Did Germany have power to defeat XXX Allied Nation one on one?

I am trying to get an idea of the power of Germany during their peak performance. In our simulation here, had Germany pitted against XXX of said allied nation. What would be the result?


One on one
Germany vs England
Germany vs USSR
Germany vs United States

Conditions of victory can either be a total victory or a defensive victory (ie sue for peace on favorable terms).

 

I have an objection : your OP is impossible :Germany versus Britain is impossible, it always would be Germany versus Britain and France,or,if France was out,it would be Germany versus Britain and the US .

Germany versus USSR : idem :a German attack against the USSR implies war with Britain,because the conditio sine qua non was German domination of Poland (and Romania) which means war with Poland,which means war with the West . And,even,if there was no war,a neutral Britain and France would tie a lot of German forces .

There always would be a virtual second front,whatever situation you would imagine.

It never would be Germany against.....,but "a part of Germany" against ......

 

I was thinking more like, "on paper" who would win. If you pulled up all the statistics, economy, technology, people numbers etc.

But I defiantly see your point.

So was Germany really that much more ahead then her enemies (until they caught up at least)?

It just blows my mind that that country fought 3 World Powers for half a decade. And fought on near equal terms for most of it.

 

Germany beats England more times than not .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England%E2%80%93Germany_football_rivalry

Germany would never fight England on it's own.
There'd be the Jocks , Taffs & Paddies to help out too .
And the Aussies, Kiwis, Canucks , Indians & Africans.

 

I don't see Germany winning vs the US or Britain. They simply didn't have the navy to force a win. On the other hand I'm not sure that with the rest of Europe neutral either of those countries could force a conclusion on Germany either.

Soviets vs Germans is a toss up IMO. Either can win depending on the circumstances.

 

Germany vs. Britain. No. Germany could never invade England, they didn't have the navy nor the air power to insure air superiority over England and the Channel.

Germany vs. the US. How would Germany attack the US? Not enough navy, if Britain were neutral the US couldn't use England or it's North African territories as staging areas. The US would have to go through French North Africa, then across the Med to Italy and Southern France. The US had the amphibious capability, air and naval power to neutralize Germany in the Med. and force their way across. Germany would surely have bloodied them badly in Italy and Southern France, up until the B-29's dropped nukes on Berlin and other German cities, the end.

Russia, if the US remained neutral, no Lend-Lease. Britain neutral, no Lend-Lease. Germany's full might, including those ground and air forces damaged during the invasion of France, in North Africa, the Med and the aircraft lost during the Battle of Britain. Possibly if not probably. Just my opinion.

 

So Germany could not develop a navy capable of sufficient power given a few years time? I feel without having to worry about the others they could have engineered what they needed.

 

Sufficient power to do what ?

There was the Z plan,which was cancelled at the start of the war (a wise decision)because this new fleet would be operational something after 1950.


There is also the point that this new fleet would still be locked up in the East See : bases on the Atlantic would be available only after a German victory.

 

This is the problem with "What Ifs", the "other guy" is always expected to do absolutely nothing...Sure Germany could develop a navy of sufficient power given a few, more likely a decade, years time. However, the British and Americans already had navies of sufficient power. Also, they were not just sitting around doing nothing, both had embarked on extensive naval building plans that were going to come to fruition much sooner than the German Z-Plan.

What would the British or American navies look like in 10 years time when compared to the "new" Kriegsmarine?

 

Excellent point Takao, the US for one would have been huge and extremely experienced from their war against Japan. Can you imagine Germany trying to mount an amphibious landing against any part of the western hemisphere? All those US subs with experienced crews fresh from the Pacific. All those Essex class carriers, with their excellent aircraft and aircrews. Then what about the Midway class being built? The Iowa's, SoDak's and North Carolina's with the electronics and fire control systems developed during the 1st half of the 1940's, were more than a match for any German battleship. If it looked like Germany would create a maritime threat the Montana's may have been built. The Alaska's may have been used for what they were built for, hunting down commerce raiders.
Navies also use large quantities of oil. Where will Germany get the quantities needed to field a navy that could even hope to rival the US in size or quality? Could they even hope to build the logistical ships required to keep a force in the western hemisphere supplied? Germany had no possibility of invading the western hemisphere/US successfully. If we're only speaking of Europe, and a land war there, the bomb would have ended it in 1945 regardless.

