What if history scenarios

Remove this Banner Ad

suspect footskills

All Australian
Oct 15, 2012
998
1,218
Richmond
AFL Club
Collingwood
Army group centre may not have been sent to the Caucasus if Leningrad had been taken. It's a hard one given the nature of Hitler's micro management.

The Luftwaffe could have had ME262's in the air in large numbers by mid-late 43 had Hitler not insisted on developing them as bombers.
 

Kangaroos4eva

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2012
46,435
89,460
QLD
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
Army group centre may not have been sent to the Caucasus if Leningrad had been taken. It's a hard one given the nature of Hitler's micro management.

The Luftwaffe could have had ME262's in the air in large numbers by mid-late 43 had Hitler not insisted on developing them as bombers.
Same with his mucking around with the Stg-44 assault rifle and focus on strategically useless tanks and military projects, like the Maus or Landkreuzer tanks or the death ray crap they were working on.
 

suspect footskills

All Australian
Oct 15, 2012
998
1,218
Richmond
AFL Club
Collingwood
Same with his mucking around with the Stg-44 assault rifle and focus on strategically useless tanks and military projects, like the Maus or Landkreuzer tanks or the death ray crap they were working on.
The Sturmgehwer would have been a huge advantage if it was standard issue. Especially since the Germans tended to have excellent structure at small unit level.

The Maus was just a ridiculous proposition and speaks volumes about the state of Hitler's delerium. Even the amount of resources put into the Panther makes little sense. They should have been focussed on trying to match, if not curtail, allied air superiority. Most of the tigers destroyed in France were taken out by rockets from Tempest's and other ground attack aircraft.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kangaroos4eva

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2012
46,435
89,460
QLD
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
The Sturmgehwer would have been a huge advantage if it was standard issue. Especially since the Germans tended to have excellent structure at small unit level.

The Maus was just a ridiculous proposition and speaks volumes about the state of Hitler's delerium. Even the amount of resources put into the Panther makes little sense. They should have been focussed on trying to match, if not curtail, allied air superiority. Most of the tigers destroyed in France were taken out by rockets from Tempest's and other ground attack aircraft.
They went away to what made them successful in terms of tactics and equipment. i.e. France, German tanks were smaller and were slighltly outnumbered by the Allies, but they just focused on fast moving tactics and concerntrated/coordinated firepower (Tank radio's), then they starting believing in their own myth about super tanks, like the invincible tiger tanks.

The problem with the luftwaffe, was that they couldn't replace the pilots quickly enough and their fuel reserves by late 1943 were really poor. The German takeover of Northern Italy in 1943, gave a real boost to the German War economy, the lose of Romania in 1944 broke the back of the German capacity to launch any major long term offensive operations (limited, like the Battle of the Bulge and Army Group Vistula in 1944-5, which were last ditch efforts anyway).
 

pugsville

Club Legend
Nov 28, 2001
2,134
1,387
leningrad
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
collingwood
Army group centre may not have been sent to the Caucasus if Leningrad had been taken. It's a hard one given the nature of Hitler's micro management.

The Luftwaffe could have had ME262's in the air in large numbers by mid-late 43 had Hitler not insisted on developing them as bombers.
simply not true the me262 was delayed by problems with the engine development. events delivered the me262 had severe serviceability issues. the hitter wanted the me262 as bombers delayed them is a common meme but it's 100% wrong.
 

pugsville

Club Legend
Nov 28, 2001
2,134
1,387
leningrad
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
collingwood
What if Rommel was able to take Tobruk and push past the Suez in 1941 and Germany not invade the Soviet Union in June 1941 and instead pour resources into North Africa and the Middle East?
it's a very long way from suez to any oil. it would have taken year to get to suez and maybe a year to go the just as far from suez to the Persian gulf. and in all that time no strategic objective would have been achieved that either increased the axis warming ability or decreased the allies war making ability.

even if they got the Persian gulf oil , how does it get back to Germany? have not got the oil tankers and no way to protect them in the indian ocean. building railways which didn't exists would take years. so all the oil the axis would maybe start pumping in 1945. the red army ouwld have been very ready to go well before then.
 

