@barnee

Well, the battle takes place during daytime, the most favourable conditions. I read the article in my research, and the battle really was tough to decide. Many people point to Leyte Gulf as proof of how bad Japanese battleships are. But one of the reasons for the Japanese failure off Samar was because of the Japanese using armour piercing shells, which often flew right through the unarmored American ships without exploding. Mistakes in commanding the Japanese ships was another reason for why the American fleet was not destroyed. As I said, it was really hard to decide, and it was very close. As you noted though, the Japanese has inferior radar and sighting, the Japanese had superior armour and had just so many guns that it would have eventually have hit several times, especially if the Missouri went to point blank range, like how I thought the battle would have worked out. It honestly could have gone either way.

@aequitas-et-veritas

I think you overestimate Germany’s ability to not get fooled.

Germany was fooled several times-just look at what the Soviets did:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj7mfyEm_3zAhVeJzQIHWXCB54QFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRussian_military_deception&usg=AOvVaw3hgbVBMWuU26iUG3iTRmQK

If you’re saying D-Day and the deception in Operation Bagration (and all the other times on the Eastern Front) was all due to betrayal, it should be well known.

In response to your questions, there are several clear answers:

Most German submarines were destroyed by now, and the rest would have been near Pas De Calais, where Germany expected the Allies to land.

And there were German naval units in Normandy-several torpedo boats, or E-boats, which sunk a Norwegian destroyer, the only German naval victory on D-Day. There were also these German naval assets at Normandy: 3 torpedo boats, 29 fast attack craft, and 72 minesweepers. If there truly was sabotage these would have disappeared as well, and the secret traitor would not have been uncovered anyway by the Nazis if we don’t even know his identity today.

The stripping of Luftwaffe and anti aircraft assets were probably done to reinforce the forces in the Defence Of The Reich campaign, after the Big Week which drove German aircraft numbers down to irreplaceable levels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Week

As for the ordering of targeting devices from Normandy, it’s the same reason why Rommel left for his wife: Inaccurate German weather reports.

As for the two agents or spies your were talking about, one of them was a double agent (like Germany’s entire spy network in Britain), and simply bad luck and quarrelling at higher levels in the German command prevented them from using potentially important information from the other agent.

I cannot find evidence about the problems with the Panzer Lehr Division that you talked about, but I do believe you on this information.

The Allies were much stronger than thought-analysis shows that even if Germany was able to get the full plan from a dead body after the Exercise Tiger disaster (which involved an attack by Germans ships against troops preparing for D-Day), and Germany transferred all of the Fifth Panzer Army to the beaches, and Rommel stayed, the Allies could not have been repelled-shore bombardment and air power would have broken up panzer forces enough to prevent a collapse. The war would have simply lasted longer, or the Soviet would have conquered more of Germany.

Honestly, I find it quite interesting that you came up or mentioned this theory, as it makes for good discussion. I hope we have some great discussions about the German side of D-Day!

Finally, as for the original question, the Fifthteenth Army was eventually used at Normandy, where it was devastated as well as at the Falaise Pocket. The main problem with Operation Market Garden were the Allies not taking seriously Dutch resistance intelligence the fact that German panzer divisions were refitting right where the Allies were going to land. I think if the Fifthteenth Army was at Normandy on the first day, it might have been much harder for the Allies, as they would not have stablished as secured beachheads.

@abworsham4

I’ll settle with Japan giving Germany two “I-boats” (basically the Japanese version of U-boats, but with totally different functions due to differences in doctrine). I call them I-boats because all the ships in this group of ships (with several classes) started with the letter”I” (there was also the shorter range, possible cheaper, older, and generally inferior RO- boats). These submarines carried the type 95 torpedo, superior to the famous type 93 on Japanese cruisers and destroyers. More submarines for the Battle Of The Atlantic is always a great thing, and U-boats, especially those manned by great crews, with these torpedos could have been deadly.

In return, Germany could give Japan some of their experience in radar and optics-it was a real problem for the Axis, not sharing technology with each other, even though the Kriegsmarine was ordered to under direct orders from Hitler (who they didn’t follow). This is especially a problem as the Allies did share technology with each other.

I think German panzers would not have helped Japan anyway, as they would have been too heavy to transport, and armoured warfare in general was not needed on the islands of the Pacific and China (who didn’t have many good tanks at all, so Japan had no need to have better tanks). If I had to choose a land weapon for Japan to use, I would choose the 88mm anti aircraft gun. A superb anti tank gun that can fight any US tank and possibly a good help for the anti aircraft armament of Japan’s ships (if it could be adapted to naval use).

@abworsham4

I think there are two possible problems with this strategy:

Firstly, whilst it would have been indeed much easier to produce, could Germany have produced enough of them to match Soviet production with Western Allied bombing and fighting in North Africa and later in France and Italy? At least Germany would have a qualitative advantage due to crew training.

Secondly, could Germany hypothetically had enough manpower to equip those tanks? I admit this is a lesser problem, as I would favour having one tank than 3-6 infantrymen.

First, come up with a strategy for Germany, and then one for Japan-you control the respective powers from the start of the war, with these restrictions:

The Axis cannot not go to war with France, the Low Countries, and Britain.

The Axis cannot conclude a separate peace with China.

Other than that, you control all military forces (with no intervention from anyone), and you have the ability to declare war (or not) on the Soviet Union, the US, and all other countries. So how could the Axis have won the war? I’m looking forward to your thoughts!

@abworsham4

Germany spent a lot of money on synthetic oil-it wouldn’t have cost as much to expoilt naturally occurring oil fields, and those resources could have gone to producing more equipment (which the new massive oil fields, in conjunction with Romania’s could fuel). Germany might even have been able to the give the Italian navy more oil, which would help operations in the Mediterranean. Japan would be able to not attack the Western Allies, which would allow them to destroy China more easily, with all of Japan’s resources aimed at it, with a fully fuelled army and navy. Perhaps Japan, without a massive naval war, could even invest more in tanks and mechanized infantry which would be fully fueled, and would make a possible invasion of the Soviet Union much easier. Supply problems in China and the Soviet Union would have been not as bad. Perhaps several hundred more tanks and mechanized infantry at the Battle Of Moscow, completely fuelled, might have been decisive-and if that wasn’t enough, there would have been more casualties, which would set the stage for a renewed German offensive against Moscow without the need to take Soviet oil. Bombing the oil fieleds might have been sufficent enough to allow Germany to take Moscow in 1942. This would have been coupled with Japanese pressure on the Soviet Union. It would still be close, but the Axis may have won on the Eastern Front. After that, Germany can dedicate all their resources for submarine warfare and fighters to protect the oil fields, and the fighter force would still have performed well, as there would not be a loss of oil, which resulted in training cuts. All of this, with Vichy France and Spain joining the Axis, would have created a crisis in the Mediterranean, especially now that Germany could possibly send an entire panzer army to North Africa, and will have enormous amounts to men on the Atlantic Wall. If China falls, then altogether, the Axis would have won.

@cernel

And based on your updated question, I would put Rommel with Patton. Too very aggressive generals greatly liked by troops, and masters of armoured warfare.

I’m sure many of you have heard of Infantry Attacks, a book by Erwin Rommel in the interwar era. It is about Rommel’s experiences in World War 1 as a mountain infantry commander mainly in Romania and Italy, but he also fought in France for the first year of the war, as part of a regular infantry unit. Throughout the book, especially in Romania and Italy, Rommel assumed higher and higher commands, ending in the command of the Rommel detachment of the Wurttemberg Mountain Battalion. This also doubles as a military textbook, with the English translator and the US army writing an introduction at the start of the book. I finished it and it is a great book.

One of the highlights is the Tolmien offensive in Italy, where the Rommel detachment of the Wurttemberg Mountain Battalion destroyed five Italian regiments and took 9000 prisoners in three days, the most successful of Rommel’s career.

I highly recommend it, but it’s quite a long and complicated book. It really shows you Rommel’s power as a commander. A sequel, Tank Attacks, was planned but never completed, due to Rommel’s suicide in 1944. It was meant to be based on Rommel’s experiences in North Africa. What was written can be found in the Rommel Papers. I just don’t recommend it because it was edited by Liddell Hart, a British general who edited the works to make it seem like Rommel was his “pupil”, and that Liddell Hart taught Rommel what he knew. It was also edited by one of Rommel’s staff in North Africa, and his wife and son.

If you have read this book, what are your thoughts on it? Thank you!

@barnee

An incident would not have been needed-Pearl Harbour still would have happened, just without Hitler declaring war on the US. The Battle Of The Atlantic would still have been won by the Allies, it just would have taken longer without the US fully committing to it. US participation would still have increased though, and if Germany did not declare war (which they should not, to make this scenario more likely), the US would have declared war on Germany in 1943. It might have been a different situation with a truce though.

So who would be your top 10 generals and admirals of World War 2? Put them in order if you can (it’s quite tough). If you could also make a top 5, that would be appreciated. This list also includes all naval, army, and air force commanders regardless of rank.

Personally my picks would be (in no particular order, I just can’t decide):

Erwin Rommel

Jisaburo Ozawa

Takeo Kurita

Walther Model

Erich Von Manstein

William “Bull” Halsey

Raymond Spurance

Tamechi Hara

Chester Nimitz

Georgy Zhukov

Writing this out, there is not enough space for all the generals I want to put, such as Bernard Montgomery, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ernest King, and many Soviet generals.

Soon after the Battle Of France, Hitler is informed by the Devil that on the day that when Operation Sealion begins, a massive land bridge (stretching from Pas-De Calais to the western edge of Normandy) connecting France to Britain will magically appear. With this information, Hitler immediately orders the suspending of Luftwaffe operations over Britain to conserve aircraft for the invasion (that way, if pilots are shot down, there is more of a chance for them to be recovered). This information is not found out via Ultra, and Hitler informs only his top generals, admirals, and Luftwaffe officers of this information. No civilian cargo ships are converted to transports, the resources used for the conversion used to produce additional army equipment.

With the striking power of the entire German army catching the British by surprise, could Germany have won the war? Thank you!

Let’s say Germany and Japan suddenly hate each other (magical intervention). Then, all pieces of land not directly controlled by Germany before the invasion of the Balkans magically disappear (this includes Axis allies such as Italy, Romania, Hungary, and even the puppet of Slovakia) along with all the people there. The exepecption are all courntries that border the Baltic Sea. The palces that are not directly controlled by Germany (such as Sweden, Finland, and the Soviet Union) will turn into impassable zones (anyone who step foot into those places instantly disappear). All German units in the disappeared places move back to Germany.

After that, the Japan home islands replace where Great Britain used to be. The IJN moves to the Atlantic. The IJA in China is moved to France. All German units in France move to Germany.

Now that Germany and Japan are now near each other and hate each other, who will win in a hypothetical war? There will be supply ships that are magically created, fueled, repaired, and crewed carrying supplies such as steel, oil and all other materials needed to conduct war to both sides. The supply ships for Japan magically appear in the Atlantic and the German supply ships magically appear in the Baltic Sea. Germany’s strength is their strength before the invasion of the Balkans in real life. Japan’s strength is their strength before the Battle Of Midway.

Now this is a very complicated way to pit World War 2 era Germany and Japan against each other, but it can be a cool scenario.

So who wins in the hypothetical war? What are the specifics? Thank you for responding in advance!

One of the books I read on the conference has this opinion:

“Take Munich. A disaster, right? But since when does a peace conference that actually produces peace a disaster?” Note: I don’t own the book, so it may not be the exact words, but this is basically what it says.

The book also mentions that British was not strong enough to take on Germany, Italy and Japan, so the British decided to remove one of them by appeasement. It also asks the question of whether it would have been more honorable (and morally correct) to do appeasement or fight a war that Britain will lose? The book says that the mistake of Britain and France was not appeasement, but letting Germany get so powerful that by 1938 there was no choice but appeasement.

What do you think of this view? Thank you for responding in advance!

Who would win in a fight on a coast (on paved roads) between 100 production models of the Ratte tank and one Yamato class battleship? No movement is allowed, no other units are allowed, both sides never break down, and both sides are fully loaded with ammunition. The distance is a Yamato class battleship’s point blank range. Yamato can fire it’s broadside. So basically it is a massive gun duel between both sides, until one side is destroyed. If the Ratte tanks lose, how many Ratte tanks would it take to beat down the Yamato? Thank you!

@midnight_reaper

Cool! This will be close!

Have you ever heard of the book called If The Allies Had Fallen? It examines many what ifs of World War 2, with all of them very grounded in reality. A lot of the chapters are written very differently, from basically scholarly analysis to what the history books would have said had the timeline changed in the way described. If you had read the book, what do you think? Thank you!

@midnight_reaper

Well, it’s just for imagination fun, it’s not meant to be taken really seriously. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

@linkon

Imagine if this happened at every bridge during Market Garden.

@kaleu

This is all true.

Firstly, it’s possible that Hitler could have restrained himself for the moment and go against the Mediterranean, a decision support by Raeder and Goring.

Secondly, the main reason Franco was so toxic was that before Hitler’s meeting with Franco, he sent Wilhelm Canaris, a secret member of the German resistance movement, to negotiate with Franco, and Canaris said that he though that Germany was going to lose the war and Hitler was planning to move to the east (it’s said that Hitler was actually going back and forth between the Mediterranean and the Soviet Union). If Hitler really committed to it, he would have been more forceful, and Franco would have relented, especially if the Battle Of Britain had not concluded yet. If Vichy France entered the war, Hitler might have been able to mediate between it, Italy, and Spain about North Africa.

Finally, a similar situation could have appeared with Turkey, where if Hitler really did everything possible to convince them, it might have worked out. If it didn’t, Germany could use their paratroopers (as they would not be beaten up at Crete, due to the British heading for Tripoli) to possibly take Cyprus, depending on the result of an airborne invasion of Malta. Due to no British intervention in Greece, there would have been no disaster at Cape Matapan, and Italy’s navy, along with a Luftwaffe not burdened with commitments on the Eastern Front, could have swept the waters around Cyprus (as likely as not), and launch an amphibious invasion if paratroopers alone can’t cut it. If Cyprus is taken, a leap into Vichy French Syria would be in order. From there, Germany can launch a massive offensive against the Suez Canal, which Britain cannot hold with an attack on two fronts. Additionally, Germany will have support from Iraq, which won’t be destroyed with direct aid from Germany and Italy.

Entirely on a side note: his first name was “Wernher”, not “Werner”.