Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if? Roosevelt ignores Churchill and heeds his generals, no invasion of French Africa.

Discussion in 'North Africa: Operation Torch to Surrender of Tuni' started by archytas, Mar 18, 2018.

  1. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is much easier to insult, than to actucally think. If you don't stop insulting, I'll have to ignore your posts also.

    The point is that the Corsair was subjected to trials, long before the P-47 was (and the Corsair performed stellarly), yet the P-47 entered service earlier. Ergo, the excellent Corsair should have entered production and service much earlier and could have easily been deployed ATL in France in Oct 1942. It was absurd to waste the most advanced plane in the world, at the most valuable time. The P-38 had extremely severe compressibility problems for years, but they were gradually resolved and it was more expensive and difficult to produce than the Corsair and less maneuverable in combat, yet it was in service long before the Corsair. Go figure.
    It was also absurd to waste the P-39, Kittyhawks, twin engine bombers in 1942, by giving them to British forces, which didn't really need them and denying them to the USSR, which desperately needed them, Britain was producing more and better planes than either Germany or the USSR in 1942.

    Sorry, it is obvious that making a lot of 5" guns and shells (the shells already used by the USN), fewer 6" guns and shells and no 4" guns and shells is much better than making a lot of 4" and 6" guns ans shells. OTL the 4" SP guns of Patton were so wimpy, that they could not knock out the doors of a fort in Morocco, which held until USN planes attacked it. On the other extreme, massive 6" guns and shells were used for AT purposes (direct fire at hundreds of meters. Imagine the loaders shoving those massive shells rapidly into the leviathans) in Sicily, Caserna, Anzio, Casino, etc, in 1943. Imagine the difficulty of rapidly unloading massive 6" guns and shells during a landing, compared with 5" versions. Plus, there is a big ATL production and logistics advantage in the USN and army using the same 5" and 6" shells. Unfortunately, OTL theUSN and army seemed to be intent on not using each others systems, greatly complicating production and logistics and hindering performance.


    OTL allied navies often did not coordinate optimally with armies. For example in Dieppe the RN refused to deploy anything more valuable than small DD. In Gela, the navy did not deploy land observers to direct naval fire. Patton had to personally request naval fire to stop counter attacking tanks! and the CL had to deploy and repeatedly lose spotter planes! and only 6" and 5" guns from CL and DD participated, and no powerful 8" guns from CA or 15" guns from monitors, 12 or 14" guns from old BB, etc, shelled tanks on D day Gela. Likewise, in Anzio big naval guns did not shell the Colli Laziali and the army did not occupy them on the 1st day, so that Kesselring's troops occupied them without losses. In Normandi, despite BB, CA, DD, etc, in the British beaches, Panzers reached the coast on D-day and withdrew. They should have been wiped out by naval fire, long before reachingthe coast.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Is that why you are insulting our intelligence with these silly posts?
    If you showed any sign of thinking or actually responding to request for sources or similar positive posting habits you wouldn't be getting the response you have. Post like you have i.e. inane and dare I say it silly material and that's what you get.
    Since you have yet to post a substantive reply to anything I've written what makes you think that would be much of a loss. Indeed I and others are pointing out just how silly your posts are not so much for your benefit (I suspect most of us have given up on you) but for others who will stumble across this thread. And our own amusement of course.
    Your logic is astounding. Gross leaps of faith to not a rational argument make. Confusing your assumptions and opinions with facts don't help either.
    An excellent example of "cherry picking"
    Another term that can readily be used for arguments such as this is GIGO,
    Only to someone who has demonstrated an almost total lack of knowledge about the topic combined with the inability to produce a reasoned argument and in love with his own opinions.
     
  3. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    lwd, I'll ignore your insulting posts.
     
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    A couple of things I realized that I forgot to address in my last post
    And our point was that not only could in not easily have been so deployed but that there was no way in hell that it could have been. Not with standing your assumptions/opinions to the contrary. Indeed to even suggest this indicates a lack on knowledge and understanding so deep that the term silly is being kind.
    Again there are so many issues with this that one could be kind and call it silly. I could be picky but here are a few important facts first.
    1. The British were sending lend lease to the Soviets indeed in 41 and early 42 their lend lease shipments were more important than ones from the US. However the fact that they had equipment and other aid coming from the US allowed some of this to happen. See:
    Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans | HistoryNet
    In this case even wiki could make a contribution to someone's education should they prove willing and capable of accepting it. See:
    Lend-Lease - Wikipedia
    Then there's the matter of some of those vehicles not being LL but actually bought and paid for by the British. And the impact of British and French pre and early war orders on US industry.
    The assumption that the British didn't "really need them" also seems contrived given the historical events.
     
  5. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    You are within your rights to do so. How much longer you'll be able to post here is an open question in any case. The moderators don't have an unlimited amount of patients with such as you. They do tend to let us play with silly trolls for a limited amount of time before they ban them.
     
  6. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    698
    This is why I have such a jaundiced view of the average "what if". They are too often proposed by those who seem obsessed by their own cleverness and combine it with a total lack of self-awareness. They usually start with the premise "I reject reality and substitute my own", ignoring military culture and customs that often have hundreds of years of tradition behind them. Then they ignore things like piddly technical, legal, and bureaucratic realities that get in the way of their fantasy belief in how things work.

    For example, ignore the very simple fact that through June 1938, when the U.S. Navy signed a contract with Vought for development of the XF4U-1, Vought had submitted exactly ZERO proposals since 1922 for the 44-odd Army development contracts awarded for fighter aircraft. However, the XF4U-1 was the fourth Navy contract for Vought. Similarly, there were no Grumman Army contracts 1922-1938, but four Navy contracts.

    GEE! I WONDER WHY? Could it possibly be because with the exceptions of Curtiss and Boeing, virtually no U.S. aircraft manufacturer successfully competed for both Navy and Army aircraft contracts. And even Curtiss could hardly be called successful after the F9C Sparrowhawk. As for Boeing, after the failure of the F7B to gain orders in 1934, they also did not attempt to seriously compete for Navy contracts until 1943 and the XF8B...and it got no contracts either.

    At the outbreak of war, Grumman and Vought had Navy aircraft contracting sewn up. The much larger Army contracting pie was controlled by Bell, Boeing, Consolidated, Curtiss, Douglas, Lockheed, and Republic, with competition from Northrop-North American developing during the war.

    However, trolls don't like to ask themselves questions like "I wonder why"? They also don't like to respond to questions from other posters, because asking them questions they are incapable of answering is "insulting". Instead, trolls do what trolls do, they continue to spew offal, ignoring everything and everybody except their own masturbatory fantasy...until with any luck they get themselves banned for being too stupid to learn how to pound sand.
     
  7. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,114
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    You've ignored the only posters who had anything of substance to say. I hope you enjoy the sound of your own verbal diarrhea, because this thread is about to become a one-man echo chamber.

    EDIT: Premature. I see Takao is still on your "good guy" list.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
  8. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    698
    I'm not sure why I'm still spending time on this, I guess it is the critical thinking pedagogue coming out in me? Anyway, the serial lack of any sort of rational thought displayed is simply painful.

    I would be the first to say the U.S. Navy's 6"/47 Mark 16 Gun and mountings were one of the best, if not the best, cruiser armaments in World War II. Yes, during gunnery trials in March 1939, USS Savannah (CL-42) fired 138 rounds in one minute from its five triple-mounts, but that did not mean it was a magical weapon...or even a "leviathan". :rolleyes:

    The Town of Cassino (not "Casino", which is a place where stupid people throw money away) and the Monastery of Montecassino, are at least 28 kilometers from the nearest sea...and the ABSOLUTE maximum range of the 6"/47 was 23.881 kilometers.

    The "Colli Laziali"? Well, at least they were just in range...23.22 kilometers...if you don't mind running your cruiser ashore.

    "Caserna"? Do you think troll means CASERTA? If so, its a province, so covers quite a bit of ground.

    Sicily? So let's see, troll now says "the navy did not deploy land observers to direct naval fire. Patton had to personally request naval fire to stop counter attacking tanks! and the CL had to deploy and repeatedly lose spotter planes!" Quite obviously, he read, but did not understand my previous post.

    NAVAL DOCTRINE as practiced at the time depended on NAVY personnel, either in the ships fire control positions or in the ships spotter aircraft, directing fire. The practice of deploying naval fire support parties (NFSP) with the landing force in order to direct fire was a brand new practice that, even after the good experience in North Africa, the Army was little confident in. NEVERTHELESS, it was a NFSP at Gela at 0830 on 10 July that initially managed to call for fire, but it was DD Shubrick that replied with about 125 5" rounds, not Boise, Philadelphia, or Savannah. Savannah did fire about 25 6" rounds at about the same time, but since she had no air-spot up it is unclear who she responded to. The larger German-Italian attack at 1400 was also called in by the NFSP ashore at Gela. The naval gunfire on 11 July was also called in by NFSP.
     
  9. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,066
    Likes Received:
    1,717
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    The point is...That the F4U was not that good an aircraft as originally designed. The armament was pathetic(2x.30s and 2x.50s), it tended to drop the port wing at low and landing speeds(usually resulting in a crash), no armor, no self-sealing gas tanks, many teething troubles, not that great on range...But, hey it was fast...The F4U went through a good many changes before the first production F4U flew in June, 1942, and several more were made as they were rolling off the lines.

    Further, entering service and entering combat are two different things...IIRC, the F4U entered combat in February, 1943, while the P-47 entered combat in March, 1943...Hmmm, the P-47 enters combat later than the F4U.


    The absurd thing to do would be to put a plane into production before it is ready...Putting the XF4U-1 into production in early 1941 is about as absurd as you are going to get.


    I'm figuring that you know very little about which you speak...

    The P-38 was around far longer than the XF4U...XP-38 design work done 1936-38, first flight January, 1939, YP-38 deliveries began in September, 1940, 205 factory acceptances in 1941(the F4u was not even in production yet)...What about this mystifies you? Still, the P-38 was not considered to be operational until the E model, which was rushed into combat to defend Alaska in June, 1942. Finally, cost difference would be so small as to be inconsequential maybe around $10,000-$15,000. Even in 1944 a P-38 cost about $97,000 vs the F4U's $88,000.


    Actually, the British did need them, and desperately...While the British may have been producing more fighters than either Germany or the USSR, the British also had far more territory to cover than either of those two, so they were actually fewer British fighters to go around to all fronts. This is what we call a "No-brainer"...Well, except in your case.


    WTF are you talking about?

    First, Patton wasn't even at that beach...The commanding general was Lucian Truscott...And, he distrusted US naval gunfire support.

    Second, the USS Texas mounted 12-inch guns, and could have turned the doors of the Kasbah into kindling at any time during the landing had she been called upon to do so, same with the 6-inch guns of the cruiser USS Savannah...The problem was that Truscott never made that call. He wanted the US Army to get all the glory by taking the fort, and it bit him in the arse.


    Ummm...Rapidly unloading any gun is easy...You fire it...Loading them is the bitch, but that is what all the machinery is for.


    Prolly has something to do with the differing needs of the two...Cant say that I see the US Army lugging around 5"/38 guns or 6"/47s. Kinda like the Army needs their guns to be...you know...mobile. While the USN has no need for the gun to be mobile...that is what the warship is for...But, those ships don't move to well on land.


    Likely because Dieppe was not worth losing anything larger than a destroyer.


    Sure they did...They deployed several observation teams, as well as spotting planes.
    A Naval Gunfire Liaison Officer was assigned to each infantry battalion and to each Army division commander. Other miscellaneous assignments of N.G.L.O.s were as follows: 1 with Commander Cruiser Division 8, 1 with Commander Cruiser Division 13, 1 with Commander Eighth Amphibious Force, 2 with 82nd Airborne Division, 1 aboard H.M.S. Abercrombie, and 1 with KOOL (Reserve) Force.

    Read a little why dontcha...

    Further, there were no battleships or heavy cruisers assigned to support the American landings at Sicily...So, of course, there is going to be no powerful 8" or 14" guns to support those landings...So, you are stating the obvious...Are you dumb or just stupid? There was the Monitor H.M.S. Abercrombie,but she was providing support for CENT sector and not DIME where the attack took place, however, she was ordered to move over and support DIME.
     
