If yuo mean thate I am a computer program posing as a human,no i am a reale person!

I have born withe a speche problem ande english ist not really native to me,ande so this means i can;t connect in the same way as other membbers do.
No,i am not using any engilsih translater.
back to topic nowe?

Not a problem, Heidi. English is my second language too. In fact, I am thinking about learning German.

PS:I think I am in love with your avatar.

__________________
Russisch Frauen über alles, über alles in der Welt - me

Of course not, nor does it have to be. The original plan was to leave America to the next generation.

__________________
Russisch Frauen über alles, über alles in der Welt - me

No, he is asking if you are using a computer program or webpage to translate your German sentences into English.

Like I said earlier, you keep typing, we'll figure it out. If we can't, we'll ask you to try again.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

It was never in the interest of the Western Allies to allow the Third Reich to survive. The bombs would most likely have been dropped.

__________________
Best World War 2 Comics

So yuo;re not english or American or german! Yuo a russian?
thate;s goode thate yuo are learning german,comes in handy if yuo are travling to germany.

My avator -it;s probelry my stare i gave out,thate made yuo think like thate,it;s hunting!lol

I never hearsde abuot thate german sentences can be change into English! Thate wuolde come in handy!

Ok,i won;t take this off topic anymore! But Thankes.

The thing you are not taking into account is the ability of the Allies to see what is going on in Germany. So if Germany would have been producing jet powered aircraft and ballistic missiles the Allies would have known. It's not like the Allies said : "Where the heck did the German's get all this stuff" when they rolled through Poland.

__________________
"Logos, Philos, Arete"

Free Online Translator

Here you go Heidi, it has a limit of 500 words but that shouldn't be problem.

__________________

I think the main reason Germany lost the war was that they tried to declare war on everyone at once, such as Britain, the USA, Russia, Canada French, and lets be honest virtually every nation in Europe, and it was too much for one nation. The Germans did certainly have advanced technology in some respects, some although they didn't invent, but they did manage to get them working effectively, many of which they we still use improved versions off, But so did many of the other nations to say that the Germans were more advanced then other nations is just wrong, compare there navy to Britain, they Air force to the USA, there Army is equivalent of the Americans.

Simply giving the Germans more technology just means the first few years of the war happen faster but for every action is an equal and opposite reaction, you take land somewhere you lose it somewhere else. Eventually the Germans would still be overrun by the sheer amount of allies.

__________________

I certainly don't think Germany could've defeated the USSR especially if Great Britain was still standing.
But for the sake of argument, I'll go along and explore the idea that Germany did defeat the USSR.
Germany defeating the USSR does not automatically mean that the Hitler's war machine could immediately access the former USSR's resources.
Remember, the Soviets engaged in a scorched earth policy.
Germany has to spend resources to repair the USSR and certainly this would take time. And would the Germans have the resources available to rebuild the USSR's infrastructure while still engaged in a war with the US and Great Britain? I certainly don't think so. If the Germans attempted to go this route, it would mean that Hitler would have to play catch up.
As for the original premise that Germany had its "advanced" technology when Hitler started his rampage, well, that would just mean that the Allies would also have the near equivalent of that German innovation. Why do I say this?
Take note that in the prewar years, Hitler loved to trumpet Germany's "technological" achievements and supremacy. It was a form of propaganda aimed at raising the German people's morale. With Hitler's penchant for this, Hitler's neighbors would most probably take note of these developments and they would certainly have some enterprising people exploring how to best use these new things. So when Hitler's rampage starts, Germany's so-called "advanced" technology wouldn't really be that advanced.
Germany, I think would still be able to do what it did historically in the opening weeks of the war because Hitler's forces were primed for battle already and while the Allies weren't. But once the Allies tool up, Germany's days are numbered, even if Germany does manage to defeat the USSR. The war would be longer and bloodier, though.

