German vs. Russia - No England.

maybe unnecessary here, but gotta say it: THANK YOU

 

That certainly wasn't the only thread of his that was useless.

 

LOL Thats true. But it is the only one so far that was closed by the Mods. He does seem to have a fixation with Halifax and Britain losing or becoming "Neutral". Whats funny is he even tried again with "updating" the closed thread LOL.


http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/30048-l...me-minister-england-goes-neutral-updated.html

 

The Germans had plans to invade Switzerland and as they saw it "liberate the German population".

The Axis aggressor is not an aggressor against Canada is it.

Didnt stop the British and Soviet invasion did it?

 

Yes I can see how invading a first rate power with a population of over 50 million is much like invading a small island with no defences and a population of a few hundred thousand.

 

How many did they have? What experiance did they have with landing ops?

I suggest you look at a map and then look at the problems they would have getting there and getting support once they are there.

You think that the Italians will have an easier time in Yugoslavia than in Greece? and that the original plan is going to be better? care to give us a few hints why?

Vastly? care to produce some numbers and compare them vs what happened historically?

Do they even go after Indo-China. Given peace in Europe France is likely to object and Britian may well side with her as may the US and Dutch. Why do you think the US-British-Dutch agreements aren't in place anymore with regards to Japan?

But when does this occur? If it doesn't start until the end of 42 there's a period of peace.

Would he be however if Britain is already out of the war?

The US fleet is a match and more for them in 1941.

You have yet to show there is any financial gain though. Given the recent war I would think they would much prefer to sell to anyone else. Then there is the very limited amount of foreign exchange available to the Axis powers.

The entry of the Turks at this point is still very problematic. Even if they enter they are more than likely not going to be involved in major operations in the Caucauses at least not right away. The additional troops mean that their logistics burden is even greater than historical. It's not at all clear that it means additional force can or would be brought to bear in the Caucases.

And the US isn't?

Why when they can make just as much or maybe a little less with greater ease and safty selling to the US and not thier former and probably future enemy.

 

Hes not worth it lwd LOL.

:feedtrolls-sign:

 

I didn't say it was awe inspiring I said that they had significant success vs the Japanese. Just looking at 41-43 from the link you supplied US subs sank 3 of the 17 major vessels sunk during that period and 14 of 61 DDs and an even greater number of smaller combatants. Looking at 44 throug the end of the war and only major combatants looks like subs got 19 of 52. Note that the subs were hampered by poor torpedos early and the surface and air forces had a lot easier time later in the war as well.
over all 22 of 69 combat vessels larger than DDs credited to the subs and that's not counting sub layed mines.

I never subscribed to BE's theory of the German and Italian boats being very effective vs the US. However the US boats appear to have decimated the IJN major combatants more than twice over and if you count in all combat vessels probably more than three times over. Again that's not to say that the axis would have enjoyed anything like that success.

 

Wish I'd seen this earlier.
Are sarcastuc comments considered troll food?

 

Naw. Just entertaiment . LOL B.E. didn't earn that little flame for nothing LOL.

 

I have a senario that so far no one has mentioned.

Britain is as per topic out of the war and so is the Royal Navy PERIOD.

So America not in the war has agreed to supply The Soviet Union with lend lease. So who is resonsable for transporting the goods, remeber at that period of lend lease it was virtually cash and carry, meaning that the Soviets themselves had to provide all the transport to and from America and Naval escorts until they enter American territorial waters, the Soviets did not pocess a large enough merchantile and armed marine to do it.

Here is my senario Germany, Japan and Italy have agreed to keep America out of the war whatever the cost and so Japan agrees not to attack Hawaii, she is to be isolated. Japan informs the Americans that they will use the IJN to enforce the Pacific blockade and that any attempt of the Americans to act in a military capacity to break the blockade will be considered an act of war thus making the Americans act in contrary to their isolationist stance. America not wantint to provoke a war has no choice but to inform the Soviets that they are on their own in regards to transporting their lend lease goods.

What i am saying is that to protect the convoy routes effectively America would have to Declare war against the Germans, Japanese and Italians without ever been attacked themselves, if that is the case then this would never happen because the Americans did not declare war on Germany when she invaded, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Norway, North Africa and Soviet Union. American did not declare war on Italy when she invaded Ethiopia, Albania, Jugoslavia and Greece while the Americans did not declare war on Japan when she invaded Manchuria, China and Inner Mongolia.

And remember this for whatever reason America gets no help from anyone, America has to rid the Atalantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans of Axis Naval Forces and then launch a back-up Ground and Air Offensives, American can't do it alone.

v.R

 

None but what experience does anyone have until the first time they did it.

Hence why they need to take Murmansk.

A much easier time.
The Yugoslav army was inferior to that of the Greek.
Plus the Croatian divisions will defect and the Italians will have Bulgarian and Hungarian allies.

