WHAT IF

[patrick chong]

Dear Gentlemen,

While watching WW2 documentaries, I've always asked myself what if they did this and they did that, so I thought it be interesting to start a topic of "What if"

I'm going to start first, here it is, What if Hitler did not delay the battle of Kursk, would it be a game changer for the entirety of the Nazi operation.

[phantom]

Good question, If Hitler did not delay the battle of the Kursk the Germans might have had a chance, they could have caught the Russians unprepared and If they attacked in early May as the original plan, using smaller advances and then creating a strong front line, they could have caused heavy Russian losses. They would then have had more time to work on their wonder weapons, which could have turned the course of the war... but some say the war was already lost at the gates of Moscow.

[patrick chong]

9 hours ago, phantom said:

Good question, If Hitler did not delay the battle of the Kursk the Germans might have had a chance, they could have caught the Russians unprepared and If they attacked in early May as the original plan, using smaller advances and then creating a strong front line, they could have caused heavy Russian losses. They would then have had more time to work on their wonder weapons, which could have turned the course of the war... but some say the war was already lost at the gates of Moscow.

I think the war was lost strictly because of his Ego, the geographical limits and climate change factor changed the game. When you have millions of soldiers going out, you better have enough supplies and trucks to back them up. They couldn't keep up with production and supplies and all they did was to march forward except Kursk

[Gildwiller1918]

The battle of Kursk was doomed to fail from the start as the allies sent the Russians the details from decoded German intercepts, allowing the Russians to prepare accordingly 2 months before the battle. The Russians also had captured German enigma codes and materials in which the British helped them to utilize to their advantage. German leadership warned Hitler that they were seeing a strong defensive buildup in the area in which they were to attack, indicating the Russians knew they were coming or details of the plan. However, as others have stated, Hitler did not listen to reason. In my opinion, it would not have mattered if the battle was delayed or not. Limited and valuable resources were wasted on an effort which many at the time knew or suspected would fail, these resources could have been better put to use strengthening the western front for the expected second front. 

[phantom]

same as the western front Battle of the Bulge troops would have been better used creating defensive positions.  

[Gildwiller1918]

Looking forward to your next What if, Patrick.

[patrick chong]

On 01/12/2023 at 09:50, Gildwiller1918 said:

The battle of Kursk was doomed to fail from the start as the allies sent the Russians the details from decoded German intercepts, allowing the Russians to prepare accordingly 2 months before the battle. The Russians also had captured German enigma codes and materials in which the British helped them to utilize to their advantage. German leadership warned Hitler that they were seeing a strong defensive buildup in the area in which they were to attack, indicating the Russians knew they were coming or details of the plan. However, as others have stated, Hitler did not listen to reason. In my opinion, it would not have mattered if the battle was delayed or not. Limited and valuable resources were wasted on an effort which many at the time knew or suspected would fail, these resources could have been better put to use strengthening the western front for the expected second front. 

 

On 02/12/2023 at 20:46, phantom said:

same as the western front Battle of the Bulge troops would have been better used creating defensive positions.  

 

On 30/11/2023 at 02:35, phantom said:

Good question, If Hitler did not delay the battle of the Kursk the Germans might have had a chance, they could have caught the Russians unprepared and If they attacked in early May as the original plan, using smaller advances and then creating a strong front line, they could have caused heavy Russian losses. They would then have had more time to work on their wonder weapons, which could have turned the course of the war... but some say the war was already lost at the gates of Moscow.

With all that being said, judging at all angles, the Nazis had no chance of winning.

[patrick chong]

As Belligerent as the Nazis wanted to be, they were strong on Land battles. However, must we agree that technology was still king?  What if The Messerschmitt 109 was better than the Spitfire & the Kriegsmarine was better than the Royal Navy? by gaining control over the skies & seas, would that be the end all be all conclusion of winning the war.

[Kenny Andrew]

Here's quite an interesting what if 

 

[Gildwiller1918]

Interesting topic Patrick, technology does play a key role in warfare, examples of this are the Dreadnaught class ships launched by Britain, they immediately made all other ships obsolete. Another example is the French M1886 Lebel with its smokeless powder. Both examples were game changers in their day, but the big advantage to those was that the countries the introduced them, also made them in large quantities. The Germans in WW2 made some extraordinary technological advancements, that is beyond doubt, however they lacked the infrastructure and decisive leadership to produce them in amounts large enough to impact the conflict. Perhaps if they waited before starting the conflict and focused on weapons that could prove useful in the coming war. Some suggestions would be long-range bombers and transport aircraft, radar/sonar and equipment to jam them, more efficient and longer-range submarines. These are just some ideas; the Germans also had a massive supply chain problem. They had to transport parts and supplies to all their territories, not all vehicles, planes, tanks and weapons were standardized. Not to mention all the captured equipment, it must have been a logistical nightmare to make sure the right munitions, supplies and parts arrived when and where they were supposed to be. Another point you brough up was their strength in land warfare. The Germans were never going to become the great naval power that England was, so it was natural that they would focus on areas they could master. The Germans in general learned from and adapted lessons from the first war much more than the allies did, such as infantry tactics, small arms use, air and ground assault support and leadership in officers and NCO's. 

[patrick chong]

11 hours ago, Gildwiller1918 said:

Interesting topic Patrick, technology does play a key role in warfare, examples of this are the Dreadnaught class ships launched by Britain, they immediately made all other ships obsolete. Another example is the French M1886 Lebel with its smokeless powder. Both examples were game changers in their day, but the big advantage to those was that the countries the introduced them, also made them in large quantities. The Germans in WW2 made some extraordinary technological advancements, that is beyond doubt, however they lacked the infrastructure and decisive leadership to produce them in amounts large enough to impact the conflict. Perhaps if they waited before starting the conflict and focused on weapons that could prove useful in the coming war. Some suggestions would be long-range bombers and transport aircraft, radar/sonar and equipment to jam them, more efficient and longer-range submarines. These are just some ideas; the Germans also had a massive supply chain problem. They had to transport parts and supplies to all their territories, not all vehicles, planes, tanks and weapons were standardized. Not to mention all the captured equipment, it must have been a logistical nightmare to make sure the right munitions, supplies and parts arrived when and where they were supposed to be. Another point you brough up was their strength in land warfare. The Germans were never going to become the great naval power that England was, so it was natural that they would focus on areas they could master. The Germans in general learned from and adapted lessons from the first war much more than the allies did, such as infantry tactics, small arms use, air and ground assault support and leadership in officers and NCO's. 

Thanks for the Wonderful insights, I guess they did not do the right calculation before starting the war. Without knowing/spying the enemy's tech development and supplies. I wonder what convinced them that they could actually win the war. Could it be just anger and frustration? 

[Gildwiller1918]

Well, WW2 was pretty much inevitable in my opinion. WW1 ended with the treaty of Versailles which only served to push nationalism, fascism and communism into Germany and other nations. Japan, who was on the allied side during WW1 got snubbed at the Peace Conference and subsequently found that the only way they could build their empire and get respect was through military strength. Much like the Franco Prussian War of 1870-71, in which the defeated French longed for revenge, the same was felt by many Germans, especially after the "stab in the back" story spread. Initially the Germans worked with Russians to re-build and reequip their military with training sites and military camps deep in Russia, far away from the League of Nations eyes in the early 1920's. This is one of the ways they developed their armor and air force components, as these were banned by the peace treaty. 

Hitler was a gambler and he correctly deduced that many of the Europeans nations were weakened after the Great War and from the Depression, and also, he tested the League of Nations as did other Dictators. By taking advantage of the imbalance of power, Germany, Japan and others grabbed what they could, initially they got what they wanted. I guess it comes down to what winning the war meant to them at the time, did it mean conquest off territories, or forced alliances and occupation? The immense scale of occupying and defending most of Europe was a huge drain on manpower and resources. If the Germans invaded England, the leadership would have fled, most likely to Canada. Even if occupied, the British would have resisted, much like many other nations did. In some instances, the Germans were seen as liberators and saviors in some regions, but this was quickly squandered with brutal policies. Germany and Japan both used harsh methods when dealing with people in occupied lands, which was a big mistake in my opinion. 

 

Please keep in mind these are my thoughts and opinions.

[patrick chong]

On 05/12/2023 at 19:27, Gildwiller1918 said:

Well, WW2 was pretty much inevitable in my opinion. WW1 ended with the treaty of Versailles which only served to push nationalism, fascism and communism into Germany and other nations. Japan, who was on the allied side during WW1 got snubbed at the Peace Conference and subsequently found that the only way they could build their empire and get respect was through military strength. Much like the Franco Prussian War of 1870-71, in which the defeated French longed for revenge, the same was felt by many Germans, especially after the "stab in the back" story spread. Initially the Germans worked with Russians to re-build and reequip their military with training sites and military camps deep in Russia, far away from the League of Nations eyes in the early 1920's. This is one of the ways they developed their armor and air force components, as these were banned by the peace treaty. 

Hitler was a gambler and he correctly deduced that many of the Europeans nations were weakened after the Great War and from the Depression, and also, he tested the League of Nations as did other Dictators. By taking advantage of the imbalance of power, Germany, Japan and others grabbed what they could, initially they got what they wanted. I guess it comes down to what winning the war meant to them at the time, did it mean conquest off territories, or forced alliances and occupation? The immense scale of occupying and defending most of Europe was a huge drain on manpower and resources. If the Germans invaded England, the leadership would have fled, most likely to Canada. Even if occupied, the British would have resisted, much like many other nations did. In some instances, the Germans were seen as liberators and saviors in some regions, but this was quickly squandered with brutal policies. Germany and Japan both used harsh methods when dealing with people in occupied lands, which was a big mistake in my opinion. 

 

Please keep in mind these are my thoughts and opinions.

I agree, Inevitable is the defining word here. There were several contributing factors that set the stage for the conflict, such as unresolved issues from World War I, economic instability, the rise of extremist ideologies, and failures in diplomacy. These factors definitely increased the likelihood of war.

[patrick chong]

Hey Gentlemen,

Been away lately, preparing to end the year & Xmas is coming! at least we get to see Xmas . Back to where we are...

Just curious, "What if the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbour and Awoken the Beast(America), any chance of full conquering at least on the western front"?

[Fritz]

America would not have entered the war for that reason