The allied Armies did not use only the 155s. They had many different types of Artillery, For example, the 105mm and 25pdr. Oh, What a suprise! These are the Guns mounted on the Priest and Sexton! If you are going to fire over open sights (directly) then whats the point of using a gun that can fire up to 10 miles away? The point of SP artillery is to fire then move away before the enemy batters fire back. Close support is for the assault guns. (e.g-M8 Scott, StuH)
This thread is just getting out of hand.

If the Germans built more ships to match the power of the USN and RN, they would have to have less Tanks and Guns. Whats more the Graf Spee was destroyed a few years earlier, so what effect is that going to have on the Battle? The other German vessels are not going to stand a chance. How is a land power going to win a naval battle with two great Sea Powers?

__________________

I say, why are we trayng to justify ourselves in the face of a couple of ignorant neo-nazi clowns?

It is the other way around, it is THEY who have to justify their ignorant and misguided views. They have to dance to our tune, not us to theirs.

There is is, in big letters for everybody to see.

What is the matter with this forum, everytime a creep shows up do we all have to go jumping through hoops justifying ourselves? Have we gone PC all of a sudden or what?



And who the hell are these guys to piss on the graves of these soldiers who died fighting the Nazism they so staunchly defend?

__________________
Bah!

Your right about that however your one paying attention to what is being said, taking things of of context, look what you said about the graf being destoryed, if you had read the tread i had wrote properly, you would have read that what if she survived, what if they built more ships, like i said this is a what if forum isn't it?

i think maybe you should read threads before replying to them with quotes which have nothing or little to due with anything.

just go back to the original thread with the original question the SAME RESOURECES, meaning land, sea, air, industrial, economy, infrasturture even, everything the same, but commanders. So it would come down to tactics and strategy.

now please read this through before responding

first of all im no neo-nazi, they were fools and should never have been left to lead germany, as i said Hitler was an idiot. i'm not even german i just think people see the germans tear them apart beacuse of the holocaust, and then blame every ww2 german for the war. second this has nothing to do with who's right or wrong just the original question.

What jews? That side-tracking of a discussion by entering an extraneous factor is an old tactic, I'm not falling for that.

Anyway, I'm not even interested in discussing anything with the likes of you. "Aquila non capit muscas".

Fare thee well.

__________________
Bah!

All right then.
IMO the Allies would have their fleet destroyed, and, as they have hardly any ships to evacuate with, tens of thousands of men die.

__________________

Gentlemen, one and all,

Get this discussion back on track. It should be a rally race not a oval course and should go from point A to point B, not in a circle as it is presently, with the obligatory sidetrack into personal vendetta.

Clean up the discussion or will close the thread.

Also, and most importantly, Nazi apologist statements are not tolerated in this fourm.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Even if the entire German fleet as actually constructed before and during WW 2 was afloat it would have been no match for Allied sea power. A handful of battleships and smaller surface combatants changes nothing. Also, these ships would have had to transit from whatever base(s) they were at to the invasion site opening them up to air attack and drawing German air resources away from the invasion area to protect them.
As for actually trying to match Allied naval power; the Germans didn't have the resources or capacity to do it. As just one example, the US embarked on a program to build destroyer escorts mainly for ASW work in the Atlantic. These ships were in most cases the equivalent of weak destroyers in the British, Japanese, or German navy. The US originally set the production goal at 1000 vessels actually building nearly 600 in an average time of about 7 months each. British and German yards were taking 18 months to turn out a similar ship.

As for air attacks on naval vessels there are several problems for the Germans. For the most part they lack suitable weapons for this function. Yes, a few of their bombers could use Fritz X and Hs 293 guided bombs and there were a few aircraft capable of taking a torpedo but, these were the exception. Crews were also not trained for anti-shipping work for the most part.
To compound this, by mid 1944 the Allied navies are now regularly using VT fuzed shells in AA fire. If we look at the historical results off Anzio and the battle of Empress Augusta Bay we find that:
1. Bombers using guided weapons in the face heavy jamming will not be successful beyond that of non-guided weapons. This means Fritz X and Hs 293 missiles are largely a wasted effort.
2. Bombers trying to attack shipping and naval vessels conventionally will be shot down or badly damaged in prohibitive numbers while causing few casualties in return.

