Type XXI? The saviour?

[Tachyon]

If the Type XXI had been introduced early, say around 1940, how would it have affected the outcome of the war? In particular, the arrival of D-DAY ?

[Respenus]

I always say it would, but this belong to those "What if...?" moments in history and is not very well accepted among those true Kaleuns who keep their history books straight (and I might just be wrong).

[CruiseTorpedo]

I dont know about D-Day, but 1940? Heck ya it would have made a huge difference! 6 forward firing tubes, high speed while submerged, snorkel device, quick reload, and lots more! Who wouldnt believe it would have tipped the scales in 1940?

[Sulikate]

I dont know about D-Day, but 1940? Heck ya it would have made a huge difference! 6 forward firing tubes, high speed while submerged, snorkel device, quick reload, and lots more! Who wouldnt believe it would have tipped the scales in 1940?
I agree. This boats could change quite a few battles all over the atlantic.

Go XXI! (and what about the Walter boats, these were amazing!)

[STEED]

The XXI in 1940 fat chance that was the year Hitler put the skids on long term research. And any way Germany would had still lost the war around late 1945 or by 1946. And America got the bomb, don't forget that one.

[P_Funk]

Its a well known fact that it wasn't technological inferiority that killed Germany. The true killer was her industrial inferiority compared to the Allies. The XXI at the time it was introduced in the dying days of the war was capable of defeating all the advanced escort tactics and detection systems. The XXI was a huge step forward as it was a U-Boat that was actally designed to operate underwater primarily while all previous U-boats were merely surface ships with an ability to submerge as a means of escape.

You can look at the XXI alone and know that it could have owned the shipping routes throughout the whole war but that is a very isolated and unrealistic way to look at it. If there was a way for the XXI to have been a major impact on the Battle of the Atlantic it would have required more than just initiative to get it produced. Under the circumstances where there could have been enough type XXIs early enough in the war Germany would have to have had a much better industrial output and of course if this were true then the whole war would have been affected and thats much bigger than the XXI.

So in reality all these what ifs taht involves more than just individual decisions are more than just small little considerations but really involve re-evaluating the whole war.

EDIT. and yeah STEED is right. The Americans had the bomb so Germany would have been blasted anyway. Germany's nuclear program was a dead end. Though as I said if Germany could have produced the XXI in 1940 in large numbers it cuold have changed the way the war went completely because more production increases Germany's ability to fight Britain or maybe invade it successfully or maybe not lose Africa or maybe actually be able to overrun Russia before the Winter.

These waht ifs involve changing alot more than just the Nazi building qeue.

[bookworm_020]

If there had been the number of U-Boats that Donitiz had wanted (300) I think England would have been in deep trouble, regardless of what type of boat they were. It would have cut the supplies that Britain depended apon to survive, let alone fight with.

If England had fallen, would had America gone to war with Germany? Unkown, It would have been very hard to fight the German's from such a great distance. Even though F.D.R wanted to fight with England from an early stage, political will was against it. There was also strong support for Germany in Amercia, with such groups as the Bund, openly behind Hitler. Many people thought that this war wasn't for them, and prefered that American stay neutral.

The Bombing of Peal Harbour changed that view. So it's just a case of "what if"

[Hartmann]

Perhaps they were too confident about the war course and not put the enough resources in 1940 renoving the u boat force, at least to arrive in 1943 with better boats or snorkels.

type XXI In 1940 could break havoc in the british navy and probably collapsing britain army .


A letter to roosevelt from churchill:


The mortal danger we face is the steady & increasing diminution of sea tonnage.Unless we can establish our ability to feed this island we may fall by the way.In the five weeks ending nov3 1940 britains losses totaled 420.000 tons, a figure comparable to the worst YEAR in ww1.The british govt.estimated that it would take a minimum 43 millon tons to keep britain going but the five week loss in nov cut the rate to 37 million tons.England wouldnot survive 1941 if this continued

[P_Funk]

Of course America would have joined the war. If Britain fell then there'd be no choice. Even back then when Americans were ignorant of a world view.

[AG124]

I don't know what to say about Type XXIs being introduced earlier in the war, but several of them served in the French and Soviet Navies post-war (and of course, Germany raised one for post-war useand eventually as a museum). The French ones served until the 1960s, and the Soviet ones served until the late 1950s (although one was retained as a training vessel until 1973). All of those were eventually scrapped.:nope: Also, the British and US appeared to be only interested in gaining information from the XXI design, and then using them as targets.:o But I guess post war designs built from the knowledge gained through these subs rendered them obsolete in the post war years anyway.

BTW - I don't think any Type XXIIIs saw any extensive service with Allied post-war navies - the USSR and Norway each commissioned one into their respective navies, but sthe Norwegian one was scrapped soon after. I think some VIIs and IXs saw service with the French, Soviet, Norwegian, and Spanish navies until the 1950s-1970s (I think they were all VIIC, VIIC/41, IXC, and maybe IXC/40).

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I remember reading quite specifically in Albert Speer's memoirs about how he and Doenitz decided to manufacture the XXI, and wondering why they hadn't done it years earlier as all the concepts in its design had existed for quite a while, already.

[kiwi_2005]

IMO If the XXI was around in 1940 Germany would of defeated Britain in the atlantic war. But they then would of had a new problem - america. And no doubt subs do get captured, fate would have it that a XXI would of fallen into the allies hands where say america with their huge production line would of made there own versions of the XXI and put more out than what germany could.

Also America/Britain slowed down the production of uboats with bombing raids on bases this would of been another problem.

[flakmonkey]

frankly in sh3 the type XXIs just dont work so they would have no effect on the wars outcome (in sh3 anyway)

[melnibonian]

I don't really think having the XXI early in the war would have made a difference in the overall outcome of the war. It might have lasted a bit longer but Germany would have lost in the end. I think that if the XXI had seen action in the Atlantic early in the war (1949-1941) the British loses would have been bigger but I don't think Britain would have been defeted. Don't forget that the Royal Navy and the British Goverment and Army could always find other bases for operations throughout the empire, without counting in the help and support of the USA and the Dominion nations (like Australia, NZ South Aftica etc). In my opinion the introduction of XXI early and the devastation of the British Navy would have prompter the Americans to join the war earlier than 1942. Obviously this is just an opinion about a 'what if' suggestion so I don't think there is a correct or wrong answer. It's fun to speculate though :know: Also don't forget that the war for Germany was lost in Russia and not in the Atlantic. Germany was not a naval power and as long as its land power base (the Army, SS etc) were able to fight there was no way of being defeted (exactly as Great Britain was able to fight as long as the Royal Navy was operational)

[Hakahura]

In my opinion Germany could'nt have put the type XXI into service that early in the war. Certainly not in numbers, let alone in the fit we are used to seeing in SHIII.

Where were the resources to build such a vessel so early going to come from? To build it would have required sacrifices in other areas of Germany's forces that would have been far to unpalattable for her masters.

It's no good pointing the finger and saying "I would'nt have built up the surface force". Whilst generally not that effective and firing comparitivly few shots in anger compared to the U boats, the amount of resourse's they caused the Allies to tie up was huge. The same can be said of almost everything else in the German inventory. If it was'nt there, the Allies would'nt have had to counter it and therfore could have retailliated against Germany more quickly and effectivlly.

Nor can one suppose to just build and crew type XXIs instead of type VIIs, IXs ect. The time and effort required to build the new electro boats was far in eccess of the conventional earlier types.

Also at this early stage in the war many of the type XXI's weapons and advanced systems we are familiar through SHIII would have been anavailable. The advanced sonar suite... not yet. As for torpedos the best available in 1940... T1s and T2 electrics. So no pattern runners and no acoustic homing.

Would a fleet of type XXIs won the Battle of the Atlantic in 1940?
Possibly but then so would a fleet of Trafalgar's and Swiftsure's and that would be quite unlikly as well.

Just my opinion though. I have to confess to being a huge fan of "What if?" history myself and I would like to hear what others on the forum have got to say on the subject.

[AVGWarhawk]

What we know of the outcome of the war, I can only speculate that the XXI would have PROLONGED the war but the end results would have been the same although more deadly to the general German population. The A-bomb probably would still have been used against Japan at the time it was and probably Germany would not have surrendered at this point. After the A-bomb was utilized in Japan, I believe the Germans would have laid down their arms at that point. No doubt the XXI for the time was a nasty weapon. Rubber coated sides to avoid sonar and asdic, snorkel, two 4000 hp diesels, six forward firing tubes full of acoustic torpedos. This makes for some really bad times for the Allies and Britian's struggle would have been much worse if not a total loss!

[Respenus]

Nice to hear the info on the subject, but like I said, it's "What if...?". You need to look at the bigger picture.

Maybe if the Germans occupied England, it might have been posible, that they would have certain industrial advantage (starve them out, then bomb all but their industry; not really possible, but hey, you can never trully know).

[MarshalLaw]

Would not have mattered if it was the XXI or VII series boats, Numbers at the beginning would have made a huge difference. If Hitler would have sided fully with Dornitz and embraced the subs instead of siding with the Surface fleet admirals, vaste resources that were wasted on the Bismark and Turpiz, could have raised the number of uboats ready for sea to 200-300 by Sept 1939. By closing the gaps that they could not in reality with 50-60 boats. The British would have been starved for supplies by 1940. With little oil getting through, the Battle of Britian would have been won and Operation "Sea Lion" would have gone ahead. By the end of 1941 England would have surrendered or been close to it.

As for The US the line of thinking at the time was it's a european affair and we need not get involved. Plus Hitler was no fool, he would have done or said anything to delay the US getting involved as long as possible.

One small decision on who to back with resources could have made things quite differant indeed.

[Tachyon]

Nice to hear the info on the subject, but like I said, it's "What if...?". You need to look at the bigger picture.

Maybe if the Germans occupied England, it might have been posible, that they would have certain industrial advantage (starve them out, then bomb all but their industry; not really possible, but hey, you can never trully know).

Hm..well, even if Germany attempted to occupy England via the sea route , it'd be nearly suicide since they never did have air superiority , all those troop transports would be RAF fodder.

And in my opinion, sure Type XXI would have made a difference, atleast when it came to sub_losses:tonnage, but as others have pointed out, the no. of subs was more important, sometimes you can overwhelm the enemy through sheer numbers (just like the Russians or on a more colourful note, the Zerg in StarCraft).

An interesting "What If" scenario this has been, and I thank all of you for sharing your opinions. Godspeed Herr Kaleun! :rock:

[STEED]

Operation "Sea Lion" would have gone ahead. By the end of 1941 England would have surrendered or been close to it.

Hardly, Hitler had his hands full on the Eastern Front and lost his time table to take Moscow due to changing plans in August/September 1941.

As for The US the line of thinking at the time was it's a european affair and we need not get involved. Plus Hitler was no fool, he would have done or said anything to delay the US getting involved as long as possible.

Japan changed that thinking and Hitler made his next big blunder.

[P_Funk]

Lets face it, Hitler lost the war. Hitler choked with Britain and then bit off too much with Russia. Remember the Schliffen plan? It was obvious in 1914 that Germany couldn't win a 2 front war. Hitler had deftly avoided one with the Non-agression pact. Instead, however, of finishing Britain or finding some end to that end of hostilities (or even expolring that even if it was unrealistic) he blundered into the maw of the Russian Colossus.

Hitler CREATED a two front war. We can talk about technology and industrial output all we want. Hitler buried his nation before America entered the war.

I think that the only what if that would make a real difference in the long run is what if Hitler wasn't such a tactical douche.

[STEED]

To sum up the Russian factor Hitler tried to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and failed.

Hitler said it himself in 1941 "If we fail to take Russia in six months it would have all been for nothing."

[P_Funk]

Indeed. But logistically I don't even see how he figured to control Russia. It is such a vast place and Germany had so few soldiers. Just to keep order in the west would have denied Germany any ability to fight on. Realistically you can't occupy Russia. Unless the communist regime aggrees to help in controlling the country with Germany at the helm but that isnt realistic either given Stalin.

Russia seems like a fools war. No one was ever able to do it.

[STEED]

Typical O.K.H. short term planing. The more you read about the Eastern Front the more you come to the conclusion, why bother.

[P_Funk]

Typical O.K.H. short term planing. The more you read about the Eastern Front the more you come to the conclusion, why bother.
It seems like they treated it like any small Western European nation which could easily be occupied and made to submit. France, Poland, Czecheslovakia, all small and easily taken. Russia is a completel different beast yet I can't for the life of me figure out how no one was able to make Hitler see that he was trying to catch Moby Dick a Lobster trab.

[STEED]

Typical O.K.H. short term planing. The more you read about the Eastern Front the more you come to the conclusion, why bother.
It seems like they treated it like any small Western European nation which could easily be occupied and made to submit. France, Poland, Czecheslovakia, all small and easily taken. Russia is a completel different beast yet I can't for the life of me figure out how no one was able to make Hitler see that he was trying to catch Moby Dick a Lobster trab.

Well they were on a high note. Apart from that it was also part of Hitler's war on the Jew's. :nope:

[P_Funk]

The Leibensraum platform was there since the beginning. However certainly it is possible to understand the limitations of a plan. And certainly Hitler wasn't against scrapping or changing plans. For instance the Navy was supposed to have a building plan that would have ended in 1945. Hitler was too impatient to wait for that.

It was likely his obcessive idealized world view that drove him to suicide in the East. He was never very good at thinking practically. He was great for creating belief and building a nation. But he seemed to have lacked a certain sensibility that was necessary for winning a war with the world.

[holden88]

Germany still would have lost the war even if they had type XXI's in 40'. The vast majority of Germany's industiral military might was deployed on the Russian front and this is where the war was lost. The Russian juggernaught would have still pushed the them back deep into Germany regardless of any success the Germans might have in the war at sea.

Now if Germany had large numbers of Me-262's and Panther tanks in 1940, then I'd say that would have had a hell of an impact on the war.

[STEED]

Now if Germany had large numbers of Me-262's and Panther tanks in 1940, then I'd say that would have had a hell of an impact on the war.

The ME262 engines had a life plan of 10 hours before they need to be replaced. The Panther (A) was rushed into service for the battle of Kursk 1943 and they lost more of them not to the Russians but due to over heating problems in the engine. You can say all sorts of things if they had the Tiger tanks and Jagdpanther the Arado 234 all in 1940 it's all a what if situation.

[P_Funk]

...a what if situation that would require so many other factors to be different that the basic reason the war went the way it did would have been fundamentally changed.

To have certain technology earlier would require earlier tests, faster design to production times, a much higher production quotient for Germany, and a ridiculous sense of overkill if we're gonna talk about Tigers in 1940. Back then the German tanks of the day were still besting the best Allied tanks of the day.

It wasn't technology that failed Germany, it was basic industry. The Allies outproduced Hitler. The basis of any successful modern war in Europe for Germany depended on a quick victory that would cut the head off of France and Britain.

As in WW1, WW2 saw a modified war of attrition against Germany where the benefits of better technology did not counter the benefits of superior manpower and industrial output enough.

The Blitzkrieg that is so famous was really a brief thing. Against less prepared and powerful armies it worked. By the time the Allies had put themselves together it became less mobile and became more drawn out. Drawn out warfare for Germany was a killer.

In the end if you want to see how Germany could have won, without denying the Allies any of their characteristics of the time, you would have to increase her population by a large amount, increase her industrial output, and... well do alot more to beef Germany up. The irony there is that the thing which Germany needed to win WW2 would likely have been the very thing Hitler was using to justify the war: a bigger Germany.

You wanna make it so that Gemnay could have won that war we might want to go back a thousand years to the division of Gaul and give Germany a bigger lot. But then it would all have been different.

These what ifs are like thinking you'll just pull a thread and instead realise that you are unravelling our entire history.

[Sailor Steve]

And if they had had Me-262s in 1940 the Battle Of Britain would have been a cinch.

Reminds of a line from the movie Timerider: upon seeing the rider on his dirt bike displaced to the 1880s, the outlaw/cowboy states "A machine! A wheel machine! If General Lee had thet machine, the South would 'a won the war!"

[Tachyon]

Great, we started discussing the Type XXI and end up with the Me-252. Who knows where we would be if I started a topic on the origins of man?

[Hartmann]

And if they had had Me-262s in 1940 the Battle Of Britain would have been a cinch.

Reminds of a line from the movie Timerider: upon seeing the rider on his dirt bike displaced to the 1880s, the outlaw/cowboy states "A machine! A wheel machine! If General Lee had thet machine, the South would 'a won the war!"

a m62 not would be possible but yes a japanese ZERO.

the 109 has a limited range in the brittain battle, it can go far inside the islands and it was a problem.

with the zero, adapted for the long distances of the pacific , the battle could be different.

[Stealth Hunter]

Perhaps it could have been the saviour of the Kreigsmarine and Germany. The only bad comments I have on it are that it lacks a deckgun that is used against ships and it lacks a stern torpedo tube. Lets face it, if I have a ship on my tail I expect to be able to defend myself rather than have to round about over and over while diving and surfacing trying to shake the enemy off my tail.

EDIT: Germany would have benefitted in my opinion if they had Focke Wulf fighters in 1940 and Me-323's. The Me's would land troops, tanks, and supplies in Britain's field regions and be covered by the Wulf's which had superior cannons and mg fire (6 cannons and 2 mg's). Not only that, but the Wulf's were fuel friendly meaning they could go quite a distance in bad weather and be very effective at the same time against the allies. The air battles in Russia showed its superiority. The motor of the Zero was bugged and its fuel lines were lightly armored. A single burst from a Corsair could rip the wings off a Zero in seconds and ignite a fire. The Japanese at tactics in the air sucked big time.

[Dan0859]

The big question here is logistics. If Germany had sufficient numbers of subs, whether they were XXI's or not, the British wouldn't have been able to win the Battle of Britian, as they wouldn't have had the supplies needed. The Battle of Britian was an extremely close thing as it was. The RAF was literally at the end of it's logistical rope when Hitler decided to stop targeting the RAF airfields, radar installations, etc. Their ability to continue fighting was estimated to be a matter of several days. They simply didn't have enough planes, pilots, supplies, etc. Yes, the Germans had taken heavy losses, but they were better off at that point than the Brits were. Had the Brits lost the Battle of Britian, they probably would have been forced to accept some sort of negotiated peace, which is what Hitler wanted in the first place. The US would have lost it's staging grounds for the invasions in N. Africa, Italy and France. Trying to stage a cross-Atlantic amphibious invasion to retake Britian wouldn't have even been possible until years later.
Much the same thing applies to the Eastern Front. The invasion of the USSR started some 6 weeks late, as the Germans had to deal with the Balkans and Greece before the invasion took place ("Thank you, Benito!"). This forced the Germans to spend time, men and supplies that she really couldn't afford to.
Even so, the Germans could have pulled it off. Had they taken Moscow, they would have deprived the Soviets of their only supply route for all of the Eastern Front. Every railroad entering into, as well as within Russia, ran through Moscow. You couldn't take a train from city A to city B without going to Moscow first. It's still true today, just look at a map.
Had the Germans taken Moscow, the Soviets wouldn't have had any way to transport any significant amount of men or materials. They wouldn't have had the means to put together any large-scale organized resistance to the Germans. Also, just for the record, the Germans had no problems setting up proxy governments in the USSR (Ukraine, for example). The Russians were hated by a lot of people, who were more than willing to cooperate with the Germans.
As far as the A bomb is concerned, without the Brits bombing the German research facilities and heavy water supplies, the Germans would have had it before we did. Any guesses what would have happened to an American invasion force headed to Britian if the Germans had nuclear V-1 and V-2 rockets?
So, yes, I think in a "what if" scenario, if the Germans had adequate numbers of XXI's (or subs in general), it would have been very possible for them to have won the war. Britian would have been neutralized, the Americans would have been years away from being able to take any effective action against them, and the Germans would have been fighting on only one front.

[Corsair]

EDIT: Germany would have benefitted in my opinion if they had Focke Wulf fighters in 1940 and Me-323's. The Me's would land troops, tanks, and supplies in Britain's field regions and be covered by the Wulf's which had superior cannons and mg fire (6 cannons and 2 mg's). Not only that, but the Wulf's were fuel friendly meaning they could go quite a distance in bad weather and be very effective at the same time against the allies. The air battles in Russia showed its superiority. The motor of the Zero was bugged and its fuel lines were lightly armored. A single burst from a Corsair could rip the wings off a Zero in seconds and ignite a fire. The Japanese at tactics in the air sucked big time.
For being a long time flight simmer and reading a lot, I can assure you that at the start of the Pacific war, the Zero was far superior to the F4s, P40s and P39s the US had on the other side, and that their pilots had a lot more experience. No plane had armored fuel lines, it was armor plates protecting the fuel tanks, and above all the lack of self-sealing tanks was the problem. Of course it was nimble and unarmored but it could draw circles around US planes and climb faster (as a US pilot said, it was like we were walking up the stairs and they took the lift...) The Corsair came in much later and was in the beginning more dangerous for its pilots than for the Japanese, hence his nickname "Ensign Eliminator"... Its role has been I think very exaggerated thru movies and TV series, the F6F was the plane that scored by far the majority of victories.
Imho, no FW190 had 6 cannons, but only 4, even the late war Doras. As far as the Russian front is concerned, I don't think it was superior to the late VVS fighters like the Yak3 or the LA7. I would any day much prefer flying a Bf 109 Gustav - G6 to G14... I don't like the lack of front visibility in the FW190...But it's just me...;)

[Sailor Steve]

Great, we started discussing the Type XXI and end up with the Me-252. Who knows where we would be if I started a topic on the origins of man?

To you, Tachyon, I apologize profusely, because you were absolutely right. To everyone else who jumped on my apparently ill-concieved comment, my point was that YOU CAN SPECULATE HOW THIS OR THAT MIGHT HAVE CHANGED THE WAR, BUT IT'S ONLY IDLE SPECULATION AND NOTHING MORE!!! That's why I included the movie quote, because that kind of guessing is pretty much useless.:doh: :88) :rotfl:

[Corsair]

Am also sorry about going from the original Type XXI subject to a comparative study on WWII airplanes... Been hangin' too many years on flight sim forums, it becomes pure reflex...:-?

[P_Funk]

Yes whenever we start trying to reassess one thing often it makes us re-evaluate everything.

The really good what ifs are the ones that were really about instant decisions. Like Alexander deciding to plunge into Darius' lines at the Battle of Issus at the right moment. Or Constantine not falling for Maxentius' ruse at the The Battle of the Pons Milvius.

That stuff is the real what if. Im not sure though how many true single what ifs there could be in modern war... maybe that cabby that swerved just in time to miss Neville Chamberlain in 38:p

So I suppose we all ought to sod off back to the original subject then. Sorry to the guy that started this thread.

[Stealth Hunter]

Then again, once I think about it, the Zero did have superior climb rates and speed. Personally, I feel it was their tactics and design flaws that made them a mediocre aircraft. They were sort of like the Sopwith Camel, a good aircraft IF you could fly well and could master its controls but a bad aircraft for novices.

[P_Funk]

Then again, once I think about it, the Zero did have superior climb rates and speed. Personally, I feel it was their tactics and design flaws that made them a mediocre aircraft. They were sort of like the Sopwith Camel, a good aircraft IF you could fly well and could master its controls but a bad aircraft for novices.
The ZERO was also made out of paper mache.:doh:

[Tachyon]

Lololololol....

Now, we move on to the ZERO from the Me-252 , Keep it up guys !!! LOL

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Oh and Sailor Steve, no apologies needed, I'm an aircraft enthusiast myself, so I enjoyed this discussion. Gotta love those Arado bombers, Zip...Drop Bombs....Zip back . End of Mission.

[Corsair]

Then again, once I think about it, the Zero did have superior climb rates and speed. Personally, I feel it was their tactics and design flaws that made them a mediocre aircraft. They were sort of like the Sopwith Camel, a good aircraft IF you could fly well and could master its controls but a bad aircraft for novices.

Sorry to jump in again (Tachyon said he did not mind;), it had superior climb rate but not speed. In fact speed was the only advantage of US planes as their weight in dive helped them escape. At high speed the Zero was subject to a stiffening of the flaps controls. This is why your only chance in 42 flying US planes is to use energy tactics and never try to get in a turning dogfight. It was only thru team work (the famous Thach weave) that US planes had a match, one on one they had little hope... If you look at the record of some few japanese pilots who made it thru the war, like Saburo Sakai, you have to admit in good hands the Zero was a good airplane.

[Tachyon]

Back to the Type XXI,

How come it could move faster underwater than on the surface? Were frogmen pushing it?

[_Seth_]

Back to the Type XXI,

How come it could move faster underwater than on the surface? Were frogmen pushing it?

I think it was because it had some gigantic electrical engines, combined with some awesome hydrodynamics. If im not mistaken, it was a diesel-electric sub, so it ran on electricity on the surface too. the Diesels were only used to generate electrical power (i could be wrong on this, though..). :hmm:

[Tachyon]

Is that so?? Hmm..diesel to generate electricity.

So, if we wanted an all electric sub, I guess we'd need some sort of overhead cable, you know... like those Electric trains?

[Corsair]

Is that so?? Hmm..diesel to generate electricity.

So, if we wanted an all electric sub, I guess we'd need some sort of overhead cable, you know... like those Electric trains?

Or a huge drum on the bridge with a very long cable to stay plugged in base ?;)

[TheSatyr]

Just want to mention one more "what if" for the Battle of Britain. If the ME 109s had had drop tanks the battle would have went differently.

They acually tested the 109 with drop tanks and there were plans before the war to manufacture them...but Goering didn't think they would be needed so he cancelled the project.

Besides...at the time they thought the ME 110 would be far more effective then they turned out to be.

[Corsair]

Just want to mention one more "what if" for the Battle of Britain. If the ME 109s had had drop tanks the battle would have went differently.

They acually tested the 109 with drop tanks and there were plans before the war to manufacture them...but Goering didn't think they would be needed so he cancelled the project.

Besides...at the time they thought the ME 110 would be far more effective then they turned out to be.

Right on... the lesson was learned the hard way and the Bf109 on the eastern front had the drop tanks, and the Bf 110 was turned from escort fighter into ground attack plane.

[nightdagger]

Best plan of all:

Take Hitler out of power, replace him with someone like Donitz (read: not crazy)
Produce Me 262's instead of other fighters (possible exceptions to be made for Fw190)
Produce around 500 XXI's
Invade Continental Europe as planned.
Take now-weak and starving Britain over
Build forces for a few years
Coordinate with Japan to cut off all supply of US, Japan invades from West, Germany from East.
Take out Russia (who is now just a pesky neighbor, not the biggest country in the world)
BLAM! Instant (well, not quite) dictatorship of world

[_Seth_]

Is that so?? Hmm..diesel to generate electricity.

So, if we wanted an all electric sub, I guess we'd need some sort of overhead cable, you know... like those Electric trains?

You actually have diesel-electric trains. They were developed to save weight and space. If they only used diesel-engines to run, their gearbox would be so large and heavy, that it wouldnt be efficient. Thats why the electricity is best to use; you dont have to use the gears "step-by-step", you just pull the handle to the desired speed. . And if you think about it: a several hundred ton heavy train isnt easy to get up to speed...
But this is a little opp topic, sorry... :yep:

Here is a quote about the XXI:
Type XXI Elektroboot - called so because its diesel engines ran the generators, and the ship was actually powered by the electric motors all the time - was the first true submarine to see service.
Link: http://users.tkk.fi/~andres/models_xxi.html (http://users.tkk.fi/%7Eandres/models_xxi.html)

[Tachyon]

From the Type XXI to the Bf-109 , God save us all :rotfl:

Thanks for the link Seth, those XXI models were pretty interesting to look at, deservedly got 1st place.









P.s : got a request for you in the video thread , check it out

[wazawak]

I think all of you are overestimating the importance of the United States and Britain in fighting Germany. The primary role of the USA in WWII was a) supplying the Soviet Union and Britain with war material and b)fighting the Japanese. It's a matter of public record that 80% of Germans killed in the war were killed in Russia (and not by "winter", either, the largest battles of the war- the largest battles in history- were fought well after the winter had ended and things were warm again.) Would the XXI have increased German control in the Atlantic? Yes. But the submarine is meaningless in a land war, and the Russians got their American goods from the Pacific- that is, out of range of German u-boats.

So the XXI would have cut off Britain and western europe, but it would have done nothing against Germany's true enemy in the war, and would have had no mitigating effect on the real cause for the Third Reich's defeat. Stalin inevitably would have ground Hitler into powder, and there was simply no way Hitler could possibly have beaten him. Nazi Germany stood up like a man and fought like a wolverine, but no force on Earth could have stood against the forces the Third Reich subjected itself to.

[P_Funk]

I don't think youcan qualify the US as Germany's true enemy. I mean taking the practical importance of the US aside, the war was more than 2 years old before the US entered it. Remember this was a european war fought by them european savages that didn't concern the righteous US of A. You gotta remember that thats the way it was un til the end of 41.

The real adversary of Germany was Britain. She was the one who had gotten in the way of Germany's consolidation of Western Europe. While the US was still twiddling their thumbs in ignorance Britain was holding the breach as the last bastion of hope for Western Europe. Even after the US joined Britain and her commonwealth allies were the heart and soul of the campaign to liberate Europe, mainly due to the enormous committment that the US had in the Pacific.

As for the XXI fitting into things if you've read any books about the US as it entered the war she was absolutely useless at anti-submarine fighting. Drumbeat was a joke really. The US might want to send stuff to Britain but with control of the Atlantic Germany could have starved Britain out long before December 41 and thus make an invasion of Europe a very tricky affair. How do you invade accross an entire ocean when the enemy controls it and you can't stop him? Overlord was dramatic enogh and that was accross just the width of the channel.

I think that all too often people overestimate the contribution to the war just in terms of its definitive nature. True it was the US that reversed the fight but it certainly didn't drive the Nazis running and screaming home right away. There is a general glorification of the US in WW2 in terms of "saving" Britain. Nobody saved Britain but Britain as the US was not present (aside from Roosevelt's shady under the table gestures) during the Blitz. Hitler had turned away from Britain and left her mostly alone before the US joined.

You can't assume that the US will just kick Germany's butt. The whole circumstance of the thing was turned around if you add the XXI into things and maybe choke Britain to death. Then again that goes backl to waht was said before about how its silly to assume that the XXI could even have existed under those circumstances.

What Im saying is that the US isnt the definitive story on WW2. Theres a bit more nuance than just the US would out produce Germany. The "proactive" omnipotent US foreign policy came about after and as a result of WW2. What would have happened if everything went differently is a real mystery.

[Stealth Hunter]

Meh, I still enjoy launching a quick mission and blowing their ships up. Good fun. In campaign mode my diplomacy options are more carefully thought it. IF I find an American cargo ship within the Celtic Sea then it will be sunk. Technically, that can be defended as the ocean there was marked as a war zone. The Lusitania is a perfect example of something like that (except, it was in World War I).

[nightdagger]

But the XXI could have easily saved Germany if Hilter hadn't been a complete dumbass with Operation Barbossa.

[Stealth Hunter]

Yeah, reminds me of how he didn't approve of the Sturmgewehr 44 because it was ugly.:mad:The thing was great if used by the right hands.

[P_Funk]

Yeah, reminds me of how he didn't approve of the Sturmgewehr 44 because it was ugly.:mad:The thing was great if used by the right hands. Yeah Hitler was very weird with that stuff. He had an odd obcessionwith Machine-Pistols. He thought they were the future of all warfare. Therefore they wouldn't have been able to create the STG-44 unless they had originally named it the MP-44 so that Hitler was satisfied with his odd fetish.

That the STG-44 was the future of Squad weaponry is really telling of how out of it Hitler was.

[Stealth Hunter]

Amen, the world's first assault rifle. The MP-40 wasn't bad, though.

[P_Funk]

Amen, the world's first assault rifle. The MP-40 wasn't bad, though.No it wasn't bad at all. However it was more of a stepping stone or a weapon that was limited in its use. The MP-40 was very much like the Thompson and the Tommy was designed in late WW1 as a weapon for clearing trenches. In open countryside warfare an MP-40 is a tool of the assault. It isn't very useful for much else.

WW2 infantry tactics were about the base of fire. Essentially it revolved around the Machine Gun. However this meant that when the MG wasn't firing that the squad's ability to bring a powerful concentration of fire against a target was severely limited, especially for the Germans who still had bolt action rifles. The MP-40 was the ultimate assault weapon but it served little other purpose. Likewise the Kar98k was a good ranged weapon but was near useless in close quarters. The STG-44 was a utilitarian alternative which collected together the two advantages of the MP-40 and the Rifle while avoiding most of the glaring downsides.

Amazing how on the squad level this advancement of basic tactical doctrine hasn't been radically changed in 60 years.

[Stealth Hunter]

The Gewehr 43 and Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 were quite nice, especially the FG-42 because of it's sniper scope that could be attached and it's automatic mode that could be switched to single shot. The Gewehr 43 was the German version of the Russian SVT and the American M1 Garand, only it packed a scope, a 10-round clip, and a punch. Sadly, it didn't fit for a bayonet on the end.:(

EDIT: I wonder if the G-43 would have changed the outcome of any part of the war if it had been produced at the start and had a bayonet.

[P_Funk]

I doubt very much that the Gewer 43 could have made a difference. The Germans were consummate soldiers to the end. They needed more armor if anything and a couple enemies fewer.

A semi auto rifle wouldn't really matter in my estimation simply because the Americans were the only ones who even had one standardized. One could make an argument of whether or not still using the Springfield 1911 would have severely reduced the effectiveness of American troops especially provided their inferiority in the BoF department regarding the BAR. But really thats not a big enough deal to gripe about.

I read though that the FG42 was considered something of a failure in design. That it was a weapon with too much of a personality disorder. It was as light as a rifle but fired automatic and didn't have the weight for control on auto or the length for control on single. Thats my info anyway. They made two versions if I recall correctly, the 2nd longer than the first, but it ultimately didn't pan out. The original reasoning behind the FG42 was an attempt to create a multi-purpose Paratrooper weapon that could be fired while parashooting and also could fill the needed roles in the regular squad combat area. Like I said my information says that it wasn't effective at any of them. Otherwise why would there be a need to create the STG 44? The STG 44 seems to fill a similar role to the FG 42 but obviously with more success.

Jeeze and I thought ME 109s were off topic.:doh:

[TarJak]

Seriously the only thing that could have saved Germany in WWII was NOT invading Poland in the firs place!

[Tachyon]

Who would have thought a Type XXI was the great grandmother of Rifles??

In any case, the russian Dragunov sniper rifle pwns

[Corsair]

@ Stealth Hunter :

Watch out for Gizzmoe, your sig seems to exceed the authorized 400 x 120...:nope:

[_Seth_]

:o Thats some laaarge sig.... :yep:

[wazawak]

Seriously the only thing that could have saved Germany in WWII was NOT invading Poland in the firs place!

I don't agree. If Hitler hadn't broken his power in the USSR, the Wehrmacht would have been more than enough to consolidate continental Europe and fend off any invasion. The Americans developed the bomb, yes, but it would have been too little, too late. Hitler would most likely have given up his plans of invading Britain, due to the Channel and the bomb, and would likely have been able to negotiate a peace leaving him with most or all of his wartime gains. Of course, it's always possible that during the honeymoon period where the United States was the only country with a-bombs, they might have just gone nuts and nuked Germany back into the Stone Age, but this seems unlikely due to the very limited inventory the United States had. Besides, who's to say that Germany could not have developed the bomb itself shortly thereafter or even earlier? With the tremendous resources expended in the Eastern Front suddenly freed, maybe it would have been a German mushroom cloud over Britain that signaled the beginning of the atomic age.

Any way you spin it, it was the invasion of Russia that truly broke Germany's power. Stalin inflicted such terrible losses and bogged down the once-invincible Wehrmacht for so long that Hitler simply could not recover.

[STEED]

I am wondering who there right mind wanted to see Nazi Germany win the war? Not me, a terror organisation ran by a bunch of criminals hellbent on wiping anyone out who they hated.

[_Seth_]

I agree with STEED, i sure as h*ck dont want a scenario with nazi-madmen-power... But hypotetically, its an interesting thing to imagine.. "What if" (in a historical setting).
But for some neo-nazi bulls*it, im NOT in at all!

[Tachyon]

All this bloodshed could have been avoided if countries simply surrendered without putting up a fight :nope:

[TarJak]

Seriously the only thing that could have saved Germany in WWII was NOT invading Poland in the firs place!
I don't agree. If Hitler hadn't broken his power in the USSR, the Wehrmacht would have been more than enough to consolidate continental Europe and fend off any invasion. The Americans developed the bomb, yes, but it would have been too little, too late. Hitler would most likely have given up his plans of invading Britain, due to the Channel and the bomb, and would likely have been able to negotiate a peace leaving him with most or all of his wartime gains. Of course, it's always possible that during the honeymoon period where the United States was the only country with a-bombs, they might have just gone nuts and nuked Germany back into the Stone Age, but this seems unlikely due to the very limited inventory the United States had. Besides, who's to say that Germany could not have developed the bomb itself shortly thereafter or even earlier? With the tremendous resources expended in the Eastern Front suddenly freed, maybe it would have been a German mushroom cloud over Britain that signaled the beginning of the atomic age.

Any way you spin it, it was the invasion of Russia that truly broke Germany's power. Stalin inflicted such terrible losses and bogged down the once-invincible Wehrmacht for so long that Hitler simply could not recover.
I don't disagree that Hitler's power was broken in his invasion of Russia, however your argument fails to recognise that invading and occupying Russia was always his goal. In reading some of the planning documentation from 1937 onwards, whilst there were Falls (Plans) made for the invasion of France/England and the west, Hitler's primary obsession and objective was to invade and occupy Russia for Lebensraum (Living room or space for the Aryan race).

Unfortunately in order to do so he had to invade Poland, which brought England and France into the war against him. (He was actually counting on them reneging on their treaty with Poland and even right up until mid 1940 was hoping to find a way of establishing a negotiated settlement with them which would have enable him to switch focus from the west to the east earlier).

Probably a further mistake was allowing his Italian allies to drag him into the conflict in the Western Desert. This was a serious drain on German resources throughout the campaing and was yet another front he really didn't want to get involved in but had to.

I think my point is still valid, notwithstanding his objectives. If he had not invaded Poland, Briatin and France would not have gotten involved in the conflict. Given that to achieve his ultimate objective of occupying Russia, he had to invade Poland, he therefore had to involve England and France which ultimately was his downfall.

There is not much point in going over the what if scenarios because ultimately what brought him undone was a multiplicity of requriements which he did not have the resources to meet, to fulfill his ultimate goal.

[P_Funk]

Even better than all that. Why don't we just blame the French? If France hadn't been such a bunch of twats at the Paris Peace Conference and made such punitive demands on Germany via reparations and that nauseating guilt clause there likely wouldn't have even been the right circumstances under which Hitler would have risen to power.

Thats just my wildly unpopular observation.:rotfl:

[Tachyon]

Lol...remember how Chamberlain was hailed as a hero by the Brits after he returned from Germany for some negotiations?? Poor bastard got shocked after Poland

[wazawak]

Touche, TarJak, I wasn't aware that invading Russia was such a major objective for Hitler. It makes sense now that you said it, but I had always assumed that he invaded France because by Golly, he wanted to. He certainly bit off more than he could chew when he picked a fight with Uncle Joe, though.

[TarJak]

No sweat wazawak. I actually think he could have been in Moscow in 1940 if he had some way of keeping Britain and France out. Anyway by the time he invaded Russia in 1941 he was in deep trouble with his resources and production and actuall had to invade to get hold of the oil and mineral resources in the Urals to continue any kind of campaign. He was kind of surrounded and actually never had a chance once the Brits got involved. The Battle of Britain really sealed his fate.

[Tachyon]

A two front campaign was suicidal from the start...Hitler did the right thing by going after Poland & then France. Going after the Russians without pummelling the Brits was the numero uno error. Poland was something of a show of German arms , to frighten the French.

Besides, another big mistake was delaying his entry into Russia because he wanted
those Tiger tanks...and they arrived at the onset of Winter :P

Hitler = Brilliant Orator , Brave but Foolhardy Tactician.

One reason why the generals never questioned Der Fuhrer in Russia is because of the blitzkrieg through Poland and France, which was initially questioned by them.

[STEED]

Touche, TarJak, I wasn't aware that invading Russia was such a major objective for Hitler.

Good Grief it was all in writing in Hitler's first book (Mein Kampf) which he wrote back in the 1920's which was nothing more than a pipe dream. Only when Hitler came to power did the pipe dream come real.

[Corsair]

No sweat wazawak. I actually think he could have been in Moscow in 1940 if he had some way of keeping Britain and France out. Anyway by the time he invaded Russia in 1941 he was in deep trouble with his resources and production and actuall had to invade to get hold of the oil and mineral resources in the Urals to continue any kind of campaign. He was kind of surrounded and actually never had a chance once the Brits got involved. The Battle of Britain really sealed his fate.

He could have well been in Moscow in 1941 also. Going out to save Mussolini's a** in Greece and North Africa has diverted forces and delayed the start of Barbarossa which led to coming just a bit too late and being stopped by winter. Don't know if that would have changed much as all military production had been shifted far east by that time.

[TarJak]

He got within 20 miles of the city centre and got stuck then pushed back. As I said if hed not invaded Poland and had hung onto what he had gained with Austria and Czechoslavakia, his regime may still be around (Not that I think that's and attractive proposition), but being a megalomaniac he had to get greedy and go for what he always wanted.