Quote:
|
they had no real battleships until the Bismarck and later the Tirpitz
|
As I recall the building of the Bismarck was finished at the beginning of 1939. So they were allready there. They meant a real danger to the Royal Navy.
When t comes to the Tirpitz I do agree. She was finished in 1941.
Indeed they had no aircraftcarrier, butlooking at their plans to o to war, did they really need one? Hitlers goal was to overrun England and that was well in reach of France.
Quote:
|
That was only true in the beginning of the Battle for the Altantic until Destroyer technology caught up with the Uboats and then the Uboast could not sustain enough sinkings to get their quota, and the "starving" of Britian woudl never had worked, I read somewhere that the Americans were able to build 1 transport ship a month from one company, then sold them to Britain to ferry goods. Also to get around this Britain instead of loading the merchant ships could just as easily paid the Americans to ferry the goods using their ships, thus making the trips safe, since the Americans were neutral at the time.
|
Okay, good point there. But while destroyer technology developed they still couldn't really keep up the pace with Germany. Until the capture of teh Enigmamachine the royal navy was unable to break the code. So, a lucky find was a real turningpoint of the battle for the Atlantic.
When it comes to ships from America, the only thing I ever heard of is the Lend Lease of 46 aged destroyers. So, I have to look into it.
Quote:
|
I do agree with that, more time means more tanks, but I don't think that it would have made a big enough difference, because many inovative designs that were created and developed during the course of the war only came about from war experience, such as armour skirtings on the StuG's and Pz IV tanks, as well as later models of StuG's having machine guns for infantry defense, so you could argue that the assualt may not have been so successful due to that fact.
|
Indeed most of the improvements game from warexpierience. No point in argueing about that.
But the thing is, Germany was rapidly building up, while the rest of Europe, or the whole world for that matter, was de-arming and believing in the fact that they could stay neutral. And they where doing their very best to avoid any conflict at all.
Quote:
|
Very True, but why would Hitler not do the same now?
|
Probably he would. As a matter of fact he surely would.
Quote:
|
I doubt the Allies would be fooled becuase that would be a lot of military hardware that would have to be built and then hidden, as well as the allies having their own suspicions about such a build up due to the fact that Germany is buying up so much extra resources.
|
Hold on there. Looking back to the beginning of the war it's been a great shock to the rest of the world how for they had come in devoloping an army. Highly trained and well equipped.
And wasn't it during the first months the Allies took measures against germanys hunger for resources? Look at Norway.
Quote:
Slow down we aint finished yet
You have defenitely come to the right place then, every week it is a discussion with someone different, some more heated then others
|
Let's keep it going then. I'm surely having a good time discussing what if's. They are totaly opposite of my opinion on most Items and they really make me think and wonder.