    RichTO90 likes this.
  10. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,657
    Location:
    God's Country
    Sorry, it is obvious that making a lot of 5" guns and shells (the shells already used by the USN), fewer 6" guns and shells and no 4" guns and shells is much better than making a lot of 4" and 6" guns ans shells. OTL the 4" SP guns of Patton were so wimpy, that they could not knock out the doors of a fort in Morocco, which held until USN planes attacked it. On the other extreme, massive 6" guns and shells were used for AT purposes (direct fire at hundreds of meters. Imagine the loaders shoving those massive shells rapidly into the leviathans) in Sicily, Caserna, Anzio, Casino, etc, in 1943. Imagine the difficulty of rapidly unloading massive 6" guns and shells during a landing, compared with 5" versions. Plus, there is a big ATL production and logistics advantage in the USN and army using the same 5" and 6" shells. Unfortunately, OTL theUSN and army seemed to be intent on not using each others systems, greatly complicating production and logistics and hindering performance.

    Rich addressed this but, I'll try again. Naval guns are optimized for naval tasks. They are flat trajectory for hitting other ships across relatively flat seas. In the case of dual purpose guns (DP) like the 5"/38 (127mm) it can engage surface targets as well as engage in anti-aircraft fire. Basically, the angle of elevation the mount is capable of determines if it can also engage aircraft. The 5"/25 was an AA mount (though it could fire against surface targets) and had a lightly built mount allowing for faster manual traverse, due to the length of the barrel (the number after the slash / indicates barrel length in calibers (naval) or (length denoted /L in land based artillery) it had relatively low velocity. It was not as good for punching a hole in the steel or armor of another ship and it had lesser range (less time for the propellant to act on the round before exiting the tube). The 5"/51 was a 5" naval mount optimized for surface targets; longer barrel=more velocity and had greater range. If you notice the 5"/38 is kind of a compromise in length to allow effectiveness against both types of targets. Now the primary land artillery piece is usually a howitzer. It has an arched trajectory. That allows for shooting over, not through obstacles such as hills, buildings, your own troops. It also allowed for timed and later VT/proximity fuses to create airbursts, devastating to infantry in the open and troops in non-covered fortifications like foxholes and trenches. The howitzer normally has a smaller propellant charge and throws the round at a lower velocity, the primary destructive factor being it's explosive charge. The three primary US calibers were 75mm (approximately 2.9"), the 105mm (approximately 4.1") and the 155mm (6.9"). Due to the different requirements, even if the same caliber the shells would not be interchangeable. The higher velocity in a gun/rifle requires a thicker body to prevent it from breaking apart from the forces involved in firing it, the howitzer with it's lesser charge and velocity allows for a thinner walled shell and therefore proportionally larger explosive charge. It's shells couldn't withstand the forces imparted on it by a gun. The army also had guns which allowed for longer range and were useful for counter-battery fire, these were higher velocity, heavier (to withstand the forces) and generally longer barrels which made them less agile in training.Guns also due to their higher velocity are better at defeating armor and generally the longer the tube the higher the velocity.

    Just some quick statistics to show you:
    M1 155mm howitzer -----M1 155mm Gun "Long Tom"
    wt: 12,800 lbs. 30,600 lbs.
    cal: 155mm/L24.5 155mm/L45
    MV: 1,847 fps. 2,799 fps. (MV=muzzle velocity)
    rng: 14,600 m 23,700 m (rng=range)
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
    Takao and RichTO90 like this.
  11. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,114
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    The Wolf's Lair? Are you obtuse? I'm currently in Obersalzberg polishing off my 4th bottle of Hofbrauhaus Berchtesgaden Lager in what used to be Herman Goering's basement, staring up at the Kehlsteinhaus. I'm here on a dangerous special mission and am preparing for a nighttime raid on the Berghof. A little PETN in the urinals and a pinch of Cf-252 in the strategic kale reserves of the Fuhrerbegleitbrigade will do the trick, and then its bye-bye Uncle Adolf and the whole rotten gang! There will only be ruble left! Goering is suffering from acute weinerschnitzel poisoning. Bormann is on vacation in Argentina and moonlighting as a corpse under a Berlin subway. Himmler has developed an addiction to glass vials and cyanide and is indisposed at the moment. As for Speer, I already did a recce of his dwelling on the drive in this afternoon and it seems that he is too busy not seeing crimes against humanity at Mittelwerk to care about the impending fireworks. Go time is T-15 minutes. Its an infallible plan, and as soon as the F4Us show up with the napalm we can start hoisting the stars and bars over the ruins! Just to be sure we have the Savannah standing by in the Konigsee ready to lay down some ruinous 6" gunfire on any Pz38(t)s that try to bash their way into Berchtesgadenerland, AND a crack airborne team of selected men from Easy Company armed with M551 Sheridans, Panzerschreks, MAC10s, and Farquhar-Hill assault rifles is ready to drop in and cordon off the Roßfeldstraße to prevent the Von Trapp family from distributing anti-revolutionary propaganda.

    PS: Exactly one sentence of that is true. I'll leave "which part?" to your discretion.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
    RichTO90 likes this.
  12. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    698
    Oh, yeah, I forgot the silliness of the "P-39 going to Britain instead of the Soviets" bit.

    The British order was for the original Bell Model 14, which sounded too good to be true (and was). The Brits ordered 675 on 13 April 1940 without ever actually seeing one. The first three P-39C ordered arrived at RAF Colerne on 3 July 1941 and were flown soon after, which is when they realized Bell had conned them. Nevertheless, 601 Squadron was equipped with them and even flew missions, until they were withdrawn from RAF operational service in December 1941, and 601 Squadron transitioned to Spitfires in March 1942.

    Meanwhile, by the end of September 1941, 164 aircraft had been delivered to Britain and many were simply left in their crates and immediately transshipped...to the Soviet Union. :rolleyes: Eventually, 261 of the British order were shipped to the Soviets of which 49 were lost at sea. Another 179 that arrived in Britain were transferred back to the USAAF and shipped to the Middle East for use by the Twelfth Air Force. Another 200 of the British order still in the US were seized by the USAAF in the emergency after Pearl Harbor and were used as P-400.

    In the end, about 16 of the 675 actually were used by the British. Compared to 4,924 sent to the Soviets (including the original British orders).

    Silliness.
     
    lwd likes this.
  13. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    1,663
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    The Von Trapps are distributing propaganda?

    .
     
    George Patton and RichTO90 like this.
  14. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,114
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Correct. The first sentence is of course wrong because I had a Steigl Golbrau and a Hofbrauhaus Berchtesgaden Pils mixed in there as well.
     
    KodiakBeer and RichTO90 like this.
  15. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,066
    Likes Received:
    1,717
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I am also wondering about these wonderful Soviet P-39s...

    They were supposed to be a squadron or two, taken from a Soviet shipment, that was to have participated in Operation Torch...But they never arrived in North Africa until some months after the invasion - when they were no longer needed. Too few P-39 trained mechanics were available to put them together, lack of spare parts, mechanical troubles, untrained - in type - pilots, and unfavorable weather conditions, prevented their availability for Torch.

    So, how long will Sardinia be postponed so that many more will be available?
     
  16. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    698
    Army Air Forces in World War II: Torch to Pointblank, p. 60:

    "Ill fortune also dogged the P-39 components of the Twelfth-two
    squadrons of the 68th Observation Group and the 81st and 350th
    Fighter Groups. Their aircraft, diverted from a Soviet consignment,
    were of the P-39D-1 and P-400 vintage, types currently proving inferior
    against the Japanese in the Solomons. VIII Air Force Service
    Command, without spare parts or mechanics familiar therewith, lagged
    far behind the schedule for their erection and modification, and pilot
    training was hence foreshortened. Moreover, when the comparatively
    short-range P-39, began moving to TORCH in December and January,
    a large number were grounded, chiefly in Portugal, by reason of
    contrary winds and mechanical failure and were interned. The successive
    difficulties encountered in the training and preparation of its
    medium and P-39 squadrons help to explain why several months passed
    before the Twelfth was able to deploy in Africa anything resembling
    its assigned strength. It was planned that most of the TORCH aircraft
    would proceed to Africa from England under their own power. Because
    of the magnitude of the fly-out and the fact that USAAF and
    RAF participation would make a coordinated program necessary, overall
    plans were set forth by AFHQ late in October. The movement was
    based on a group of airdromes in southwest England under control of
    44 Group, RAF."

