What if history scenarios

Remove this Banner Ad

telsor said:
True, Dora might have been able to fire one as a tactical nuke, but it's range was only about 29 miles, so the crew (and all those closer to the target, seeing as it wouldn't have been right on the front line) would have had some problems with radiation.
Click to expand...

What about the giant thing the Russians tested in Siberia in the 50,s or maybe 60's , it was such a blast that I think it scared the crap out of the Russians as much as the Americans who recorded it. Any way it is not there any more. But they are bragging about a rocket that can carry a nuke to London in 13 minutes going so fast that it can't be shot out of the sky, BUT, i bet the Yanks have got one too. Is this a d**k swinging competition?
 
JoondalupJ said:
I'll look at that , but Dunkirk was very early and Russia and Germany had just signed their pact , which Hitler would later break, to the point that Stalin could not believe when he was told that Hitler would break the pact with the beginning of Barbarossa I think that is what the Germans called it.
So I wonder if Russia was his fear then , but I am not sure really , Dunkirk was so strange that the advantage wasn't taken, that, you may well have hit the nail on the head, I thought Hitler would have been comfortable at the time, then he would fling himself at the Russians, later.
As for having to worry about Russia if he did invade England , I would have thought he still had massive armies ready to defend enemies from the east. He had massive armies ready to invade Russia. But if they were mainly troops for Britain's invasion , then maybe he did stop in his tracks and turn his guns the other way?
Click to expand...

An invasion of the UK wouldn't have taken that many men...Indeed, the logistic requirements would have dictated that they would have very few men over there unless they somehow scared the Royal Navy into letting them send boats across, and unless they did there would be very little by way of tanks and heavy equipment. A Ju-52 could carry about 2.5 Tonnes, some of the bombers a bit more, but in both cases there would have been restrictions when it came to loading and unloading some of the odd shapes.

So you'd be talking a mainly infantry army that largely relied on the Luftwaffe for 'artillery' support, when it could get through the RAF. (they could probably have gotten some 75mm howitzers and 50mm AT guns across, but they wouldn't have had a hell of a lot of shells, and probably would have needed captured horses/vehicles to move them around). I suppose in theory they might have been able to dismantle a Pz1 tank, fly it across and put it back together, but it really would have been a massive effort for not much.

Numbers wise, the Germans would have built up to maybe 50K troops, and would have been able to maintain that number (they had plenty of potential replacements after all), while the Brits would have had maybe 338K from Dunkirk, so call it 400K who were trained, but largely disorganised, demoralised and poorly equipped (most wouldn't even have rifles) and perhaps as many as a million home guard (completely untrained, and almost all without weapons).

So basically, the Germans would have been trying to overrun as much as they could as quickly as they could, while the Brits would have been trying to slow them down to give their factories time to produce some equipment for them and running a guerilla/partisan campaign to force the Germans to keep as many of their men as possible behind the lines.

While I think the Germans would have been able to take large chunks of England, I think it would have come down to if the Brits would have surrendered, because I doubt they would have been able to keep enough men over their to hold onto their gains. A slower campaign might have secured the SE corner of England, but the Brits would probably have taken it back before too long (a month or 2).

Perhaps the most significant strategic effect of any attack would have been the Royal Navy would take a serious beating trying to block the channel, which could have been severe enough that it would have mean the UK lost the battle of the Atlantic and lost the war that way...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

telsor said:
An invasion of the UK wouldn't have taken that many men...Indeed, the logistic requirements would have dictated that they would have very few men over there unless they somehow scared the Royal Navy into letting them send boats across, and unless they did there would be very little by way of tanks and heavy equipment. A Ju-52 could carry about 2.5 Tonnes, some of the bombers a bit more, but in both cases there would have been restrictions when it came to loading and unloading some of the odd shapes.

So you'd be talking a mainly infantry army that largely relied on the Luftwaffe for 'artillery' support, when it could get through the RAF. (they could probably have gotten some 75mm howitzers and 50mm AT guns across, but they wouldn't have had a hell of a lot of shells, and probably would have needed captured horses/vehicles to move them around). I suppose in theory they might have been able to dismantle a Pz1 tank, fly it across and put it back together, but it really would have been a massive effort for not much.

Numbers wise, the Germans would have built up to maybe 50K troops, and would have been able to maintain that number (they had plenty of potential replacements after all), while the Brits would have had maybe 338K from Dunkirk, so call it 400K who were trained, but largely disorganised, demoralised and poorly equipped (most wouldn't even have rifles) and perhaps as many as a million home guard (completely untrained, and almost all without weapons).