suspect footskills

All Australian
Oct 15, 2012
998
1,218
Richmond
AFL Club
Collingwood
it's a very long way from suez to any oil. it would have taken year to get to suez and maybe a year to go the just as far from suez to the Persian gulf. and in all that time no strategic objective would have been achieved that either increased the axis warming ability or decreased the allies war making ability.

even if they got the Persian gulf oil , how does it get back to Germany? have not got the oil tankers and no way to protect them in the indian ocean. building railways which didn't exists would take years. so all the oil the axis would maybe start pumping in 1945. the red army ouwld have been very ready to go well before then.
Any German success in north Africa would have hampered allied efforts. In hindsight it's easy to write off things like strategic value but that doesn't take into account the demoralising effect continued German success would have had.

Had Rommel reached the Suez that would be an enormous strategic gain. The threat of a German-Japanese link up alone would have seen massive resources thrown at expelling any German forces from the area.

The biggest advantage the allies held, apart from U.S industrial might and manpower was their deciphering of both the Japanese and German codes. Without the foreknowledge they attained through codebreaking, who knows how things would have turned out in the pacific theatre.
 
Last edited:

suspect footskills

All Australian
Oct 15, 2012
998
1,218
Richmond
AFL Club
Collingwood
simply not true the me262 was delayed by problems with the engine development. events delivered the me262 had severe serviceability issues. the hitter wanted the me262 as bombers delayed them is a common meme but it's 100% wrong.
The 262's engine issues were a problem even when fully operational. Hitler insisting on development of a bomber was a delaying factor.
 

pugsville

Club Legend
Nov 28, 2001
2,134
1,387
leningrad
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
collingwood
Any German success in north Africa would have hampered allied efforts. In hindsight it's easy to write off things like strategic value but that doesn't take into account the demoralising effect continued German success would have had.

Had Rommel reached the Suez that would be an enormous strategic gain. The threat of a German-Japanese link up alone would have seen massive resources thrown at expelling any German forces from the area.

The biggest advantage the allies held, apart from U.S industrial might and manpower was their deciphering of both the Japanese and German codes. Without the foreknowledge they attained through codebreaking, who knows how things would have turned out in the pacific theatre.
no strategic factors can not be just wished away if you are advocator a strategy being asked to produce concrete strategic advantages is a totally reasonable question. so what are they, you say that the taking the suez would be an enormous strategic gain? well in what way? being at the suez in no way threatens an link up with the Japanese. the axis simply could not project any seapower though the suez. and overall was just way way way way to far over incredibly bad roads.
 

suspect footskills

All Australian
Oct 15, 2012
998
1,218
Richmond
AFL Club
Collingwood
no strategic factors can not be just wished away if you are advocator a strategy being asked to produce concrete strategic advantages is a totally reasonable question. so what are they, you say that the taking the suez would be an enormous strategic gain? well in what way? being at the suez in no way threatens an link up with the Japanese. the axis simply could not project any seapower though the suez. and overall was just way way way way to far over incredibly bad roads.
Cutting off the Suez would have severely limited British access to India. The war against the Japanese in Burma would thus be hampered. The proposition of an axis linkup in this scenario isn't all that unlikely.

The momentum was very much with the axis powers early in the war.
 

pugsville

Club Legend
Nov 28, 2001
2,134
1,387
leningrad
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
collingwood
Cutting off the Suez would have severely limited British access to India. The war against the Japanese in Burma would thus be hampered. The proposition of an axis linkup in this scenario isn't all that unlikely.

The momentum was very much with the axis powers early in the war.
as all the British shipping went around the Africa . cutting the suez would have had zero effect on British access to India.

how could they possibly link up? the Suez would be blocked by the British. the Italian navy had a modest record at best and without air cover in the red sea British bases like Aden would have made it ineffective.

there was also zero political will to make any link up work. 50% of lend lease aid to Russia smile dover the pacific defended by nothing other than the Russian flag.
 

suspect footskills

All Australian
Oct 15, 2012
998
1,218
Richmond
AFL Club
Collingwood
as all the British shipping went around the Africa . cutting the suez would have had zero effect on British access to India.

how could they possibly link up? the Suez would be blocked by the British. the Italian navy had a modest record at best and without air cover in the red sea British bases like Aden would have made it ineffective.

there was also zero political will to make any link up work. 50% of lend lease aid to Russia smile dover the pacific defended by nothing other than the Russian flag.
Not true. The Suez was vital to the British as a link to their interests in the east. Shipping did pass through the Suez as well as taking the long route around Africa.
 

suspect footskills

All Australian
Oct 15, 2012
998
1,218
Richmond
AFL Club
Collingwood
I guess it's all moot in the end as Heisenberg was well behind in his work on creation of an atomic bomb.

As long as the U.S mainland was safe there was only one realistic outcome. The war may have been prolonged but that's about it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

pugsville

Club Legend
Nov 28, 2001
2,134
1,387
leningrad
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
collingwood
Not true. The Suez was vital to the British as a link to their interests in the east. Shipping did pass through the Suez as well as taking the long route around Africa.
nope. some shipping early in the war a couple of very high priority convoys like tiger, (very few) some to Malta and thats it every else around Africa and certainly nothing going to india
 

GreyCrow

TheBrownDog
Mar 21, 2016
61,023
93,688
Down South Corvus Tristis
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt, Redskins , White Sox
Would there also have been a new set of Presidents?
Once JFK and RFK have a go the whole thing just changes. The one thing that may have happened is a sudden handbrake and a Ultra-Conservative Republican gathers the forces of MADD and the Christian Right etc and America decides Iran has to be punished for outing the Shah. Pat Robertson may have been President.
 
Last edited:

Eric Blair

All Australian
Aug 31, 2008
893
1,303
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Torino
What if Rommel was able to take Tobruk and push past the Suez in 1941 and Germany not invade the Soviet Union in June 1941 and instead pour resources into North Africa and the Middle East?
Interesting what if, but you would have to get rid of Hitler for that to happen; he was obsessed with lebensraum, and getting rid of the "judeo-bolsheviks" and there was always going to be a final reckoning with the USSR as long as he was around.

Hitler never considered North Africa to be more than a sideshow and as a way of propping up the Italians, however true to form the Germans only committed large numbers of troops after operation torch and el alamein and by then it was too late; all it achieved was the loss of thousands of german troops and the most experienced and battle hardened Italian army in May 43.

Another what-if would be what if Italy stayed neutral in 1940?
 

Eric Blair

All Australian
Aug 31, 2008
893
1,303
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Torino
Not true. The Suez was vital to the British as a link to their interests in the east. Shipping did pass through the Suez as well as taking the long route around Africa.
as all the British shipping went around the Africa . cutting the suez would have had zero effect on British access to India.

how could they possibly link up? the Suez would be blocked by the British. the Italian navy had a modest record at best and without air cover in the red sea British bases like Aden would have made it ineffective.

there was also zero political will to make any link up work. 50% of lend lease aid to Russia smile dover the pacific defended by nothing other than the Russian flag.
A corollary to this is what if Malta was occupied in June 1940 when the UK has bugger all troops stationed there? Would that shock have been enough for the Brits to sue for peace?
 

pugsville

Club Legend
Nov 28, 2001
2,134
1,387
leningrad
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
collingwood
A corollary to this is what if Malta was occupied in June 1940 when the UK has bugger all troops stationed there? Would that shock have been enough for the Brits to sue for peace?
Cant see it Malta was not particularly important or lauded. Not like Singapore, Gibraltar. Malta because famous during the war.

It would have taken a pretty major shock to se the British sue for peace, personally i can not see it at all. Churchill would never, and hard to see anyone gaining a real following to oppose him.
 

pugsville

Club Legend
Nov 28, 2001
2,134
1,387
leningrad
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
collingwood
Hitler never considered North Africa to be more than a sideshow and as a way of propping up the Italians, however true to form the Germans only committed large numbers of troops after operation torch and el alamein and by then it was too late; all it achieved was the loss of thousands of german troops and the most experienced and battle hardened Italian army in May 43.
Large Number of troops could not be supported in North Africa. There were enough port capacity to land enough supplies to support anything more than the Axis had there historically.

Tunisia they were supported through better and bigger ports. These ports could not have been used to support troops operating Libya and beyond , as you land a truck full of supplies in Tunis, you drive round the road and when you get to tripoli almost all the cargo space had been used to get the t ruck from Tunis and back and it's effectively carrying nothing.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad