SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

c13Garrison · 08-22-13, 03:29 AM

Admiral, your question is one that prevents a fellow from going to bed at 3am.

I will try to sum up my position, as what I started typing would have kept me up far longer. In the main I agree with Agrims, though I might quibble about the Battle of Britain with him- the Axis would have needed an air force half-again as large to bleed out England's with the plan they fought with, and 1200 more airplanes is no small thing to pull out of "what if" land. However, all they had to do to accomplish this was to fully mobilize for war before they started it, which they didn't in a proper economic sense do until After the US entered the war.

In the West, Germany had one great disadvantage- Adolph Hitler. I could easily come up with 12 decisions which had massive not tactical, but Strategic ramifications for the war effort. Russia may have never stopped fighting, but if you put Any competent military general staff in charge of Germany (and hey! Guess what, they HAD one) it instantly becomes a much harder war.

In the East, Japan suffered one great disadvantage- They attacked. What's more they attack the world's Largest economy with the economy of a nation a Tenth its size. If you could magically sink EVERY ship the US had afloat in January 1943, what they produced by January 1944 would Still eclipse the Japanese navy in both types and gross numbers. If they were defending a rope bridge that we could only cross one person at a time and it was the year 1500, ok, then maybe they had a chance. Even then, we'd lose enough men and then just decide to cut the bridge.

As far as the Battle of Midway, for anyone that enjoys reading about the true substance of military history I simply must recommend this book;

Shattered Sword, by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully

It absolutely recasts the die on what a good historical text is and how it should be done, plus it is written in a style and tone that will prevent you from wanting to put it down. It is rich, and captivating, and anything I would write here about the hypothetical arguments would only be parroting the positions they so brilliantly lay out there. Japan lost the battle before their ships even put to sea due to their own battle plan.

And now, good night!

08-22-13, 03:29 AM	#7
c13Garrison Ensign Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Chicago-ish, USA Posts: 223 Downloads: 14 Uploads: 0	Book Recommendation Admiral, your question is one that prevents a fellow from going to bed at 3am. I will try to sum up my position, as what I started typing would have kept me up far longer. In the main I agree with Agrims, though I might quibble about the Battle of Britain with him- the Axis would have needed an air force half-again as large to bleed out England's with the plan they fought with, and 1200 more airplanes is no small thing to pull out of "what if" land. However, all they had to do to accomplish this was to fully mobilize for war before they started it, which they didn't in a proper economic sense do until After the US entered the war. In the West, Germany had one great disadvantage- Adolph Hitler. I could easily come up with 12 decisions which had massive not tactical, but Strategic ramifications for the war effort. Russia may have never stopped fighting, but if you put Any competent military general staff in charge of Germany (and hey! Guess what, they HAD one) it instantly becomes a much harder war. In the East, Japan suffered one great disadvantage- They attacked. What's more they attack the world's Largest economy with the economy of a nation a Tenth its size. If you could magically sink EVERY ship the US had afloat in January 1943, what they produced by January 1944 would Still eclipse the Japanese navy in both types and gross numbers. If they were defending a rope bridge that we could only cross one person at a time and it was the year 1500, ok, then maybe they had a chance. Even then, we'd lose enough men and then just decide to cut the bridge. As far as the Battle of Midway, for anyone that enjoys reading about the true substance of military history I simply must recommend this book; Shattered Sword, by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully It absolutely recasts the die on what a good historical text is and how it should be done, plus it is written in a style and tone that will prevent you from wanting to put it down. It is rich, and captivating, and anything I would write here about the hypothetical arguments would only be parroting the positions they so brilliantly lay out there. Japan lost the battle before their ships even put to sea due to their own battle plan. And now, good night! Last edited by c13Garrison; 08-22-13 at 03:41 AM.