    I suppose I am still astonished that so few seem to realize when they gin up these crazy what ifs that there are these things called "the Internet" and "books" where there are quite simply hundreds, if not thousands of original documents and research based on the real events with which one could vet ones lunatic notions...but why ever let dismal facts interfere with fantasy...
     
  17. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0

    The 5" naval gun is actually low velocity (short barrel) and ammo are, designed for AA, land force support and to fight DD with smaller caliber guns, it is not for long distance shots. So it is a howitzer length barrel.

    But it is pointless. The less people know, the more they claim to be experts and the more they insult other posters. Bye experts.
     
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Wring again. Howitzers typically have barrel length of 20 to 30 calibers while the 5"/38 has a barrel length of 38. That was hard wasn't it. Now you might be able to make a case for the 5"25 being a howitzer but then there's the 5"51. Since the 5"38 was by far the most common during the war I assume that's what you were talking about. In any case nothing I've seen indicates that it was designed to fight "DD with smaller caliber guns" nor do I suspect fire support was a primary design characteristic. If you can source these claims I might be convinced but then I don't expect you to.
    Indeed Silly Trolls usually are.
    Ah self realization, maybe there's hope for you yet.
    Or not ....
     
    USMCPrice likes this.
  19. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,114
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Sitrep March 29:

    A selection of the finest crop of the Fuhrerbegleitbrigade's strategic kale reserve was harvested and laced with Cf-252, but sadly the culinary department decided to serve the pureed eggplant for dinner instead. While this would normally have been a severe blow to our operation, we used our handy smoke signal device to send a message to our inside man, who then spiked the Berghof's kegs of alcohol-free Hofbrauhaus Berchtegaden Pils with 5%-alcohol Hofbrauhaus Berchtesgaden Pils. Due to lack of bowel discipline, after a few steins Unteroffizier Klargenstadt had to make an emergency trip to the urinals. When the handle was pulled, the PETN detonated right as planned! KABOOM! POW! CRASH! BANG! WHOOOM! The Haus Wachenfeld wing flew thousands of feet into the air and destroyed a pathetic Spitfire (should have been replaced in 1939 by the F-86D Sabre) which was piloted by Monty himself. The Columbus Globe entered low earth orbit and in the process beat Sputnik to become the first man-made satellite. The garage collapsed onto the fleet of 770K Grosser Offener Tourenwagens. The explosion shook Goering from his sleep, and he immediately succumbed to the Münchner Weißwurst which was left on his nightstand as a midnight snack. As expected, the crack Weinerhauptstandartekorps launched a desperate attempt to secure the area with Pz38(t)s and several Maus, but immediately came under the guns of the Savannah. Faced with this ruinous threat, the Prinz Eugen immediately sortied, arrived on post in the Obersee within 30 minutes, and began to bracket the Savannah with well-aimed shots from plasma rifles in the 40W class. Fortunately for us Allies (minus the stinkin' Brits) we had stationed the Missouri in the Hintersee for this very contingency, and her 16" guns sent the Prinz Eugen fleeing for the deep water of the Bodensee. The Von Trapps fortunately failed to mobilize. However, an elite force of personnel from the local Nervenheilanstalt - including Matt Damon, Napoleon III, the Kaiser, Elvis, and Charles Bronson - started to scale the Kehlstein freehand in an attempted to seize the highground and bombard our men with stale Bauernbrot, but this serious threat was easily eliminated by the roaming Kittyhawk patrol immediately before the F-35s arrived to support the F4U napalm run!

    See below for solid proof that as of 11:30AM CET March 29 2018, there is nothing but rubble left at the Berghof site! Complete destruction! Highly successful mission! Now we'll hold the area and wait for the Soviet advisors from Corsica to reach the Alpenstraße! Victory is in sight!

    [​IMG]
     
    Takao and von Poop like this.
  20. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    1,714
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Blimey.
    Finally, a 'What If' that makes sense.
    You lot are getting good at this.
     

Share This Page