Last I read Western Europe was occupied by 64 German divisions.
Most of these can now be used in the East.
Not to mention extra Italian forces who where used in North and East Africa.
The Italian and German airforces will be much stronger too.

The French will object as this did in our own history but they can do nothing about it.
Nor can the Dutch.
The British wont re-enter the war over Indo-China.

Yes more time for the Germans to build up their surfice fleet.

Would he be however if Britain is already out of the war?

Strange then how they couldnt even match the Japanese till mid 1942.

As with anything else they will sell to the highest bidder.

Of course they can and would be.
You are suggesting the Turkish army cant even move.

If the Americans pay more for oil they do not need to keep it out of Axis hands im sure the British would go along with it.

 

Let's get something straight B-E, The USN in 1941-42 was more than a match for the Axis navies. Your ignorant fantasies aren't going to change that.

The Pacific Fleet in it's first two real battles with the IJN, by far the strongest and most competent of the Axis fleets, not only stopped the Japanese but gutted their offensive power for the rest of the war.

Try doing some real research; look up the Battle of the Coral Sea, 7-8 May, 1942, and the Battle of Midway, less than one month later, 4-7 June, 1942

Then try telling us that the USN couldn't stand up to the Japanese in 1942

 

Initial experiances with invasions are usually painful. The invasion of Norway, a surprise attack vs a contry that was not at war cost the Germans the better part of the KM. Hitting Murmansk is going to be harder.

I see they've got to launch a difficult dangerous operation to put themselves into a postion where they are going to be extremly hard to supply or reinforce. Brilliant.

So if everything goes right they have an easier time at least until the partizans start causing problems. Of course Yougoslavia is a bit bigger and pretty rought terrain as well but feel free to ignore that factor.

You are saying they don't have to garison Western Europe or Afriica?

You seam awfully sure about that for no apparent reason.

They are going to be doing it at a fraction of the rate the US is. IE they will be falling further behind.

Well actually they did and that was inspite of PH. It's not at all clear that PH occurs in this scenario and if it does it may well not be as successful.

The British governement and the governments of the independent commonwealth countries will not sell ot the highest bidder if they think it is not in their best interest. Of course there is still the question of how much surplus they have in 41 and 42. There's also risk and transportation cost to consider.

No I'm suggesting that it is difficult to move an army in some locations and Attaturk is going to be very careful with his army as he was historically.

They don't have to pay more than the Germans. Between the lower risk, lower transportation costs, and national interest the US probably gets a pretty good price. Then of course there's still the fact that neither German nor Italy has much in the way to pay for said oil. The US can probably find a use for a good portion of it in any case.

 

Not against major warships, and certainly not up to the levels hoped for prior to the war. US subs were ultimately the most successful of any submarine arm against enemy warships, but even the US submarine service did very poorly in this area. My point, however, was that B-E was wrong to think that German subs would ravage the US Navy as he claimed. Even Clay Blair in "Silent Victory" admits the US subs did poorly against Japanese combatant warships during the war.

Don't forget that German subs initially suffered all of the problems suffered by the US subs in the Pacific, including poor torpedo performance.

It's still misleading to claim that submarines could, or did, significantly cripple a Navy during WW II. Submarines never did all that well against warships, even counting the one submarine arm which did sink 22 major war ships over a three and a half year period. Considering the major objective set for the submarine arm was the elimination of the offensive power of the Japanese navy, the US sub arm failed in it's mission. The fact that it very successfully eliminated the Japanese merchant fleet is to it's credit, but no submarine arm lived up to it's pre-war hopes against warships.

 

I guess we have different defintions of well and signficant. Almost 1/3 of the major Japanese warships sunk were sunk by Subs. If you open it up to all warships I'm pretty sure it's more than 1/3. Furthermore the subs can legitimatly claim to have crippled the IJN. It may have been as much through the destruction of tankers as combatants but the latter should not be minimized.

I do however agree that the axis could not have come anywhere close to this performance. The Japanese lack of ASW effort early on was significant and later in the war they were streched to thin to really commit enough to ASW. The US would not have had this problem.

 

This is truly great stuff!



Please continue!

 

Just wait. All he has to do is take another bong hit LOL.

 

I think it is important to note that the huge majority of Japanese warships sunk by US subs were sunk in the last twelve months of the war. That is precisely the period when Japanese warships were slowed because of a scarcity of fuel, and left unscreened because of the severe attrition of destroyers earlier in the war.

My point is, that against warships operating at normal warship speeds and screened by sufficient ASW escorts, submarines were practically helpless against warships, and this observation bears that out. Just a handful of major warships were lost to subs in the first two and one half years of war, and that is not surprising.. As Clay Blair in "Silent Victory" points out, US submarines wasted their efforts in concentrating their attacks against warships because of the speed and ASW escort factors.