__________________
That's about it,
Fil

I thinke yuo have a mistake in yuo're first senntence! "yuo mentioned thate the main reasone thate germany won the war".

yuo do have great points in the reste of yuo;re post thuogh.
I too agree thate hitler got greedy in trying to fight so many Allies at one time.

Yes, I'm pretty sure the Nazis lost.

If the eastern seaboard would be out of range, does anyone think the Brandenburgers could infiltrate America?

Think about it- the Brandenburgers could infiltrate a sea port, destroy the defenses and allow for an invasion to come through.

What are you thinking?

That maybe the Brandenburgers arrive disguised as tourists, spread out, and when the word is given, attack the defenses with pistols and shotguns? That's not how they worked.

First there never were enough Brandenburgers to seriously threaten a major US port's defenses, and to attempt to "infiltrate" enough of them to capture and hold a major port would certainly be impossible without raising suspicions on the part of the US authorities.

The second problem is that Germany has no real navy which is a prerequisite for successfully moving any substantial numbers of troops across the Atlantic in the face of opposition from the US Navy, as well as the Royal Navy. So even if the Brandenburgers were to achieve the impossible, there is no way to follow up on it.

Suggesting that Germany has any feasible way of either conducting a serious bombardment of the US or launching an invasion of the US at any point during WW II, moves this thread from a what-if question into the realm of absurd fantasy.

Ok, you are going to let Germany have its 1944 tech, but not the allies? That is bizarre. As to America and air raids in 1940, I think a bit of reference data is appropiate here. In (I think) 1922 the Congress limited the Regular American Army to 12,000 commissioned officers and 125,000 volunteer enlisted men, this did NOT include the 7,000 or so in the Philippine Scouts at that time; Army strength stabilized at about that level until 1936. Sadly many units on the mainland were only on paper; and almost all had only skeleton strength at best. The Regular Army’s nine infantry divisions really possessed the combined strength of only three full divisions and the bulk of these full strength divisions were already overseas in the fairly sizable garrisons the Army maintained in Hawaii, the mid-ocean islands, the Philippines, and Panama.

The Navy on the other hand was well manned, and contained many experienced pilots in both it USN and USMC sections. Almost one-third of the Army’s manpower (in 1935), over 50,000 soldiers, was tied up in the coast artillery mission (east and west) as the logical backstop to the Navy and Army Air Corps (10,000 army men) defensive belts with ships, coastal guns and USAAC and USN aircraft. Then there were about 31,000 American troops in the Pacific area mostly Hawaii, the canal zone, and the mid-ocean islands, including those in the Philippines eventually commanded by "Big Mac" while he was training the Filipino self defense force.

It wasn’t until the passage of the Selective Service Act in late 1940 that the US even had a large enough force to consider operations beyond what they were already engaged in. But this assumes the normal time-line and not the defeat of Great Britain (unlikely in any event), to which the US would respond with increased developments as well.

(following italics are from link below)

The outbreak of war in Europe actually made the Americas more secure, as the Army's War Plans Division pointed out in a memorandum that stressed the degree to which Germany's armed forces were involved in Poland and, later, in Norway and Denmark. The powerful British Royal Navy, supplemented by the French fleet, controlled the Atlantic. As long as those navies existed, the German and Italian fleets could offer no threat to the United States, for no Axis invasion fleet could hope to cross the Atlantic in safety.

By the end of 1941, American defenses were arrayed basically in two great arcs. In the Pacific the defensive line stretched from the Aleutians, through the Hawaiian Islands, to Panama, with advance bases in the Philippines and strategic Pacific islands. In the Atlantic the defensive boundary now reached far into the ocean, from Newfoundland to Bermuda and then to Puerto Rico and the Windward Islands, which guarded the approaches to Panama. In May 1941 President Roosevelt issued orders to all base commanders to resist any attack by forces "of belligerent powers other than those powers which have sovereignty over Western Hemisphere territory." Recognizing that those instructions were vague, the President amended them on 11 September, when he announced a fifty-mile interdicted zone and a "shoot-on-sight policy." Thus by late October American forces were committed to destroying any German or Italian ships or aircraft that appeared anywhere in the western Atlantic zone.

See:

Defense of the Americas

Then if you are going to allow 1944/45 technology to be in the German arsenal, you have to allow the same time-frame development retro-application to the allies. This would put allow the advanced centimetric radars, the two jets of the allies (P-80, Meteor), and the radar proximity fuse to show up years ahead of when they did as well. You cannot (in fairness) give "it" to one side just because you want to. The Allies must be given the same consideration, unless your point is to give the Nazi a win by any means. The same with the "defensive" arcs described above which would keep the Germans out of the western hemisphere. As to them defeating the British in any way shape or form, even with the 262 in their air fleet; that is ludicrous.

And I am sure you meant the V-2 and not the V-3. The V-3 was a supergun which never worked. The V-2 is the only weapon system which killed more people in its construction than it did when deployed against an enemy target. The Germans couldn’t get across the English Channel or the Volga River, how in the world do you imagine they are going to get across the Atlantic Ocean!

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Forgot to add something as per America's armed forces in 1940. In addition to the standing "regular" army and navy were the reserve units of same. These were the 18 National Guard Divisions (plus one more assembled from smaller National Guard units), as well as 29 National Guard Army Air Forces squadrons which started serving in 1940, and did so until the end of WW2. I am unsure of the Naval reserve numbers, but ran across those and had to add them to the argument/discussion.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

You are right, typo. hehe, here I have gone and changed history.

__________________

For the better, i reckon. I know we'd be speaking German now, but at least we wouldn't have these endless what-ifs. Most importantly, Heidi wouldn't be worrying about proper grammar when posting in this forum, should it still exist.

__________________
Russisch Frauen über alles, über alles in der Welt - me

A hypothentical war between Germanic-Europa and North America would likely be off into the fifties as both sides would have developed huge navies. I imagine that Germany could make a large Navy if they had Europe under their influence/Control as they would have had access to the excellent ports of Amsterdam, Brest, Hamburg, Kiel and Koenigsberg.

The nuclear bomb discussion is on the idea that the Germans could have had working reactors by 1948 in the latest which would have given them much time to develop weapons using it.

Now if we were looking at bombing raids I could see the Germans having an easier time bombing cities such as Boston, Newark, New York and Washington( If they could squeeze a task force in) as they were directly across the Ocean and and they werent miles inland.

America would have a more difficult time with this as they would have to face fighter wings from occupied Britain, France, and Benelux to reach Germany which could have led to many problems.

__________________
-Dustin

"Zey send zer hounds! zey to vill find only death!"

That's assuming the US would let Hiterlite Germany survive into the 1950's, which is neither a logical nor reasonable assumption. By 1940, the US had determined that Nazism was a distinct and deadly threat to the continued existence of Western-style democracy, and that it had to be wiped out as soon as possible. It's wrong to assume that the US would stay out of the war, or that it would let Germany subjugate Russia, or the rest of Europe. In fact, the Atlantic Charter, which was a statement of US war aims, issued in August, 1941, specifically mentions the "destruction of the Nazi Tyranny" four months before the US became a belligerent.

In the summer of 1940, the US began building the Two-Ocean Navy with the intention of fighting the war against the Axis on two fronts, and alone, if necessary. At the same time, the US Army and Air Force also began rearmament programs that dwarfed anything Germany could accomplish in any reasonable amount of time. The US Navy, Army and Air Force were to b overwhelmingly powerful within three years; Germany could not even come close to matching this feat of production in the same time frame. The US would not have let Germany build up any kind of offensive navy, nor would it stand idly by while Germany occupied the maritime countries of Europe.

As for the atomic bomb, the US began a race in 1941, to beat Germany to an operational nuclear weapon; A nuclear reactor in Germany by 1948 is going to be four years too late. Germany, if it persists in aggressive warfare, would be reduced to radioactive rubble by the end of 1945.

Are you so sure about that?

It would probably turn into, What If, the British had developed Radar before the Battle of Britain. Or what if Operation Sealion had failed.

__________________

I think the point's been loosely made that one thing to keep in mind about realistic speculative fiction is the foundations for every event.
Since advanced technology is based on lesser technology, and all beligerent nations maintained effective intelligence networks, one must assume if you march forwards German jet development, you're going to spur British, American and Soviet jet development in doing so. The conditions which must exist to make advanced technologies available are necessarily universal.

Consider for example the tremendous parity between conventional aero engines among all the beligerant nations (Daimler, Merlin, Klimov, Allison). One nation uses self sealing tanks, everybody does. Cannon and heavy machine guns are better than banks of light machine guns and everybody discovers this. Mass production techniques using new industrial machinery is better than the interwar hand finish of airframes and so everybody uses it.

Much of the technology of WW2 was discovered by trial and error going through the war. German Panthers copied the sloped plating of the T-34. German tactical doctrine was quite superior however actual assumptions of ideal Panzer formation was flawed (though less flawed than the "infantry support" and "cruiser" tank doctrine).

Everybody was trying out new things and making mistakes all over the place, I don't think any single nation in the world could make any genuine technological leaps far ahead of any other.
My opinion is that most of the "technological" superiority attributed the Wehrmacht was in fact tactical superiority. It was bludgeoned to death by more conservative but more effective (for industrial reasons) strategic doctrine, but because an Allied superiority in political doctrine and thus military doctrine was being assumed, German successes would be typically attributed to technologies rather than an effective use of whatever was available.
In my opinion the Wehrmacht was an amazing improvisationalist, but due to the political situation lacked constitution.

It is worth considering that the bulk of all the best German victories were fought using inferior technology as a whole, that is, 1939-43. Even when facing the BEF in France it was 1918 model horse drawn field guns up against brand new 25-pdrs, PzII and Pz35 models little better than an armoured car, lent striking power by stukas. In the East it is lightened 37mm and 50mm guns on slab sided PzIII against the 76mm and sloped armour T-34 with its christie suspension.

I don't think you'd really change much at all by changing available technology, because a rough parity with Allied forces must still be accorded. All it would mean is the end of the war might look more like 1958 than 1945, but the same players doing the same things with it.

Great post Vanir. It;s going to be hard to answer you;re post.

When it came to jet power engines,did not the Allies recieve the jet design after when germany flew v rockets over to briton and also after when germany lost the war,America and Russia took german designers and sceintest???
Meaning that there was no possible way that the Allies would have jets and rockets deployed during ww2!

I hope you can understand what i was stating.
Best wishes.

I can answer this with what I put on page 1 of this thread.

__________________
"Don't one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes! Powder is scarce and must not be wasted. Fire low! You are all marksmen and could kill a squirrel at a hundred yards. Reserve your fire and the enemy will all be destroyed! - Israel Putnam, at the Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775
"War is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others." - Karl von Clausewitz

But with the examples you are showing it is not accurately. During the fall of France, the Allies were not ready for the Germans and the new tactics, but the Allies reacted and adjusted there tactics. Technology had little to do with the victories, especially since as you said the Germans were using inferior weapons, but so were the Allied units, no real effective AT guns, lack of effective tank technology and so on and on plus the German Stuka was a very vulnerable aircraft to enemy Fighters.

The Pz III's had a hell of a time piercing the T-34s armour, I have seen one statment that says that the 88mm was the cause of 1/4 of all the Russian tanks destoryed(this includes tank mounted and field pieces of the 88), so it was technology that caused those losses. The T-34 in virtually every regard was ahead of all other tank designs, and that tank helped stop the Germans Campagin.

__________________