 

While we are on the what if's:
Erhard Milch, deputy to Goring, had established aggressive plans for expanding the production of military aircraft types, including four engine long range bombers, and aviation training infrastructure. Milch's successes including aircraft production buildup with his promotion to general in 1936 aroused jealousies in Goring who diluted Milch's responsibilities. Had there been some on in place to carry his vision, results would have been different.

 

White Flight wrote:

-Didn't Goring force Milch out of his position in 1944? If so, and he was the "panacea" for German airpower, why had he not addressed their issues earlier when he did have the position to do so?

-During much of the time Milch was unquestionably in charge of acquisition and production/procurement of aircraft, why didn't he address a number of the issues that hamstrung the German air effort? Why continually change operational requirements and aircraft specifications? Why not bring Germany's aircraft industry to a full wartime footing earlier? Why use his position to carry out a personal feud with Willy Messerschmitt and Hugo Junkers? Why did they wait until 1943 to begin seriously looking at a heavy, long range bomber? Milch was still in his position at that time.

-An earlier heavy would have made things rougher on Britain, but I don't think it would have been a war winner. Germany lacked the industrial capacity to build the numbers of these bombers required. Short legged fighters that plagued Germany during the Battle of Britain would have meant a less than adequate fighter escort. Germany could not sustain the losses the US and Britain did. Britain's effective radar defense system would have allowed for longer range interception and increased losses to the German heavies. What about increased aviation fuel requirements to conduct a massive strategic bombing campaign.

-Against the US it's even more unlikely. The range alone makes it a no go, and the American's ability to produce massive numbers of aircraft and pilots would have made a long range, German bombing campaign of the US impossible.

 

The hidden factor out in the open......they were always led by Hitler and Hitler always made military decisions based on one thing only........what he wanted.......he never planned according to his means, he planned as if he could have anything he wanted. This was successful when being a bully against the smaller countries. This was unsuccessful anytime he faced a formidable opponent. One on one, he would have projected the same tactic against opponents that were his equal. He never consulted his subordinates to get opinions based on the strength of his forces and what they could accomplish, instead he placed nearly impossible or often impossible demands upon them which led to failures many times. The genius of his industries did exist, and it was made possible by a mix of the German peoples abilitities added to the crafty genious of the Jews. He slowly and efficiently destroyed the Jewish contribution and that left him just that short in his longterm ability to prosper his industries as they once had accomplished. Imagine what you wish, but you will always be tied to this group of faults by which he led his people against any formidable opponent.

 

Against the Soviets or the US no, against Britain it depends on how much resources Germany has to build a proper navy

 

When? In five or ten years...

At the opening of the Second World War in 1939, the British had in Home Waters & the Atlantic:
9 Battleships & Battlecruisers
4 Aircraft carriers
35 cruisers
95 destroyers
25 submarines

 

Would the Allied nations be at their "peak power" as well? For example, the American military was unprepared for war in 1940, when you might argue that the Germans were at their "peak power".

 

1)I don't think it was Goering

2)The Germans had a long range bomber in 1940

 

I had devised a new submarine that could carry conventional missiles...stacked upright with the warheads to be attatched prior to launch...the launch tube running in front or behind the the sail. The plan for these was to covertly cover the Atlantic and station off the US coast...the missiles would by neccessity be relativley small (but a few miles off a coastal city, little propellant would be needed...The design had a 3/4 tonne warhead. Its use was to pop up 3-25 miles off a coastal city with "one in the spout" launch, and stay surfaced for the 15-20 minutes to prepare another launch. The second is launched and an immediate dive afterwards (before air or sea units could converge)...the submarine then moves to a designated "cool zone" until dark the next night and then repeat step one. This was invisioned within a "pack" with at least three subs surfaceing simultaneously at different locations but all within the range of the target city. Of course this would be a “random” attack…the planners not using any pattern in terms of target city or timing…each city could be attacked once a month or 3 times a year, depending, either way it would be impossible to anticipate where or when an attack would take place. The Navy/Coast guard would have to be out everywhere 24/7 to even have a chance of intercept.
The initial missiles (in my imagination) were cut down V2s…Purpose built to come later. The warheads could contain conventional explosives, Bio or Chem…Wouldn’t have won any wars, but sure would have tied up forces and caused considerable public worry/concern and all that politically comes with that.

 

To me this sounds a lot like a what if but thats up to the mod's

As for peak power it get's a little tricky, Germany at their peak power widely used the Panzer III as their main tank where as the USSR used the T-34, US M4 Sherman etc. Unless the scenario allow's for peak power and peak weapons then I don't see Germany being in the best spot.

That said

Germany vs England

Germany lacked the navy for a full blown invasion of England, Accounting for the longer distance of travel compared to that of a Channel crossing Germany would have no chance of trying to force it or sneak up on them in short order. However on the other hand I don't see the UK being able to do more then impose a sea blockade though how effective that may be is debatable. Germany could still conceivably get their resources through Italy or even the USSR. Bonus for Germany would be they would not run the risk of draining the Luftwaffe of valuable experienced pilots over British cities.

In all likely hood it would come down to naval power, Britain's surface fleet vs Germany's submarine force.

I don't sea either having a clear and defined victory, More likely comes down to a political solution rather then military one.


Germany vs the USSR

On her own I dont see Germany being able to mass the force needed, Yes Germany could have quality but as the Russians have shown there is an argument for quantity over quality, Even more so when said quantity is used wisely as they started to do so from 1942/43. For Germany to stand a chance at an invasion of the USSR they would require the forces of the other European Axis nations. With out them there would just be too much land and not enough bodies to cover it.

If they don't have the other nations then I don't see Germany being able to make much headway into Russia, In fact any attempt to do so could prove disastrous as the would not have to attack far ahead (to Moscow) but also a big distance to the right to secure the right flank. Too much to do with not enough forces and poor starting positions. So more likely the battle is limited around Poland with back and forth actions. Eventually the USSR industrial might will win out.

If they are allowed the other European Axis nations against the USSR then it is another matter. I recall reading (not sure of exact source, Got the memory of my father ) that one of the only things that saved the USSR was US lend lease, Specifically the logistical support they received. If my memory serves me the Russians with out said logistical support would have been slower to react and combat the German/Axis forces, Cant recall the name but a Russian general said as much?? If I'm remembering right then based on that with out US lend lease Russian response would have been severely slowed and their ability for large scale counter attacks delayed by 12 months or more. If the German/Axis force could capitalize on this then they may be able to secure key points to make an easier defence of inevitable Russian counter attack and may (I stress may) be able to force a victory. (key points being Leningrad, Karelia Peninsula, Arkhangelsk, Moscow, Stalingrad, Caucasus etc).

Clarification needs to be given on what forces would be at Germany's disposal.

Germany vs the US

US naturally has a bigger resource and Industrial base to call upon. That said with out having England on their side the US lacks a spring board for an invasion into Germany. Even the combined US Atlantic and Pacific fleets would not be able to invade Germany from bases on the est Coast. Even a sea blockade would be difficult at best to implement. As for Germany being a threat to the US, Unless they build the Amerika bomber and an actual working nuke or build the crazy idea of a submarine towing 3 x V2 Rockets then the US is safe.

It would come down to a diplomatic solution, Neither was a real threat to the other from such distances. That said assuming the US was to try and invade Germany they would need a staging point, Such a point would have to be taken by force which risks bringing other nations onto Germany's side. The UK would be off limits unless they want to be invaded by Canadians to the North, Brits from the West and Drunk Aussies stealing all their stuff from the South East (Let's face it, We Aussies were good at pinching stuff ). That would leave Iceland and/or Greenland. Doing so would mean war with Denmark and more support from the Nordic nations to the German/Danish forces.

But that is just my 2 cents =)

 

US could have attacked from Iceland and I don't see why Denmark ,which was occupied by the Germans,would /could declare war on the US