So basically, the Germans would have been trying to overrun as much as they could as quickly as they could, while the Brits would have been trying to slow them down to give their factories time to produce some equipment for them and running a guerilla/partisan campaign to force the Germans to keep as many of their men as possible behind the lines.

While I think the Germans would have been able to take large chunks of England, I think it would have come down to if the Brits would have surrendered, because I doubt they would have been able to keep enough men over their to hold onto their gains. A slower campaign might have secured the SE corner of England, but the Brits would probably have taken it back before too long (a month or 2).

Perhaps the most significant strategic effect of any attack would have been the Royal Navy would take a serious beating trying to block the channel, which could have been severe enough that it would have mean the UK lost the battle of the Atlantic and lost the war that way...
Click to expand...

No worries
I still am baffled by Dunkirk , I still reckon the Germans had another reason or reasons, for not going across, when the Brit military was in horrid disarray, and no doubt it would not have been an easy invasion , but the German numbers, all over , I reckon they were well equipped to turn on Russia, with numbers and equipment , although they did get going taking their chances after Poland , when they really weren't totally muscled up yet.
I just reckon they could have done it, and attacked Russia, but anyway attacking Russia is really a stupid thing , you must fight their winter always because they will delay until it comes, fighting like mad. The Russian winter did come also help annihilate the German armies, beside the win or die make up of those Russians.
Miscalculation by Hitler time wise? Well I 'm not sure , he couldn't have thought Russia would take one summer, and its all over, he must have thought it would be easy. If that was his mind set , he was WW2 loser before he even started.
If you look at that war, in an over all general picture, and not too detailed , because its all guess work here, but Germany went well at the start, then really, Hitler ended up fighting on three fronts, North Africa and Western Europe and the Russian front,why?
Maybe he thought it would all be too easy, Japan his Axis ally?? Well their entry to expand what they'd already done in China, to me that was the end of Hitler because of course America was well and truly p****d off !
And Japan didn't think they'd end up over extending their supply lines, crazy world , then and now, to what end?
 
I see these conversations much like teenagers talking what if's about Harry Potter novels. Those responsible for how you see that war have been found to be pathological liars.
 
WA ROO said:
What if the Dems had have selected Bernie to run?
Click to expand...
Technically they did. Officially they did not.

More people would of voted democrat. Their vote went down about 9 million, republican stayed the same.
 
JoondalupJ said:
No worries
I still am baffled by Dunkirk , I still reckon the Germans had another reason or reasons, for not going across, when the Brit military was in horrid disarray, and no doubt it would not have been an easy invasion , but the German numbers, all over , I reckon they were well equipped to turn on Russia, with numbers and equipment , although they did get going taking their chances after Poland , when they really weren't totally muscled up yet.
I just reckon they could have done it, and attacked Russia, but anyway attacking Russia is really a stupid thing , you must fight their winter always because they will delay until it comes, fighting like mad. The Russian winter did come also help annihilate the German armies, beside the win or die make up of those Russians.
Miscalculation by Hitler time wise? Well I 'm not sure , he couldn't have thought Russia would take one summer, and its all over, he must have thought it would be easy. If that was his mind set , he was WW2 loser before he even started.
If you look at that war, in an over all general picture, and not too detailed , because its all guess work here, but Germany went well at the start, then really, Hitler ended up fighting on three fronts, North Africa and Western Europe and the Russian front,why?
Maybe he thought it would all be too easy, Japan his Axis ally?? Well their entry to expand what they'd already done in China, to me that was the end of Hitler because of course America was well and truly p****d off !
And Japan didn't think they'd end up over extending their supply lines, crazy world , then and now, to what end?
Click to expand...

SEALION was a non starter, the Germans were incapable of landing enough troops, supplying them or protecting transports at sea or in the air.

transport -
The Germans had no experience in sea borne invasions , no purpose built landing craft or even enough merchant shipping to transport their army. The Plan revolved around using river barges, most of them unpowered to be towed. Barely sea worthy making about 5 knots. Any attack upon them would be a turkey shoot, and indeed faced with even a moderate storm would have had massive losses.

escorts -
the German navy was pitifully small, and had suffered large losses in the norway campaign, at most 10 destroyers, total inadequate to provide even minimal convoy escorts and protection. The British had 40 destroyers on anti invasion duty and could quickly call on many more. RN Destroyer captains were pretty reckless and there is no doubt if told to attack a invasion force would do so regardless on the risk. The Invasion barges would be sitting ducks. The British also had 400 odd patrol vessels converted or purpose built trawlers patrolling the coast, many a night, even this trawler types would be nasty for the slow, defenceless barges.

Air defences
t6he RAF was un beaten and retained much of their best aircraft from the battle for France, with radar and a sophisticated control system the RAF was a formidable force and the lufftwaffe failed to beat it in the battle of Britain., using slow venerable aircraft like JU-52 transports or Ju87 stupas against a unbeaten RAF and it's sophisticated control system would be extremely dangerous.

The British Army,
Large amounts of British troops were not committed to france, the British had about 20 half strength divisions and were desperately short of heavy weapons with losses in France, but rifles were not a large problem. Artillery, tanks the stocks were very low, but some formations were close to full strength, while others were massively lacking. but compared to the likely German invasion force which would also be critical short of heavy weapons and tanks it have a large supreriirty,

If attempted sea lion would have been a massacre.
 
pugsville said:
SEALION was a non starter, the Germans were incapable of landing enough troops, supplying them or protecting transports at sea or in the air.

transport -
The Germans had no experience in sea borne invasions , no purpose built landing craft or even enough merchant shipping to transport their army. The Plan revolved around using river barges, most of them unpowered to be towed. Barely sea worthy making about 5 knots. Any attack upon them would be a turkey shoot, and indeed faced with even a moderate storm would have had massive losses.

escorts -
the German navy was pitifully small, and had suffered large losses in the norway campaign, at most 10 destroyers, total inadequate to provide even minimal convoy escorts and protection. The British had 40 destroyers on anti invasion duty and could quickly call on many more. RN Destroyer captains were pretty reckless and there is no doubt if told to attack a invasion force would do so regardless on the risk. The Invasion barges would be sitting ducks. The British also had 400 odd patrol vessels converted or purpose built trawlers patrolling the coast, many a night, even this trawler types would be nasty for the slow, defenceless barges.

Air defences
t6he RAF was un beaten and retained much of their best aircraft from the battle for France, with radar and a sophisticated control system the RAF was a formidable force and the lufftwaffe failed to beat it in the battle of Britain., using slow venerable aircraft like JU-52 transports or Ju87 stupas against a unbeaten RAF and it's sophisticated control system would be extremely dangerous.

The British Army,
Large amounts of British troops were not committed to france, the British had about 20 half strength divisions and were desperately short of heavy weapons with losses in France, but rifles were not a large problem. Artillery, tanks the stocks were very low, but some formations were close to full strength, while others were massively lacking. but compared to the likely German invasion force which would also be critical short of heavy weapons and tanks it have a large supreriirty,

If attempted sea lion would have been a massacre.
Click to expand...

As Jervis said somewhat earlier "I do not say that cannot come - I only say they cannot come by sea".
 
little graham said:
I see these conversations much like teenagers talking what if's about Harry Potter novels. Those responsible for how you see that war have been found to be pathological liars.
Click to expand...
At least they are providing something other than conspiracy
 
WA ROO said:
What if the Dems had have selected Bernie to run?
Click to expand...

Would have been an interesting race.

Trump wouldn't have had the advantage of being the outsider to nearly the same degree, but I'm not sure the US is ready to elect someone that 'socialist' (he'd probably be a centrist in Aus terms, but relatively) and the scare campaign over that would have been very significant. Bernie wouldn't have had quite the same level of media support either (as counter productive as that turned out to be in the end).
 
pugsville said:
SEALION was a non starter, the Germans were incapable of landing enough troops, supplying them or protecting transports at sea or in the air.

transport -
The Germans had no experience in sea borne invasions , no purpose built landing craft or even enough merchant shipping to transport their army. The Plan revolved around using river barges, most of them unpowered to be towed. Barely sea worthy making about 5 knots. Any attack upon them would be a turkey shoot, and indeed faced with even a moderate storm would have had massive losses.

escorts -
the German navy was pitifully small, and had suffered large losses in the norway campaign, at most 10 destroyers, total inadequate to provide even minimal convoy escorts and protection. The British had 40 destroyers on anti invasion duty and could quickly call on many more. RN Destroyer captains were pretty reckless and there is no doubt if told to attack a invasion force would do so regardless on the risk. The Invasion barges would be sitting ducks. The British also had 400 odd patrol vessels converted or purpose built trawlers patrolling the coast, many a night, even this trawler types would be nasty for the slow, defenceless barges.

Air defences
t6he RAF was un beaten and retained much of their best aircraft from the battle for France, with radar and a sophisticated control system the RAF was a formidable force and the lufftwaffe failed to beat it in the battle of Britain., using slow venerable aircraft like JU-52 transports or Ju87 stupas against a unbeaten RAF and it's sophisticated control system would be extremely dangerous.

The British Army,
Large amounts of British troops were not committed to france, the British had about 20 half strength divisions and were desperately short of heavy weapons with losses in France, but rifles were not a large problem. Artillery, tanks the stocks were very low, but some formations were close to full strength, while others were massively lacking. but compared to the likely German invasion force which would also be critical short of heavy weapons and tanks it have a large supreriirty,

If attempted sea lion would have been a massacre.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, Hitler may have listened to his ground force Generals , and said NO !
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

what if

the 'jesuit treason' / 'gunpowderplot' was successful ?

220px-Portrait_of_Henry_Garnett.jpg
 
cannot said:
what if

the 'jesuit treason' / 'gunpowderplot' was successful ?

220px-Portrait_of_Henry_Garnett.jpg
Click to expand...
A very interesting crossroads in history.

  • America would have been left ( mostly) to Spain and France to gain a stronger foothold thereby changing US history.
  • Princess Elizabeth may or may not have survived , though having lived till 65 , it would have been Treason that may have ended her.
  • Charles 1 would never have been King
  • Therefore the Civil War may have been delayed or , given the above with Princess Elizabeth, precipitated sooner
  • England may have returned to being an insular peninsula
 
GreyCrow said:
A very interesting crossroads in history.

  • America would have been left ( mostly) to Spain and France to gain a stronger foothold thereby changing US history.
  • Princess Elizabeth may or may not have survived , though having lived till 65 , it would have been Treason that may have ended her.
  • Charles 1 would never have been King
  • Therefore the Civil War may have been delayed or , given the above with Princess Elizabeth, precipitated sooner
  • England may have returned to being an insular peninsula
Click to expand...
So the Princess Elizabeth would have been Elizabeth the Second not the Queen Elizabeth now, who may not have even got to be queen now?
Even being a direct Descendant of the Princess?
 
JoondalupJ said:
So the Princess Elizabeth would have been Elizabeth the Second not the Queen Elizabeth now, who may not have even got to be queen now?
Even being a direct Descendant of the Princess?
Click to expand...
Wiki has had a look at some Alternate Successions. Princess Elizabeth is the grandmother of George 1, so who knows.

Elizabeth Stuart (19 August 1596 – 13 February 1662) was, as the wife of Frederick V, Elector Palatine, Electress Palatine, and briefly, Queen of Bohemia. Due to her husband’s reign in Bohemia lasting for just one winter, Elizabeth is often referred to as The Winter Queen. She was the second child and eldest daughter of James VI and I, King of Scots, England, and Ireland, and his wife, Anne of Denmark. She was also the granddaughter of Mary, Queen of Scots. She was four years older than her brother Charles, who became Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

With the demise of the Stuart dynasty in 1714, her grandson succeeded to the British throne as George I of Great Britain, initiating the Hanover line of succession. The reigning British monarch, Elizabeth II, is Elizabeth Stuart's direct descendant of the 10th and 11th generation through different paths. Most other European royal families, including those of Spain, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden, as well as those formerly of Greece, Romania, Germany, and Russia, are also descendants of Elizabeth Stuart.
 
GreyCrow said:
A very interesting crossroads in history.

  • America would have been left ( mostly) to Spain and France to gain a stronger foothold thereby changing US history.
  • Princess Elizabeth may or may not have survived , though having lived till 65 , it would have been Treason that may have ended her.
  • Charles 1 would never have been King
  • Therefore the Civil War may have been delayed or , given the above with Princess Elizabeth, precipitated sooner
  • England may have returned to being an insular peninsula
Click to expand...

There may have also been an earlier Civil War with the Protestants securing the persons of either the 11 year old Henry Prince of Wales or the five year old Prince Charles as their candidate for the throne. There was also the 25 year old Lady Anne Stanley the heir presumptive to the throne upon the death of Elizabeth I (according to the Third Succession Act and the will of Henry VIII). There was also Anne's uncle, the 44 year old William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby as a possible candidate.
 
Had the Armada got a better run with the weather ...
 
MaddAdam said:
Had the Armada got a better run with the weather ...
Click to expand...
A victory for the Spanish Armada and a successful invasion could have revitalised the Spanish empire that had suffered a few setbacks against the Dutch.

Long-term, a successful long term maintenance of an occupation of GB, could have easily led to a even more hadsburg dominated Europe by the start of the 17th century.

The dying out of the Spanish hadsburgs and the natural decline of the Spanish empire leads to doubts as to whether the Spanish could maintain a lengthy occupation of GB.

But this is all conjecture and what ifs at this stage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top