The Germans also would face a problem in that the Allies possessed far superior technologies and orgainzation in the use of and direction of their aircraft to the Germans. Again, it is not the weapon, but the system in which it is employed, that determines effectiveness. Me 262s are worthless if they are positioned wrongly to stop an Allied attack on a bomber formation. Of course, 262s are worthless in any case in a long term campaign due solely to their horrificly bad reliability that would quickly reduce their numbers to insignificance.

The initative lies with the Allies. That largely determines the outcome of a Normandy invasion unless the Germans can somehow snatch it from them. More forces only make the battle bloodier, not more likely for a German success. Until you can demonstrate a strategy that allows a switch of initiative instead of focusing uselessly on technology and weapons you cannot demonstrate how the Germans can win.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

Ditto on the above. Even If the Germans entered a cheat code and got a free Navy to match the RN and USN, the only thing it would change is the casualty figures.

__________________

Sorry. But the Maginot Line didn't consist of WWI "Trenches". There was much more to it then "Trenches". Which is one of the reasons the Germans "went around" it.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

In actual fact, the Germans managed at least three penetrations of the Maginot Line, took six petite ovrages and had a major one under siege. The problem with the line was that it was designed with WW 1 weapons and tactics in mind. The observation turrets proved highly vulnerable to direct fire from large high velocity guns like the 88 and 105mm AA guns the Germans had. This blinded the forts and took out the few forward firing weapons in the system (the majority were sited to fire along the front rather than into enemy territory on the idea this made them less vulnerable to the enemy's artillery.).
Flamethrowers and shaped charges proved capable of destroying the line's bunkers and turrets.
Basically, the problem with the Maginot Line was that the French believed a linear defense would still work. It wasn't a defense in depth per se nor was the system designed with either aircraft or large mobile forces in mind.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

I stand corrected, I know there was more to it than the trenches though. But its still funny how they just went around it. I'm not defending the Nazis Za Rodinu -meaning their 'ideals' but I will and continue to say they had one of the best militaries ever. The funny thing is its ok for people like Za Rodinu to defend the commies but its not ok for people like IronCross to defend the nazis? Even though Ronald Reagan one of the greatest U.S. presidents ever called the Soviet Union "The EVIL Empire".

thankyou finally a proper professional realistic, unbiased and informative view on the original question.

what does he mean by nazi apologist?

lol well good debate while in lasted sorry got a bit sidetracked a couple of times.

The eagle doesn’t catch flies (don’t bother about small things)?
what do you mean by that and what have I done to you, are you a neo-nazi(harmlessly asking)?

What a pointless thread... As are all 'What-ifs' by definition.

Surely, if the germans had the resources on the Allies there would have been no Normandy as they would have already conquered the globe with their Uber Armed Forces.

As my old lecturer once said to me...

"Counter-factual history is for those who cant be bothered to read or understand history..."

__________________
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

Well I guess we should just agree to disagree-we aren't getting anywhere with that argument.
At least your not one of those people who say stuff like, "The Sherman was rubbish, the Tiger however was the best tank ever and it had no Flaws"

Does 'same military resources' include Intelligence and Intelligence gathering? If so, then the Allies are pretty much screwed.

__________________

Defined:

Na·zi/ˈnɑtsi, ˈnæt-/[naht-see, nat-]noun, plural -zis, adjective

1. a member of the National Socialist German Workers' party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, seized political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Führer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.

2. (often lowercase) a person elsewhere who holds similar views.

3. Sometimes Offensive. (often lowercase) a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc.: a jazz nazi who disdains other forms of music; tobacco nazis trying to ban smoking.

4. of or pertaining to the Nazis.


a·pol·o·gist (ə-pŏl'ə-jĭst)
n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW