What if suggestions about world war 2

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      so if their generals decided they couldn't break the line then, they probably couldn't have broken it at all. When Germany gobbled up Poland much faster than the French army could mount an offensive, and victorious German troops started to get transferred back from Poland to the French front, the window of opportunity was closed, if it had ever existed in the first place.
      To be fair those generals were mostly incompetent when you look at the rest of the war… if they had made use of technology like radios (should be a pretty obvious thing) they could have communicated and coordinated faster than on motorbike. It was things like this that lost them the war… German generals themselves said they would lose the Rhine pretty easily had the French committed.


      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      What if:

      General McAuliffe had said "Cashew" at Bastogne?

      America would lose the Cold War.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • 1101Pathfinder wrote:

      Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
      In all likelihoods, I think not. Germany could possibly have landed (maybe even with paratrooper support), but logistics were nightmare enough that it could not have been sustained. Not to mention the Germans didn't have many dedicated transport ships anyways, meaning there was no conceivable way they could ship their armour across. Not to mention even if both naval and aerial supremacy were achieved, they could not be sustained (most of the Royal Navy was moored elsewhere, too far away for the Luftwaffe to reach them)

      The only chance Germany would "defeat" Britain is if Dunkirk didn't happen, leading to the destruction of the BEF, giving enough reason for Britain to sue for peace and sign an armistice, alongside France, allowing Germany to fully focus on Operation Barbarossa. Even then, there was a good chance the Brits wouldn't sue for peace, and keep fighting, since assuming all men at Dunkirk were lost, 338,000 troops would be lost; however, other British, Free French and Commonwealth troops in Normandy and South France would still be able to escape, not to mention the Home Guard.

      Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • Yeah… the plan was to use MODIFIED RHINE RIVER BARGES to get past the largest naval fleet on Earth, assuming they defeated one of the strongest air forces as well. Then you’d have to land at best a couple hundred thousand without getting sunk, and hope those under supplied troops will be able to defeat the millions of angry tea drinkers ready to defend their home. The air defeat might extend how long it takes the allies to gain air superiority and then invade Germany, but none of this would stop the Soviets from railing you all the way to Berlin, while those casualties you took make D-day a little more feasible.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • 1101Pathfinder wrote:

      Nice thoughts both of you what is Germany chose not to invade France and focused on the Soviets ?
      He had to invade France because France declared war on him after the invasion of Poland, if he focused on the Soviets, then he will have a two front war, and will give France some time to mobilize, eventually leading to defeat.
      "Nuts!"
      Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      1101Pathfinder wrote:

      Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?

      Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.
      That paragraph is frankly ridiculous... France was lost then, no matter if the BEF had made some kind of last stand, it wouldn't significantly have changed politics. Just another 100k of soldiers into the massacre, Wehrmacht land was way too strong to organize anything against them in 1940. Remember how German forces reduced Russian pockets in barbarosa: quietly, just choking them with infantry, no harm done to any strategic force. French surrender and the fleet and all that would not have changed significantly either.... remember Churchill offered them a "joint state" in those harsh hours and everything French thought it ridiculous... French combat the enemy when he comes (no matter if they lose), British have the seas to protect them and can afford to suffer some defeats and out-wait an enemy. They can be allies, but they cannot think allied, no matter how hard they SERIOUSLY tried.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      Yeah… the plan was to use MODIFIED RHINE RIVER BARGES to get past the largest naval fleet on Earth, assuming they defeated one of the strongest air forces as well. Then you’d have to land at best a couple hundred thousand without getting sunk, and hope those under supplied troops will be able to defeat the millions of angry tea drinkers ready to defend their home. The air defeat might extend how long it takes the allies to gain air superiority and then invade Germany, but none of this would stop the Soviets from railing you all the way to Berlin, while those casualties you took make D-day a little more feasible.
      This "what if" is about the British losing the air war. Assuming they did and there was nothing to stop German naval bombers throwing all they had against British battleships, that war fleets couldn't defend close-range combat against air forces. Repulse and Prince of Wales hadn't happened yet (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse), but the results wouldn't have been much different: be ready to lose five planes and you sink a battleship. The British battle fleet woul;d have been powerless short-range, and there would be no problem sailing Rhine barges along if they got their feet dry on the other end... and if the air war was lost, there would have been nothing to contest them.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Yeah… the plan was to use MODIFIED RHINE RIVER BARGES to get past the largest naval fleet on Earth, assuming they defeated one of the strongest air forces as well. Then you’d have to land at best a couple hundred thousand without getting sunk, and hope those under supplied troops will be able to defeat the millions of angry tea drinkers ready to defend their home. The air defeat might extend how long it takes the allies to gain air superiority and then invade Germany, but none of this would stop the Soviets from railing you all the way to Berlin, while those casualties you took make D-day a little more feasible.
      This "what if" is about the British losing the air war. Assuming they did and there was nothing to stop German naval bombers throwing all they had against British battleships, that war fleets couldn't defend close-range combat against air forces. Repulse and Prince of Wales hadn't happened yet (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse), but the results wouldn't have been much different: be ready to lose five planes and you sink a battleship. The British battle fleet woul;d have been powerless short-range, and there would be no problem sailing Rhine barges along if they got their feet dry on the other end... and if the air war was lost, there would have been nothing to contest them.
      German planes were not exactly built to combate ships, and reaching them is easier said than done… winning air superiority doesn’t necessarily mean the entire British airforce is gone and a non-factor either. It would still likely be able yo defend extremely important targets like those ships. And by the time the Germans would gain air superiority, what’s to say the British don’t adapt and being using AA on ships? And even if, and that’s a big if, if the fleet is gone, you still can’t easily supply an army without dedicated transport ships for that. You can’t put tanks, heavy artillery and that much ammo on these barges. The Germans would find themselves under supplied and dead rather quickly. After the US and Soviets join, they get crushed anyway.

      In fact, the Royal Military Academy of Sanhurst war gamed a scenario where the German’s situation was favorable, and while they didn’t have complete air superiority (since that was a very unlikely thing irl) they still got absolutely crushed. Time and time again we’ve seen that air superiority doesn’t guarantee automatic deletion of ground forces. The German airforce was superior even in 1942, and was crushed by the Soviets, Japan had an airforce compared to China who had very little, and wasn’t able to break through for years. D-day, even with complete air, naval, and intelligence superiority, dedicated landing ships and the Soviets wrecking the Germans on the East nearly failed. And I don’t see a German invasion, even with air superiority, managing to magically take over the island before the US and Soviets join, shit on Germany, kick them out anyway, and bring and end to them.

      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Carking the 6th ().

    • Thanks for that tip, it was a nice read.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • NEPTUNE the great wrote:

      What if the Germans stuck to their original plan when invading Stalingrad instead of splitting up? And what if they won Stalingrad?
      The Russians would've done what they always do, which is compose a fighting retreat whilst scorching the earth so the Germans have nothing to eat, a tired and starving German army, also depleted from Stalingrad, gets defeated somewhere west of the Urals and the exact same thing happens as in real life
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      1101Pathfinder wrote:

      Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
      Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.
      That paragraph is frankly ridiculous... France was lost then, no matter if the BEF had made some kind of last stand, it wouldn't significantly have changed politics. Just another 100k of soldiers into the massacre, Wehrmacht land was way too strong to organize anything against them in 1940. Remember how German forces reduced Russian pockets in barbarosa: quietly, just choking them with infantry, no harm done to any strategic force. French surrender and the fleet and all that would not have changed significantly either.... remember Churchill offered them a "joint state" in those harsh hours and everything French thought it ridiculous... French combat the enemy when he comes (no matter if they lose), British have the seas to protect them and can afford to suffer some defeats and out-wait an enemy. They can be allies, but they cannot think allied, no matter how hard they SERIOUSLY tried.
      No, I'm not stating that France would've not lost; I just think that officially, the chances of the French accepting a truce with the Germans were reduced, which could have led to a quicker African campaign, quicker control of the Mediterranean and the invasion of Sicily and Italy happening sooner, which in of itself could have hastened the planning for Overlord. It's not that politics would have been significantly altered, but the operational strength of the Wehrmacht. But, yes, I do see your point ^^
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      1101Pathfinder wrote:

      Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
      Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.
      That paragraph is frankly ridiculous... France was lost then, no matter if the BEF had made some kind of last stand, it wouldn't significantly have changed politics. Just another 100k of soldiers into the massacre, Wehrmacht land was way too strong to organize anything against them in 1940. Remember how German forces reduced Russian pockets in barbarosa: quietly, just choking them with infantry, no harm done to any strategic force. French surrender and the fleet and all that would not have changed significantly either.... remember Churchill offered them a "joint state" in those harsh hours and everything French thought it ridiculous... French combat the enemy when he comes (no matter if they lose), British have the seas to protect them and can afford to suffer some defeats and out-wait an enemy. They can be allies, but they cannot think allied, no matter how hard they SERIOUSLY tried.
      No, I'm not stating that France would've not lost; I just think that officially, the chances of the French accepting a truce with the Germans were reduced, which could have led to a quicker African campaign, quicker control of the Mediterranean and the invasion of Sicily and Italy happening sooner, which in of itself could have hastened the planning for Overlord. It's not that politics would have been significantly altered, but the operational strength of the Wehrmacht. But, yes, I do see your point ^^
      Another thing is that Germany would have horrifically punished France as well… Warsaw had 90% destroyed by the Nazis in the war. Surrender prevented this. The existence of Vichy France could also be argued to have weakened German influence over France, and made it so the Allied and Free France could liberate Africa more easily.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      1101Pathfinder wrote:

      Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
      Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.
      That paragraph is frankly ridiculous... France was lost then, no matter if the BEF had made some kind of last stand, it wouldn't significantly have changed politics. Just another 100k of soldiers into the massacre, Wehrmacht land was way too strong to organize anything against them in 1940. Remember how German forces reduced Russian pockets in barbarosa: quietly, just choking them with infantry, no harm done to any strategic force. French surrender and the fleet and all that would not have changed significantly either.... remember Churchill offered them a "joint state" in those harsh hours and everything French thought it ridiculous... French combat the enemy when he comes (no matter if they lose), British have the seas to protect them and can afford to suffer some defeats and out-wait an enemy. They can be allies, but they cannot think allied, no matter how hard they SERIOUSLY tried.
      No, I'm not stating that France would've not lost; I just think that officially, the chances of the French accepting a truce with the Germans were reduced, which could have led to a quicker African campaign, quicker control of the Mediterranean and the invasion of Sicily and Italy happening sooner, which in of itself could have hastened the planning for Overlord. It's not that politics would have been significantly altered, but the operational strength of the Wehrmacht. But, yes, I do see your point ^^
      Another thing is that Germany would have horrifically punished France as well… Warsaw had 90% destroyed by the Nazis in the war. Surrender prevented this. The existence of Vichy France could also be argued to have weakened German influence over France, and made it so the Allied and Free France could liberate Africa more easily.
      The attitude of the Germans towards Western Europeans was different to that of Eastern Europeans, but you make a good point. However, the situation in Africa would have been more advantageous for the Allies if the Vichy regime was not set up, mainly since French Algeria (considered a core French territory, not a colony) would have remained Free French (or in this timeline, the recognised French government), allowing control of the Algerian and Tunisian coastlines to the French Navy (with support of the Royal Navy). The British would have not needed to occupy the Syrian colony as well, and might have prevented the Iraqi coup (altho it certainly was still possible with the vast number of pro-German army officers and the revolt in Mandatory Palestine). I do still think if the Allies were smart enough, they would have won North Africa sooner, especially if in this timeline Dunkirk were a German victory, more tanks would be destroyed and German High Command would be less willing to fight a war in North Africa with their limited resources and their upcoming invasion of the USSR.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita…_World_War_II#Land_forces

      Look at these figures whenever you want to say if the Axis could have won… after the Soviets and Americans join, their days are numbered.
      There is no shot the Axis could have won, even if both the US and Great Britain opted out of the war. Germany would not have even been able to defeat the Soviets, assuming the Soviets maintain the morale they had during OTL's WW2.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      1101Pathfinder wrote:

      Would have operation Sealion succeeded if Germany was able to gain air superiority over England ?
      Again, this also needs to consider the consequences of victory at Dunkirk for the Germans; damage to the Panzer Corp and a possible stabilisation of the French front, allowing remaining troops to fight on. Chances are there would be no Vichy France, instead with a delayed surrender of Mainland France and a proper government-in-exile set up in Algiers. The African theatre would change significantly; with French support, the Italians could not hope to hold on long enough to await German reinforcements (assuming they were even willing to send troops since they would have fought the French for significantly longer). The French Navy would have sailed to Britain and the various naval battles would have more Allied successes. France would immediately want a reconquest of the mainland at some point, whilst Germany commences Operation Barbarossa. As America gets involved in the war(assuming no TWR stuff happen), D-Day could have occurred even earlier than in OTL.
      That paragraph is frankly ridiculous... France was lost then, no matter if the BEF had made some kind of last stand, it wouldn't significantly have changed politics. Just another 100k of soldiers into the massacre, Wehrmacht land was way too strong to organize anything against them in 1940. Remember how German forces reduced Russian pockets in barbarosa: quietly, just choking them with infantry, no harm done to any strategic force. French surrender and the fleet and all that would not have changed significantly either.... remember Churchill offered them a "joint state" in those harsh hours and everything French thought it ridiculous... French combat the enemy when he comes (no matter if they lose), British have the seas to protect them and can afford to suffer some defeats and out-wait an enemy. They can be allies, but they cannot think allied, no matter how hard they SERIOUSLY tried.
      No, I'm not stating that France would've not lost; I just think that officially, the chances of the French accepting a truce with the Germans were reduced, which could have led to a quicker African campaign, quicker control of the Mediterranean and the invasion of Sicily and Italy happening sooner, which in of itself could have hastened the planning for Overlord. It's not that politics would have been significantly altered, but the operational strength of the Wehrmacht. But, yes, I do see your point ^^
      Another thing is that Germany would have horrifically punished France as well… Warsaw had 90% destroyed by the Nazis in the war. Surrender prevented this. The existence of Vichy France could also be argued to have weakened German influence over France, and made it so the Allied and Free France could liberate Africa more easily.
      The attitude of the Germans towards Western Europeans was different to that of Eastern Europeans, but you make a good point. However, the situation in Africa would have been more advantageous for the Allies if the Vichy regime was not set up, mainly since French Algeria (considered a core French territory, not a colony) would have remained Free French (or in this timeline, the recognised French government), allowing control of the Algerian and Tunisian coastlines to the French Navy (with support of the Royal Navy). The British would have not needed to occupy the Syrian colony as well, and might have prevented the Iraqi coup (altho it certainly was still possible with the vast number of pro-German army officers and the revolt in Mandatory Palestine). I do still think if the Allies were smart enough, they would have won North Africa sooner, especially if in this timeline Dunkirk were a German victory, more tanks would be destroyed and German High Command would be less willing to fight a war in North Africa with their limited resources and their upcoming invasion of the USSR.
      The issue is assuming the Allie’s would act a certain way, and the Germans another. Considering How the Germans treated Rotterdam and Amsterdam it’s safe to say that even Western Europeans were not safe, especially the French who were considered somewhat racially inferior due to African and Mediterranean blood (Nazis are dumb). But yeah, this could easily end in disaster. What if Germany and Italy decide to abandon Africa, not wasting resources and losing loads of men and instead fortifying Italy so that the Sicily campaign fails? That would mean the Allies do a lot worse in the war, and are suck outside of mainland Europe… of course the Soviets would still win, but you see a scenario where France gets ravaged and more of Europe is red.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate