomJag3]

It was Hitler that kept the Barbarossa invasion from taking Moscow. Guderian quarreled constantly about being diverted towards other goals. Eventually, he was relieved of his command because of his arguing. (It happened to him during the invasion of France, too). He was one of the few that would tell Hitler off to his face. Hitler didn't seem to mind when it came from Guderian.

One of our problems in studying the Eastern Front is that we have very little information on the Russians. We know what the Germans were planning, their capabilities, and mistakes. We have very little information from the Russian side. This makes it easy to bias for the Germans, saying if they didn't make this mistake then they could have accomplished that. Not knowing the Russian side makes it more difficult to say if the Russians had done this differently they could have accomplished that.

So, I guess saying 'what-if' doesn't matter. It didn't happen, so we live with the world we have.

[Maj.Striker]

So, I guess saying 'what-if' doesn't matter. It didn't happen, so we live with the world we have.

A much better world I might add...most of us might not be here if things had been different. :)

[sherminator1]

seriously. we'd all be making license plates and speaking german in some factory in chekoslovakia

[admiral_yamoto]

my question is would japan and germany fight post WW2 in an axis victory

[Caractacus]

I notice that one problem with the discussion is that people keep confusing 'win the war' with 'win the game'. Remember that the game designers tinkered (heavily) with Japan to give it a better chance. Recall the strength of the Japanese army in politics - the 'China question' really should never have ceased being simply a 'Manchuria question'...if Japan had listened to the naval command, things might have gone better for them.

Germany and Japan couldn't have fought meaningfully - the contact points would have been too far from their centres and the areas of probable conflict were mostly unsuitable for mid 20th century warfare: Siberia, Kazakhstan and Iran. Give it three or four years and their version of a Cold War may well have developed, and then - who knows?

Churchill thought there was a threat of a German invasion and he also seemed pretty pessimistic about what would happen if they DID invade. Personally, I've never been too sure why - it's true that the British lost a HUGE amount of heavy equipment on the continent, but the strength of an army is in its trained manpower - and that was largely retrieved as well as many French and other, Low Country, allies.

As was pointed out above, crossing the Channel with barges was a recipe for disaster - the Channel is one of the most choppy and unpredictable waterways in the world - there are countless wrecks there. If we recall how hard Overlord was four years later after massive planning, special boat designs, training and deception plans and then consider that Hitler's landing, had it happened immediately after the fall of France would have been largely improvised, one can guess that it waould probably have failed.

There were very limited landing possibilities for the Germans along the British coast (when compared to the Allied choices later along the coast from Norway through Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and France) and all landing zones would have been within about 100 miles (160km) of a central point in England (note, not the UK...). The British would not have faced the same reinforcement problems that so plagued the German efforts to repulse the Allies in Normandy.

When you consider that many RAF pilots bailing out unscathed were back in another plane the same day, it's clear too that the Luftwaffe would be hard-pressed to gain dominance of the skies over Britain - a clear difference to the Allied situation in Normandy. I recall reading that after the worst week of the Battle of Britain, there were no aircraft reserves, but that two weeks after the switch to bombing London the British had more planes than at the start of the Battle of Britain. Production of planes was immense: it had to be.

The Germans were facing the reverse problem, they had the planes (they were producing well too), but their pilots were deteriorating in quality since many who would have lived had to ditch in the Channle and others, forced to bail out over britain, were of course interned.

By the way, Germany had the only real chance of ending the war in a winning way. An earlier commitment to Russia (a few weeks), plus going straight to Moscow with no ridiculous movment of armoured divisions up and down the Central Front would have very likely succeeded - they were in the outskirts when halted as it was. Winter clothes despatched when first requested would have been important, to say the least. Cleverer treatment of disaffected peoples could have rallied massive support too - the mismanagement of the Ukraine was a significant factor.

I think if I say that the Stalingrad issue could have been dealt with better by going past it, no one will disagree too strongly... ;)

The Japanese were fighting in China for no clear goal. The material resources were not in the areas they were fighting for and they were poorly identified and exploited in any case. It was taking on the characteristics of a racist war, really. If Japan had limited itself to Manchuria/Manchukuo and THEN attacked the Western Allies, things may well have been different - resources coul dhave ben diverted to the navy and air force and a real invasion - not just 4-6 divisions - could have pushed for India.

In addition, with a bit of care, the Japanese could have played a crucial role by taking Vladivostok when Hitler reached the outskirts of Moscow IF they weren't bogged down in China. If Hitler had reached Moscow a few weeks earlier than in reality (as mooted above), Stalin would have been forced to flee or be captured, with the loss of Vladivostok at the same time, I think the USSR would have been in deep trouble...and possibly about to crumble.

But Japan's rise to power would have been put in doubt right from the word 'go' when they attacked Britain's and the Netherlands' colonies and threatened Australia. The USA had already carried out exercises with these nations in anticipation of an eventual showdown with militarised Japan and a mutual effort was inevitable in the short to medium term if Japan attacked.

I vote 'Germany'.

[TomJag3]

Caractacus, very well reasoned.

[Caractacus]

TomJag3: I tank yow!

[steben]

Hitler's victories in '39 to '41 were indeed not in favour of his redrawal from chancellorship. Assasination would have been a popular crime. In early 1942 Hitler gained even more power than he had before.

It is also true that Hitler was a political genius leading his country to a comfortable strategic axis alliance in 1939-1941's europe, dragging almost all eastern europe at his side. He managed to use his proletarian popularity as a weapon amongst the elite. He succesfully installed a divide and rule system and not only between individuals. He also divided party and state much more than in communist states, creating two "pools" of support. Relying on the conservative attitude of the "protected against change" Weimar bureau- and aristocracy (including the Army) and wisely promovating very willing dismalled staff of the former period, he created a loyal techno-bureaucrat state machine next to his other pool: the proletarian-populist "weirdo" party.

I'm also convinced that a quick victory against the USSR would have led to a serious economic and political suitcase for a peace pact with UK. Off course the UK would have disliked the continental domination, but they would have had no choice.
I'm changing my mind on the UK first strategy. Permanent occupation of the UK would have been tiring. Waiting with USSR would have been a gift to Stalin who was rearranging his army and starting his newest tank production. Summer 1941 was in fact a very last date to invade Russia in a blitzkrieg. Spring 1941 would have been better.

[Maj.Striker]

I agree with just about everything that has been stated above. Caractacus, very well reasoned post, I enjoyed it.

Churchill thought there was a threat of a German invasion and he also seemed pretty pessimistic about what would happen if they DID invade. Personally, I've never been too sure why - it's true that the British lost a HUGE amount of heavy equipment on the continent, but the strength of an army is in its trained manpower - and that was largely retrieved as well as many French and other, Low Country, allies.

I think Churchill was concerned because the English ground forces were minimal at best. I was just on a trip recently to London and while there I visited the cabinet war rooms and an interesting fact that hit me was that they stated only two full divisions were prepared to defend London. I don't know what England's complete land strength was at that time but given the lack of effectiveness English armor was having against the Germans tanks at that time I'd have to think that if even a quarter of Germany's invasion force landed...the battle would have been a hell of a thing.

[TomJag3]

I agree that Sea Lion would have been difficult for the UK to defeat if it was pulled off. However, as has been stated many times before, there were far too many hurdles for Germany to overcome in order to stage Sea Lion. To pull it off, Germany would need at the minimum:
1. Control of the sea
2. Control of the air
3. Transportation across the English Channel
4. Maintained supply lines across the English Channel
5. Great weather

I'm sorry, U-boat lovers, but u-boats cannot command the English Channel.
The Luftwaffe might have been able to control the air over the English Channel, but it would not have been able to provide the ground support that was so necessary to conqueor Poland and France.
Panzers would not have broken through the beachheads because the Germans would have had to capture the docks first, before unloading the tanks. Believe it or not, the Germans were not equipped with a bunch of LST's. The UK would not have to worry about how pooly their tanks match up against panzers because there wouldn't be any panzers present in any number. Assaulting beaches is the job for infantry.
The barges (which hadn't been built in any quantity) would have to be towed back and forth across the English Channel to bring supplies. Since lots of them sank being towed along the shoreline of the Baltic, imagine their lack of durability crossing open water.
During the course of the invasion, weather would determine whether or not the invading army was supplied. A week of bad weather and the invasion army would have to surrender, you can't attack without munitions, fuel, and food.

In November 1939, the German Navy had done its own report on an invasion of Britain. It was not optimistic about its success. The German Navy detailed many problems that would be experienced for either a short crossing or a long crossing. It did not state that an attempted invasion would be unsuccessful – but it was cautious.

In December 1939, the Wehrmacht had produced its own report. This favoured a surprise attack on Britain via East Anglia by 16 or 17 divisions. However, this plan needed the support of the German Navy and they believed that the Wehrmacht’s plan was untenable as the German navy would have to protect any landing fleet of the army whilst having to fight the British Navy. Raeder believed that this was an impossible task to complete successfully. The Luftwaffe pointed out that for its part, it would need good weather for the whole of the invasion if it was to do its job – and across the North Sea this could not be guaranteed. Though the Luftwaffe had experienced success in both the attacks on Poland and Western Europe, the RAF had not used its fighter force to its full capacity in the spring of 1940.



You might be able to conquer the UK playing Third Reich, but doing it for real is a much more difficult proposition.

[TomJag3]

A few comparisons for Sea Lion lovers:

At the time, the balance of naval forces in the region were as follows:

RN / Kriegsmarine
5 capital ships / 1 capital ship
11 cruisers / 1 cruiser
53 destroyers / 10 destroyers
23 destroyers on convoy duty / 20-30 submarines

In addition, the RN had countless smaller craft, including sloops, minesweepers, converted trawlers etc. These would have been of marginal value against warships. However, against the Rhine barges forming the main invasion transport force, they would have been effective.

The first instruction to begin planning was issued 2 July, giving 84 days before the invasion. (D-Day had been planned for 2 years). The Germans planned to lift 9 divisions (D-Day had 5).

In Normandy, the Allies had total naval and air superiority, a host of special equipment, considerable hard-won experience, and a considerable level of support and assistance from the local population. Despite facing defenders that can be most charitably described as second-line, the Allied forces did not have an easy time on D-Day.

Amphibious combined operations require close co-operation between the various branches. The Germans did not have this.

The Wehrmacht wanted a broad-front landing (it proposed Ramsgate to Portand - 275 miles). The Wehrmacht expected the Kriegsmarine to carry out a landing on this massive front in the face of an overwhelming superior navy, with no transport fleet yet assembled. The Wehrmacht document stated:

"The Luftwaffe will do the work of artillery, while the Kriegsmarine will do the work of engineers."

Meanwhile, the Kriegsmarine were displaying a similar level of understanding of the needs of the Wehrmacht. It stated that the time between first landing and the second wave of reinforcements and supplies would be 8-10 days. Thus 9 Wehrmacht divisions, without any heavy equipment or resupply, would be expected to hold out against the 28 divisions in Britain, which had unlimited access to supplies and the available equipment.

Ignoring for the time being the air battle, we will look at the mechanism proposed for getting 9 divisions across the Channel. This was the responsibility of the Kriegsmarine. The plan was:

Block the west end of the Channel with U-Boats (operating in shallow, confined waters and required to stop, with 100% effectiveness, fast-moving warships rather than slow-moving merchantmen).
Block the east end of the Channel with mines and 14 torpedo boats (with 20 enemy destroyers immediately to face).
The main surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine was to "Break out into the Atlantic and draw the Home Fleet into following it."
Even if this exercise in wishful thinking worked perfectly, there was a problem. The RN had, based within the limits proposed, 3 light cruisers and 17 destroyers. However, the Kriegsmarine had thought of this, and decided that the barges would be adequately protected if the soldiers on the barges (travelling at night) "Fired at unidentified ships".

Less adequately considered by the Kriegsmarine was how to capture an intact port. The chosen port was Dover. The operational plan was to sail the barges in and capture it. This was the detailed plan. The defences of Dover included a considerable amount of equipment "Surplus to establishment" (courtesy of HMS Sabre, which had passed on abandoned equipment from Dunkirk). This equipment included:

3 Boys anti-tank rifles
19 Bren guns
4 mortars
3 21" torpedo tubes
8 6" guns
2 12 pounder guns
2 14" guns, called Winnie and Pooh.
There were two limiting factors. Firstly, lack of ammunition (the anti-tank rifles had only 19 rounds each) and lack of personnel. (The CO complained to his diary that he didn't have enough troops to use all the weapons he had, and he couldn't request more troops because he shouldn't have all this equipment in the first place.)

To get the first wave across, the Germans gathered barges and tugs, totally disrupting their trade in the Baltic. Eventually, 170 cargo ships, 1277 barges, and 471 tugs were gathered. These were, inevitably, bombed by the RAF (about 10% being sunk before they dispersed again). The barges were mainly those designed for use on the Rhine, with a shallow freeboard. They sink in anything above Sea State 2. The wash from a fast-moving destroyer would swamp and sink the barge. (Correct: the RN could sink the lot without firing a shot).

The situation with regard to mariners for the barges with experience of the sea was even worse. When used as a landing craft, the barges, tugs and motorboats required extra crew. In total, the Kriegsmarine estimated that a minimum of 20,000 extra crew would be needed. That's 20,000 extra crew at least knowledgable of matters maritime. By stripping its ships to the minimum (which doesn't bode well for the Kriegsmarine if it is required to fight a fleet action), the Kriegsmarine was able to supply 4,000 men. The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe transferred 3,000 men who had been sailors in civilian life, and an in-depth trawl of the reserves and the factories and the drafts brought forward another 9,000 men. After digging through the entire manpower cupboard, the barges were still 4,000 men short of the minimum required.

Finally, the barges were under-powered for open water operations, and required towing. The basic unit was a tug towing two barges, and travelling at 2-3 knots, in the Channel, which has tides of 5 knots. Given that the distance that the far left of the invasion had to cross, a minimum of 85 miles, the poor bloody soldiers would be wallowing for a minimum of 30 hours in an open boat, and expected to carry out an opposed amphibious landing at the end of it.

The most comical element of the plan, however, was that for manoeuvring the flotilla. The plan was that this huge mass of towed barges would proceed in column until reaching a point ten miles from the landing beach, then wheel and steer parallel to the coast. When this was complete, the vessels would make a 90 degree turn at the same time, and advance in line towards the coast. This was to be carried out at night, and controlled and co-ordinated by loud hailers. There had been no chance to practise the operation, and there was less than one skilled sailor per vessel.

Need I go on? There's more at http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

[TomJag3]

Lord help me, I love Operation Sea Lion.

Operation Sealion - The Air
So far, we have looked at an exercise in wishful thinking. We now turn to the Luftwaffe in order to gain an appreciation of the inability to count.

The strength of the Luftwaffe at the point of Sealion was about 750 bombers and 600 Me109 fighters. The Germans estimated the strength of Fighter Command at 300 planes, of which 100 were not available to the RAF.

In fact, 11 Fighter Group had 672 planes, of which 570 were Spitfires and Hurricanes.

The Luftwaffe, with its resources, was expected to do all of the following:

Act as artillery for the landing forces
Keep the RN out of the Channel
Win total air superiority
Prevent British Army reinforcements from getting to the zone by bombing railway lines
Make a mass attack on London to force the population to flee the city and choke the surrounding roads.

Now, we actually have a pretty fair idea of how the RAF would have reacted if the southern airfields had been made untenable. Dowding had made preparations to pull 11 Fighter Group back to the Midlands in order to preserve an effective fighter opposition to an invasion proper.

This would have placed the RAF fighters out of the range of the German fighters. Given the disasters that the Luftwaffe bombers suffered when they undertook unescorted daylight missions, we can see that while Kent and Sussex could have had a lot of bombs dropped on them, the industrial heartlands and the RAF and the RN ports and the British Army concentrations would have been pretty much untouched.

So what happens if the Luftwaffe go after the airfields more effectively? 11 Group pulls back to the Midlands. The Luftwaffe pounds Kent and Sussex for a while, achieving diminishing returns (although the hop fields, and hence the output of beer, will be reduced noticeably).

When Sealion starts, 11 Group has had chance to rest and recover and build up its strength, while the Luftwaffe have had to carry out a lot of sorties. On Sealion, 11 Group, in addition to 10 and 12 Group can re-enter the fray. They won't have so long over the area of operations, but against that, they have a huge number of potential targets - barges and landing beaches and transport aircraft. The Luftwaffe fighters have equally limited time over target, and they have a huge number of things they have to protect. If any target is damaged severely, Sealion is made unworkable. Thus the RAF need to succeed only once, while the Luftwaffe need to succeed everywhere and every time.

Meanwhile, RAF's bomber command has just been presented with a massive, unmissable target in the form of the barge fleet. If the Germans are flying fighter cover over the barges, then these fighters are not flying as escort for the German bombers. If they are not escorting the bombers, then the bombers are unprotected against RAF fighters. In this case, the Luftwaffe will be ineffective at keeping the RN Home Fleet at bay. In essence, if the RAF doesn't get the barges, then the RN does.

It is worth reiterating the key figures, that of fighters. At the time in question, the fighters available were 600 for the Luftwaffe, and 670 for the RAF.

Britain was outproducing Germany in planes, so the proportions are steadily moving in Britain's favour.

Another key element was the number of trained pilots. Again, Britain has a massive tactical advantage. A British pilot who survived being shot down could quickly be returned to operational status. A German pilot who survived being shot down became a prisoner of war, and removed from the battle.

[TomJag3]

The prelimnary exercise:
One single main exercise was carried out, just off Boulogne. Fifty vessels were used, and to enable the observers to actually observe, the exercise was carried out in broad daylight. (The real thing was due to take place at night/dawn, remember).

The vessels marshalled about a mile out to sea, and cruised parallel to the coast. The aramada turned towards the coast (one barge capsizing, and another losing its tow) and approached and landed. The barges opened, and soldiers swarmed ashore.

However, it was noted that the masters of the boats let the intervals between the vessels become wider and wider, because they were scared of collisions. Half the barges failed to get their troops ashore within an hour of the first troops, and over 10% failed to reach the shore at all.

The troops in the barges managed to impede the sailors in a remarkable manner - in one case, a barge overturned because the troops rushed to one side when another barge "came too close".

Several barges grounded broadside on, preventing the ramp from being lowered.

In this exercise, carried out in good visibility, with no enemy, in good weather, after travelling only a short distance, with no navigation hazards or beach defences, less than half the troops were got ashore where they could have done what they were supposed to do.

The exercise was officially judged to have been a "great success".

[RuHurt]

Ok Chris, you've made your point, and very effectively I might add ;). Everyone listening? It would have been impossible for Germany to win an amphibious invasion launched against England, even imagining such an invasion could have been put together in the first place. And that's my last word on the subject ;).

[Moderator Sinister]

MY point here is

1945..US doesn't enter the war, Germany doesn't attack Russia, Germany surrounds Britain. In that amount of time they COULD come up with a successful plan to invade I have no doubts about that. Britian would have no imported resources and Germany would own all of europe.

In 39-44 with everything going on the way it did, ok they aren't going to be successful. But, if fighting just against just the UK, germany has all the time in the world to plan and execute an invasion.

[TomJag3]

And with no war with Russia, there's no Tiger tanks, no Pz IV's with the long '75, no Panthers. For each BB built, eliminate 1 panzer division, subtract 2 more panzer divisions for the cruisers and DD's that accompany each BB. Drop the numbers of U-boats built for the 5 years prior to the invasion so the yards can build transports.

Now if you're the UK, you've got fewer u-boats on the ocean, being less effective. With no Murmansk convoys, you've got less merchant shipping lost and can concentrate your escorts more effectively. You have more time to prepare your defenses. Instead of 1 of every 7 tanks going to Russia, they are all at home. In 1940, the UK was building fighters faster than Germany. Manpower wasn't the problem after Dunkirk, it was the loss of the heavy equipment. Most of the troops went back into France. Give the UK 5 years and all that equipment is in place.

Now, lets hallucinate for a moment. D-Day involved 5 divisions being carried to France. Let's assume that the Germans, being the wonder workers that we know they are, can do twice as good. Germany lands along the coast of England with 10 divisions. They're counterattacked with 20 divisions plus home guard. Hmmm...

Ahh, but Germany has the Luftwaffe!!! The Luftwaffe is going to turn back the Home Fleet, control the air over the Channel and the landing strips, and perform air support for the troops on the beach. It has to do all of this 100% successfully all of the time.

I don't think people realize the problems of supplying an invasion force or performing an assault. Remember, the US was forcasting 1 million US casualties if it invaded Japan. Germany didn't have any way to transport that many to the UK and didn't even control the water.

[admiral_yamoto]

people might disagree, but (compared with other nation's planes) german planes suck :D i think one of the reasons the germans lost the battle for britain was cause spitfires are so much better than stukas or whtever the germans used.

[A&ADude]

Germany did

[squirecam]

Sea Lion would never ever have worked.

Germany, concievably, by taking the mid east, making the med an axis lake, and by preventing supplies to UK, could starve the UK into submission.

This, of course, was Churchill's greatest fear. That Germany would conquer Egypt, move into Persia, and starve the Brits.

Imagine a 1942-45, with no war in Russia (nor USA). U-Boats surround UK. Airforce and V-2 rockets pound the brits. Maybe they never invade, but UK is never going anywhere either. Sooner or later a "cold war" peace would take place.

Squirecam

[bigkidscottt]

Most people don't know that Hitler's first unholy alliance proposal was between him, italy and (get this) England. If things had worked out right for him, He would have taken out russia and Europe, Italy would have taken Africa and Englad would have strengthened her colonies. Japan was just his ugly stepchild alliance because the original one didn't work out. And fo those who think japan could have won, America was putting somewhere around 80% of its effort to germany and d-day and 20% to Japan. How long do you think Japan would have lasted without Germany "distracting" America? Also, even without American support statistically China would have eventually worn down Japan based on pure numbers--the casualties would have been horrific, and they wouldn't have been able to invade japan to finish the job, but they would have at least stalemated Japan in the end. Japan had no chance. (The problem was that to keep having a powerful say in the Diet (japan's government) the minister of the army had to keep getting victories on land--so the war in China kept expanding and was becoming somewhat unmanagable even by the time we entered the war.)

[admiral_yamoto]

stop dissing japan :( :( :(
i think theyre cool................................
*waits for drax kramer to break the truth that japan couldnt have won because of them lacking resources*
besides, i voted for germany ;)

[Beast1313131]

Germany would have wasted those Japs. Whats a navy going to do against a million angry krauts with guns and a hell of a lot of support(Panzers)!?! Sure they may have kept the Germans off the Japanese mainland for a while but eventually the germans would get over. And also Germany would have definately gone after the Japanese after they finished off the Allies.

[Firestorm85]

I think that if germany had concentrated on just the UK (and not a two front war) and had the americans not entered the war germany could have easily invaded. You can use all those war materials and instead of replacing fighters and bombers you could be building transports. And with the U-boats in charge of the sea and the german air power in charge of the skies, Britian would have had to bunker down and expect the worse.

You're failing to remember that Germany had basically already beaten Britain and Russia. The two-front war didn't hurt them very badly at all. Besides, what's more important: One little island, or all of the Ukraine? Also, the assault on Russia failed mostly because of Italy! When Italy invaded Greece they were dominated. Hitler had to divert troops from Operation Barbarossa delaying the assualt from April until September. Think of how different things would have been if Hitler would have hit Moscow in August instead of December!

[luke swensen]

I would have to agree with Firestorm85 on this one. Germany had to keep the U-Boat operation going in the Atlantic. Germany had to declaire war on the U.S., they couldn't just allow the U.S. to keep sending lend-lease to Britian. (U.S. neutral, YA Right) If Italy had an army that could hold thier own, Greece and the Africa front, Germany wouldn't have to send troops to these campains. The two other problems with Operation Barbarossa, was that Hitler didn't allow his Generals enough time to properly plan the Russian attack and once in Russia by-pass Stalingrad and take out Moscow and the Caucases.

[TomJag3]

OK, here you're saying that Hitler didn't give his generals enough time to properly plan the Russian attack. However, you're also saying that if Italy could have held its own that Germany could have attacked earlier. I'm confused.

Another point, and it can't be emphasized too much, is supply. Russia did not have a road network. The German transport command was not up to the task. Russia is a quagmire in spring, a dustbowl in the summer, and a mess in winter. Russian railroad track is a different gauge than Europpean track. This meant that supplies couldn't be moved by railroad to the front.

A large portion of German transport and artillery was still being moved by horse. They don't move rapidly. Trucks were being used to haul supplies. Gas had to be supplied for the trucks. More trucks had to be diverted to bring gas to keep columns moving. Several gallons of fuel were expended for each gallon making it to the front.

Armor requires a great deal of maintenance. It was usually hauled by rail to an assembly point before an offensive and unloaded. With no rail line, replacement armor had to be hauled by truck. Germany wasn't mechanised enough to keep the invasion going. By the time the Germans were ready to push on Moscow, their tanks were worn out, in need of repair. Most of them weren't running at all. That doesn't include the problems of winter weather.

I understand that it isn't exciting/glamorous reading or study material, but providing supply for an army is complex. It takes a lot of effort to provide the supplies to keep an army in the field and Germany did not have what it took for the subjugation of Russia. They were constantly at the end of their supply chain.

Something A&A does to some degree is show how long troops take to get to the front line. Most people don't seem to realize that most of the infantry spent their time on foot moving from objective to objective. They seem to be under the impression that they flew in, road the rails, or had trucks/APC's to cart them around. WWII was a different environment than modern times.

Young people don't seem to understand that at the time of WWII, when people had a distance to travel, they went by train. People still crossed the oceans by ship. Farmers still used horses as farm animals. Automobiles were not as reliable as today. Most of the A&A players don't realize that horses are still used in parts of the world for farming and hauling goods, even today.

When FDR went to meet with Stalin and Churchill, he went by boat across the Atlantic.

[luke swensen]

You can't tell me that the Germanys didn't lay track in Russia! They layed over a hundred miles of it to shell Sevastopol with thier 'Gustav' (rail gun). Hiler had enough time, resourses, and man power with equipment to wast time on this worthless adventure. Once again if Hitler would have stayed on track and hit Moscow with all this ambition it would have fallen before winter. The towns that the Germans took at the begining weren't really to upset to see them. Stalan was starving a large portion of Russia on his little Crusade. It wasn't untill Hitler started exicuting the Russian people that they wanted to fight the Germans.

[TomJag3]

luke,

Gustav didn't shell Sevastopol till April of '42. It was still in testing in December '41. And I never said they didn't lay any track.

Yes, the Germans were initially greeted as liberators by the Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians. These were regions 'annexed' by Russia after Germany invaded Poland.

Another problem faced by the Germans was the fact that armor requires maintenance. A man can be driven to the limits of his endurance, and beyond. When metal becomes fatigued, it breaks. Armor of the time needed to be overhauled after 120-150 miles. German armor at the time was usually at 65% effectiveness, meaning that 65 out of 100 machines would run. Because of the nature of the fighting, (the rapid advance) advances had to be held up so the machines could be repaired.

In order to prepare for Barbarossa, the rail capacity of Poland had to be doubled. This was not completed till mid-June '41. There were 4 main east-west rail lines in Russia, intersected by 6 main north-south lines. The east-west lines led to Leningrad, Moscow, the Donets Basin, and Odessa.

The Germans failed to consider how primitive the Russian interior was when they planned Barbarossa. The Russian rails were placed on sandy beds, not proper beds. All railway bridges across rivers were single track. The Soviets were able to destroy nearly every bridge before German occupation. Soviet water was not suitable for locomotives, needing to be softened before usable. Marshalling yards along the border had already been removed by the Soviets.

In late '41, only 10-20% of Germany's locomotives in Russia were operational due to the cold. This was because of the precision parts in German locomotives. The same condition faced their armies. Russians were relatively unaffected by the weather because they used simpler machines and had fuel and lubricants suitable for cold weather.

Remember, there's only 4 railway lines heading east. That means that all the troops not directly along the rail have to be supplied from that rail line. Without roads, supply is difficult and dependant upon the weather. If it rains, trucks can't go through. Fuel and grain need to be transported for the trucks and animals so the supplies can get through.

The German rail transportation system was not able to sustain the shipment of needed military supplies in order to enable the capture of Moscow.

[TomJag3]

Today's Rail Lesson:

Re-wheeling Soviet stock to German norms was not always an optimal solution. Although the wagon width itself remained unchanged, re-wheeling to German norms also altered-lowered payload allowances and balance requirements. Soviet wagons were not always the sturdiest of wagons.

Since taking the advice of an American railway engineer in the mid 1800's, the rail gauge of Czarist Russia and its successor state, the Soviet Union, has been in the wide gauge. The theory being that an attacker would encounter more operational and supply problems if he were forced to convert a wider gauge rail line to "his" gauge (back in the mid 1800's, it was assumed that Germany was going to be the aggressor). In 1939, only in Lithuania (and to a lesser degree in Latvia and Estonia) did one find larger concentrations of standard gauge rail lines which the Soviets had not yet converted to wide gauge after their occupation and annexation of the Baltic States in 1940. If the Germans wanted to make use of Soviet rail lines, they had to convert them to the standard gauge. However, this was not as easy as it might sound!

The 1938 Soviet five-year plan called for the Soviet rail line system to be expanded to approximately 62.000 miles (100.000km). For the most part, the Soviets were able meet their construction goals. When the German attack began, most of the Soviet rail lines (and all of the important ones) were in wide gauge.

The Baltic States confronted the Germans with a unique situation. While most of the rail lines in Lithuania and western Latvia were in the standard gauge (and thus easy for the Germans to operate on them), a number of key rail lines in eastern Latvia and Estonia were still in the wide gauge. Because the Germans had advanced very rapidly into Lithuania and Latvia and because they were able to capture about 30 serviceable wide-gauge locomotives and close to 300 railroad wagons in eastern Latvia and a slightly lesser number of serviceable wide-gauge locomotives and wagons in Tallinn, Estonia - the Germans elected to temporarily use the available wide gauge equipment to shuttle German troops and supplies from eastern Latvia and Estonia (as well as from the ports of Riga, Paldiski and Tallinn) to the front lines of HGrN. The wide gauge line ended at Narva because the Soviets had blown up the bridge there as they retreated.

As of 01 January 1943, 22.000 miles (35.000km) of the Soviet rail network were under German control and the majority of that had already been converted to standard gauge by the Germans. Although the Germans were able to "capture" large quantities of Soviet rolling stock and railway construction materials, the captured items were for the most part substandard in quality or antiquated. In the overwhelming number of cases, wide gauge rolling stock were re-wheeled to standard gauge by the Germans. Locomotives could not be converted with any degree of service reliability.

If the length of the track one has under one's control is important, so too is the question of "how good is the rail line itself?" Again, poor Soviet construction standards played a key role in the German decision making process. Whereas German and most western rail bed construction methods contained a multi-tiered rock and gravel foundations - Soviet rails were almost always sitting only on a bed of sand covered occasionally with rocks to minimize the inevitable dust clouds. The western regions of the Soviet Union suffered a great rock shortage. To make matters worse, the vast majority of the Soviet rail ties were made of untreated pine. This meant that their weight capacity fell way below German railway norms (38kg/m for Soviet lines vs. 49kg/m in Germany).

Soviet rail ties were also placed further apart than American and German norms (approximately 1.440 ties per km in the Soviet Union vs. 1.500 ties per km in Estonia, 1.600 ties per km in Germany and 2.000 ties per km in the United States). This too added to a lower overall transportation capacity of the Soviet rail line.

The way a rail is attached to a tie is also of great importance to speed limits and weight allowances. Soviet rails were attached to the tie with plain spikes. German norms called for the rails to be attached with an angled washer/base plate and screw type tie-downs. Angled base plates allow one to increase load factors and rail speeds. Because of the Soviet rail line construction technique, Soviet cargo and weight capacities were often reduced way below the official allowances. On many sections of track, German locomotives were proscribed from operational activity because of their greater weight and stress factors per kg/m.

For more information, go to:
http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html

[squirecam]

Today's Rail Lesson:

Re-wheeling Soviet stock to German norms was not always an optimal solution. Although the wagon width itself remained unchanged, re-wheeling to German norms also altered-lowered payload allowances and balance requirements. Soviet wagons were not always the sturdiest of wagons.

Since taking the advice of an American railway engineer in the mid 1800's, the rail gauge of Czarist Russia and its successor state, the Soviet Union, has been in the wide gauge. The theory being that an attacker would encounter more operational and supply problems if he were forced to convert a wider gauge rail line to "his" gauge (back in the mid 1800's, it was assumed that Germany was going to be the aggressor). In 1939, only in Lithuania (and to a lesser degree in Latvia and Estonia) did one find larger concentrations of standard gauge rail lines which the Soviets had not yet converted to wide gauge after their occupation and annexation of the Baltic States in 1940. If the Germans wanted to make use of Soviet rail lines, they had to convert them to the standard gauge. However, this was not as easy as it might sound!

The 1938 Soviet five-year plan called for the Soviet rail line system to be expanded to approximately 62.000 miles (100.000km). For the most part, the Soviets were able meet their construction goals. When the German attack began, most of the Soviet rail lines (and all of the important ones) were in wide gauge.

The Baltic States confronted the Germans with a unique situation. While most of the rail lines in Lithuania and western Latvia were in the standard gauge (and thus easy for the Germans to operate on them), a number of key rail lines in eastern Latvia and Estonia were still in the wide gauge. Because the Germans had advanced very rapidly into Lithuania and Latvia and because they were able to capture about 30 serviceable wide-gauge locomotives and close to 300 railroad wagons in eastern Latvia and a slightly lesser number of serviceable wide-gauge locomotives and wagons in Tallinn, Estonia - the Germans elected to temporarily use the available wide gauge equipment to shuttle German troops and supplies from eastern Latvia and Estonia (as well as from the ports of Riga, Paldiski and Tallinn) to the front lines of HGrN. The wide gauge line ended at Narva because the Soviets had blown up the bridge there as they retreated.

As of 01 January 1943, 22.000 miles (35.000km) of the Soviet rail network were under German control and the majority of that had already been converted to standard gauge by the Germans. Although the Germans were able to "capture" large quantities of Soviet rolling stock and railway construction materials, the captured items were for the most part substandard in quality or antiquated. In the overwhelming number of cases, wide gauge rolling stock were re-wheeled to standard gauge by the Germans. Locomotives could not be converted with any degree of service reliability.

If the length of the track one has under one's control is important, so too is the question of "how good is the rail line itself?" Again, poor Soviet construction standards played a key role in the German decision making process. Whereas German and most western rail bed construction methods contained a multi-tiered rock and gravel foundations - Soviet rails were almost always sitting only on a bed of sand covered occasionally with rocks to minimize the inevitable dust clouds. The western regions of the Soviet Union suffered a great rock shortage. To make matters worse, the vast majority of the Soviet rail ties were made of untreated pine. This meant that their weight capacity fell way below German railway norms (38kg/m for Soviet lines vs. 49kg/m in Germany).

Soviet rail ties were also placed further apart than American and German norms (approximately 1.440 ties per km in the Soviet Union vs. 1.500 ties per km in Estonia, 1.600 ties per km in Germany and 2.000 ties per km in the United States). This too added to a lower overall transportation capacity of the Soviet rail line.

The way a rail is attached to a tie is also of great importance to speed limits and weight allowances. Soviet rails were attached to the tie with plain spikes. German norms called for the rails to be attached with an angled washer/base plate and screw type tie-downs. Angled base plates allow one to increase load factors and rail speeds. Because of the Soviet rail line construction technique, Soviet cargo and weight capacities were often reduced way below the official allowances. On many sections of track, German locomotives were proscribed from operational activity because of their greater weight and stress factors per kg/m.

For more information, go to:
http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html

Tomjag is correct. Which is why Germany should have followed Raeder's (and Rommel's) suggestion, and conquered Egypt and Persia in 1940 (or even as late as spring 41). The attack into the Caucuses would have been much simpler, shorter, and vastly more effective.

His other mistake was his treatment of the slavic peoples, who would have willingly joined the Germans in the war on russia. They were "liberators" after all, until about, oh, a week later...

Squirecam

[Firestorm85]

What does poor maintenance during the winter months have to do with mine and Luke Swensen's original post? My argument was that the operation should have taken place many months before hand. The tanks didn't really have problems operating during the summer months. Luke Swensen meant to say that Hitler had assured his generals that the attaack on the Soviet Union would not commence until Britain had been defeated or until a peace agreement had been reached. This means taht Germany faced two problems. An ally that couldn't hold its own, and improper timing on Hitler's part.

I understand the rail system dilemma. However, I believe that you have forgotten that many rail cars were caputred and could be used. On the flip side, if it was so hard for Germany to invade Russia because of the rail system, how was Russia able to easily invade Germany?

TomJag, you have forgotten that Hitler diverted most of his troops that were pushing toward Moscow, on the one major highway in all of the Soviet Union I might add, and diverted them to Leningrad and Stalingrad. If Hitler would have conctrated on the capital, the Soviet leadership more than likely would have been captured along with the city that had no realy army anywhere near it. With a nation as centralized and as unhappy as the U.S.S.R. was, the capture or destruction of its leadership would essentially end the war. The satellite states would break off, and of course sign peace accords with Germany, while Hitler would be left with everything he wanted: The destruction of Communism, and all the land he needed for his Aryan race.

[Drax Kramer]

TomJag, you have forgotten that Hitler diverted most of his troops that were pushing toward Moscow, on the one major highway in all of the Soviet Union I might add, and diverted them to Leningrad and Stalingrad.

Capture of Leningrad and Ukraine ahead of Moscow was outlined in the original blueprint for Barbarossa. Hitler wanted to secure both flanks before he indulged in the march for Moscow. Nobody really forgot the experience of Napoleon who invaded in late June and was in Moscow by September using only horses and feet as means of transportation.

If Hitler stood firm, instead of listening to his generals who were eager to go for Moscow, the fall of Leningrad, no later than October was likely. We should not forget that Leningrad was never completely cut off, thus soldiers had both food and ammunition to fight. The fate of the civilians were never on Stalin's mind. The fact is that all Soviets cities that were completely cut off surrendered even the big, important cities like Kiev or Kharkow.

In Ukraine, Germans captured half a million troops in Kiev encirclement. Had Guderian remained there, army group South was likely not only to capture entire Ukraine (historical result without Guderian), but also capture and hold Rostov, the gate of Caucasus. With Leningrad captured, German logistics improve, the front is shortened and it's up to Soviets to launch next to suicidal counterattacks against well dug in Germans.

The decision to go for Moscow in late Autumn 1941 doomed Hitler and his minions. The world is much better place because he did listen to his generals in late 1941.


Drax

[TomJag3]

I'll take your points one at a time.

First: The operation should have occurred many months before.
See my post above about Polish rail capacity. Then, the plan for Barbarossa called for 32 panzer divisions. German tank production capacity couldn't produce that many tanks. Therefore, in order to create 32 tanks divisions, the number of tank regiments per division was reduced from 2 to 1. Now you have more divisions, but each is much weaker. If you invade earlier, you have far fewer tanks to invade with because of lack of production. Invading many months earlier means you're going through the spring rains. That means mud in an area without a base in roads. It means that you're relying on horse drawn transport for supplies. The armor still had to be stopped for resupply and maintenance. In the meantime, while Russia was still giving ground around Moscow when the Germans were approaching Moscow, the Russians were building up forces behind Moscow for their counterattack.

Captured rail cars:
Yes, many rail cars were captured. Russian rail cars weren't built as strongly as other nations' so they couldn't carry as heavy a load. Russian rail lines were not built on a strong bed, but in sandy beds. Russian rail lines had their ties spaced farther apart. All this culminates in trains operating in Russia couldn't be loaded as heavily as trains transporting supplies from Germany through Poland. This means that trains either needed to be reloaded prior to entering Russia or lighter loads sent through Poland from Germany. Another fun fact: Russian coal had to be mixed with German coal in order for German locomotives to operate. They needed a mixture of 2 parts German coal to 1 part Russian coal. So, Germany had to export coal to Russia in order to operate its trains.

If it was so hard for Germany to invade Russia, why was it so easy for Russia to invade Germany?
By the time Russia was invading Poland, the German army was fought out. Germany had problems of their own, day and night bombing raids, bombing raids on the Ploesti oil fields. The Russians also had an advantage in manpower. Germany is just one country in Europe. Russia is a very large nation spanning Europe and Asia. Russian armor offensives typically lasted for a tankful of fuel. Supply was a critical problem for the Russians. They would have to build up a large supply base, launch an attack, stop, repeat. Don't forget, Barbarossa lasted 5 months. It took the Russians a lot longer to cover the same territory. Meanwhile, since we've been talking about railroads, the Polish rail beds were nice and solid. It's much easier to lay track on a solid bed. In my youth I even had the pleasure of laying track like they did in the old days.

If Hitler would have concentrated on the capital, the Soviet leadership more than likely would have been captured along with the city that had no real army anywhere near it.
Gee, where did all those ski divisions and Siberian divisions come from that made the counterattack around Moscow during the winter? Yes, Moscow might have fallen for a few weeks. It wouldn't have been held by the Germans for the winter. Please see my previous posts about supply. Losing Moscow would have been a terrible loss for the Russians. It would not have ended the war. You'd better believe that both Hitler and Stalin were fully aware of what happened to Napoleon and what happens when your supply lines are stretched beyond capacity. Throughout the winter, Russian counterattacks sent the Germans reeling backwards.

Satellite states??? Poland, Hungary, etc were satellite states after Russia took them over after WWII. In Russia, they refer to WWII as the Great Patriotic War. While Russians in German occupied areas got along with the ordinary Germans (what else is your choice when your area is occupied), Russians in other areas were very supportive of their government's war efforts. Whether communist or not, Russians were very nationalistic. They wanted to drive out the invaders. (Like the Canadians during the War of 1812 or native Floridians during Spring Break :-) )

[Lt M Cotten]

The Luftwaffe pounds Kent and Sussex for a while, achieving diminishing returns (although the hop fields, and hence the output of beer, will be reduced noticeably).. :eek:

Dude, don't even tease about something like that. :D

[TomJag3]

OMG... Did I really say something that awful??? Please accept my humble apologies!!

[TomJag3]

Thanks, Drax. It saves me having to provide an overview of Barbarossa.

[TomJag3]

And for something really important... How about those NY Yankees???

[RuHurt]

A thousand curses be heaped upon the infernal Red Sox. May their pitchers all get blisters for the rest of the season. GO YANKEES!!!!!! :D

[Firestorm85]

I'm not saying that Moscow would have been held forever. What I'm saying is that the Soviet leadership probably would ahve been captured and killed. Who would run tihngs then? Or who would plan the counterattack?

I realize the original plan was to take Leningrad first. But once the doorway to Moscow was wide open, that was the better option. It's always better to strike at the head of the beast! Supply was a problem, but the holding of the city was not the generals prime objective. They were looking at the destruction of Soviet leadership.

Lighter loads is not much of a problem. If you can only transport 5 tanks instead of 10 (don't even quote the numbers, it's just an example!) I'd rather have 5 then none. Interesting fact about the coal though. I didn't know that before. Didn't the Russians have locomotives the Germans could have converted to their own use? I know that many Russian supplies were captured.

I meant Soviet Republics, not Satellite States. Sorry about that mix-up. While the Russians were very patriotic, the remaining republics were not. They looked upon the Germans as liberators not conquerors.

Drax, I agree completely with you that the decision to go for Moscow so late doomed Hitler. That's what I've been saying! He should have reached Moscow in August, not December (or was it November?)

[luke swensen]

The sheep are mear sheep. If Moscow fell and the Russian leadership was captuerd or killed, the Russians would not have keeped fighting. This isn't Japan, US or UK we're talking about. Yes the Russian people loved Russia and they helped the army fight but without great leadership the fighting would have been disorganised and spotty at best. They brass of Russia was afraid of Staln just as The brass of Germany was afraid of Hitler. With Staln out (dead or in hiding) Russian Generals would have givin up. Yes the Far East troopers of Russia were a well trained force for those types of conditions, But they wouldn't have been called for if Moscow fell by December.

[Drax Kramer]

Guderian wanted to advance eastwards towards Moscow in August. However, his panzer group was to small to cut off entire Moscow area so the only way for him to capture Moscow would be on the run, the way Germans tried to capture Warsaw in 1939 only to watch panzer after panzer knocked out by Polish anti-tank defenses.

The loss of Moscow, whether it took place in August or October, would not prevent Stalin from evacuating the place. Unlike Hitler in 1945, Stalin had plenty of space to retreat to. Soviet government as well as embassies were transfered 700 kilometres to the east to Kuybishev in October 1941. Soviets also established second general staff HQ in Gorky. Soviet industry was in the process of being evacuated to the Urals, outside the reach of panzers.

So, although the loss of Moscow would represent a blow, (industry, railroad hub, seat of the government), it would not kill Soviet regime as such.


Drax

[TomJag3]

Thanks Drax. It sounds like a lot of people had read 'Hitler's Panzers East', a reinterpretation of history. This book argues that Hitler cost Germany the war by not going for Moscow in August. I'll let the review argue why this is wrong:

R.H.S. Stolfi is here to tell you that Hitler lost World War II with one blunder in August, 1941. Stolfi argues that an immediate, all-out drive by the German Army Group Center against Moscow on the eighth week of Hitler's massive invasion of Soviet Russia (Operation Barbarossa) would ultimately have destroyed the Red Army. Instead, Hitler halted Army Group Center in August and ordered Guderian's 2nd Armored Group southward toward Kiev, losing the opportunity to take Moscow, and with it the war.
Had Moscow fallen, Stolfi believes that Germany would inevitably have conquered Russia. His thesis is that the Leningrad and Kiev fronts would have been isolated and annihilated, a decisive portion of Soviet industry would have fallen into German hands, and the Wehrmacht would have driven on to Gorki and the Volga by December, forcing Stalin's government to surrender or else be overthrown by a populace unwilling to keep fighting a lost war.

Stolfi's thesis is interesting and provocative, but he argues it ineptly. His research is impressive in its depth, but far too limited in scope. While he has done excellent work with the German primary sources, he has ignored the vast majority of the Soviet sources. While the German sources suffice to support many of Stolfi's points, it is inexcusable to rely exclusively on German intelligence (Abwehr) reports to evaluate the Soviets' losses, armed strength, plans and intentions. Stolfi also ludicrously relies on postwar statistics to judge how much Soviet industrial capacity Germany could have captured.

The thesis that the Wehrmacht could have taken Moscow rings true. Given that Operation Typhoon (October 2, 1941) did in fact carry the Germans into the suburbs of Moscow against fierce resistance, encircling and destroying vast Soviet forces at Vyasma and Bryansk, one may plausibly suppose that an earlier German attack against less prepared defenses, in the more favorable weather conditions of August, could have taken the capital. Also convincing is Stolfi's claim that Hitler's decision to send Guderian southward reflected the German tyrant's inability to understand the blitzkrieg method, and that Hitler as a military leader had a siege mentality rather than a blitz mentality.

But Stolfi is not nearly so persuasive in arguing that the fall of Moscow would inexorably entail the fall of Soviet Russia. The author consistently analogizes the campaign in Russia to Germany's earlier campaign in France, concluding that Russia was "no more than a bigger cat in a bigger bag." A fundamental difference between the two campaigns appears to have escaped him; the Germans' crushing victory over the French and British in May 1940 was accomplished in the absence of any Allied strategic reserve. Once the Germans broke through at Sedan, the Western Allies had no uncommitted forces to throw at Guderian's armored corps as it raced to the sea, and thus could only hurl uncoordinated piecemeal attacks at him with whatever units they could pry loose as he trapped their armies in Flanders.

In contrast, the Soviets had a strategic reserve vastly larger than the Abwehr realized. And Stolfi, dependent on German sources, appears no more cognizant than the Abwehr of those reserves' size. Total Red Army strength with reserves at the start of Barbarossa is estimated at 12 million, but Stolfi suggests that his hypothetical assault on Moscow, by causing an additional 1 million casualties beyond those the Russians actually incurred historically, would have destroyed Soviet Russia's strategic reserve. In reality, the Soviet reserve was large enough to fight on.

Stolfi also posits the likely political collapse of Stalin's government had Moscow fallen. This is possible, but a corresponding collapse of the Russian will to fight is unlikely. The Russians were confronted with an invader whose words and deeds plainly proclaimed its intention to enslave all Russians to the "master race." Whoever might have replaced Stalin at the helm, he would certainly be chosen above all for his determination to drive the enemy from Mother Russia.

Stolfi also argues, unpersuasively, that the Germans had accurately assessed the rigors of war in Russia, citing a few accurate Abwehr estimates of Russian numbers in certain arms, and claiming that the Germans, out of respect for Russian strength, massed as much strength as practical against the enemy. This is not true. Germany left 51 divisions in the western theater, 22 of which could easily have been used in Barbarossa, the Western Allies being in no condition to invade Europe in 1941. The Abwehr's gross underestimation of Soviet air strength is not mentioned. Even by Stolfi's own calculations, the campaign would have lasted through December had Moscow fallen, yet Stolfi claims the Wehrmacht was right not to burden its supply system by providing winter clothing to the troops. Accepting Stolfi's own appraisal of the ultimate progress of the Wehrmacht after taking Moscow, one notes that the predicted final advance is still well short of the line Archangelsk-Kotlas-Gorki-the Volga-Astrakhan, which Barbarossa proposed to achieve. I accept Guderian's verdict over Stolfi's: "We have severely underestimated the Russians, the extent of the country and the treachery of the climate. This is the revenge of reality."

So could Operation Barbarossa have succeeded? Maybe, but Stolfi has not proven it. Illogical argument, selective evidence, and research tunnel-vision make for an unconvincing final thesis. At best, Stolfi has established that, if Germany ever had a chance, it was likelier by taking Moscow in 1941 than Stalingrad in 1942. But too often Stolfi's strident insistence that the blitzkrieg war machine was literally unstoppable by anything other than Hitler himself dredges up bad memories of the World War I cult of the offensive, which killed millions pointlessly with its vapid nostrum that imprudence assures victory, and the enemy's capabilities do not matter.

from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0806125810/103-3703180-6027854?v=glance

[sherminator1]

A thousand curses be heaped upon the infernal Red Sox. May their pitchers all get blisters for the rest of the season. GO YANKEES!!!!!! :D
Don't make me eat your liver.....

[TomJag3]

Go Cardinals!!!

[admiral_yamoto]

actually i want the cardinals to do well cause i got an autographed ball

[Moderator Kayn]

Now... remind me. Were the Cardinals Japanese or German...?;)
(Topic nudge)

Mod Ka'yn

[admiral_yamoto]

well the japanese are buddhists and the germans are protestant so.... :D

[TomJag3]

Cardinals were German... the Annheiser Busch family.

[Molotov Cocktail]

Dx is right,

Unit 731, japan's secret biological warfare unit was very scary.

Let's also not forget about those dreaded and scary balloon bombs. One of them almost made it to the West coast. :)

I also read that Japan's goal was not to beat the U.S. ... just get the U.S. to concede some territory. More to it than that I'm sure but I beleive that was Japan's primary goal.

I voted Germany. I'd say mainly because of the strength of German tanks and just a hunch. A Japan vs. German naval was might have proved to be interesting.

Good thread.

[Sinister]

Wait a second, I heard that there were 6 deaths attributed to those balloon bombs in the US.

One of the best kept secrets of the war involved the Japanese balloon bomb offensive, prompted by the Doolittle raid on Tokyo on April 18, 1942 as a means of direct reprisal against the U.S. mainland. Some 9,000 balloons made of paper or rubberized silk and carrying anti-personnel and incendiary bombs were launched from Japan during a five-month period, to be carried by high altitude winds more than 6,000 miles eastward across the Pacific to North America. Perhaps a thousand of these reached this continent, but there were only about 285 reported incidents. Most were reported in the northwest U.S., but some balloons traveled as far east as Michigan.

The first operational launches took place on Nov. 3, 1944 and two days later a U.S. Navy patrol boat spotted a balloon floating on the water 66 miles southwest of San Pedro, California. As more sightings occurred, the government, with the cooperation of the news media, adopted a policy of silence to reduce the chance of panic among U.S. residents and to deny the Japanese any information on the success of the launches. Discouraged by the apparent failure of their effort, the Japanese halted their balloon attacks in April 1945.

On May 5, 1945, six picnickers were killed in Oregon when a balloon bomb they dragged from the woods exploded. The U.S. Government quickly publicized the balloon bombs, warning people not to tamper with them. These were the only known fatalities occurring within the U.S. during WWII as a direct result of enemy action.

Actual damage caused by the balloon bombs was minor. However, the incendiaries which they carried did pose a serious threat to the forests of the northwestern U.S. during the dry months. These balloons also offered a vehicle for germ warfare had the Japanese decided to use this weapon.

The balloon attack began after U.S. air defense facilities had been deactivated. To counter this threat, AAF and Navy fighters flew intercept missions to shoot down balloons when sighted and AAF aircraft and Army personnel were stationed at critical points to combat any forest fires which might occur. Also, supplies of decontamination chemicals and sprays to counter any possible use of germ warfare were quietly distributed in the western states. Before detailed AAF defensive plans had been put into effect, the attacks ceased.

Japanese bomb-carrying balloons were 32 feet in diameter and when fully inflated, held about 19,000 cubic feet of hydrogen. Launch sites were located on the east coast of the main Japanese island of Honshu.

(taken from http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/jbb.htm)