A hypothetical question.

[Admiral Halsey]

I was reading the book "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" and it got me thinking about a couple of things. Like what if the Musashi hadn't been sunk or if Kurita pushed through Taffy 3 or Halsey had left his battlewagons an only took the cruisers with him when him went after Ozawa's northern force? Anyone else have any thought on this?

[TorpX]

I take it you are asking specifically about these questions, and not about what if's in general?

I think a fictional-random campaign would be very worthwhile for SH4, but I had not really thought about your questions. I've wondered what the war would have been like if the Japanese had won the battle of Midway. (A very plausible scenario, imo.)

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by TorpX

I take it you are asking specifically about these questions, and not about what if's in general?

I think a fictional-random campaign would be very worthwhile for SH4, but I had not really thought about your questions. I've wondered what the war would have been like if the Japanese had won the battle of Midway. (A very plausible scenario, imo.)

I hadn't thought of that.(Though it most likely would have ended the same as by 43 the nations industrial might finally showed up on the battlefields.)

[pstein]

Originally Posted by TorpX

I take it you are asking specifically about these questions, and not about what if's in general?

I think a fictional-random campaign would be very worthwhile for SH4, but I had not really thought about your questions. I've wondered what the war would have been like if the Japanese had won the battle of Midway. (A very plausible scenario, imo.)

I believe that the Japanese winning the Battle of Midway would do nothing more than prolong the war. We would be forced to divert troops and supplies from Europe to defend Hawaii and the West Coast, but I think the war's outcome would've been the same.

[magic452]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

I hadn't thought of that.(Though it most likely would have ended the same as by 43 the nations industrial might finally showed up on the battlefields.)

I've ofter though of "What if's and for the most part came to the same conclusions as you about Midway.

The course and duration of the war would have been different but the outcome would have been the same for the reason you gave. That goes for the ATO as well.

Magic

[agrims]

Actually, the war could have gone very badly for us very quickly in Europe. Being a history major helps a lot! Reasons the war could've very easily went the other way:

In the beginning, Germany was the technologically superior force. Had the battle of Britan lasted a week longer, Churchill wouldn't have had any planes left to fly, forcing his hand, and shortly thereafter would have had to surrender, as what the subs weren't sinking, the planes would have shifted to mopping up, starving the brits. Had Hitler held up his end of the bargin, Stalin would have been on his side a bit longer, and there would have been no eastern front to fight. Following the fall of Britan, he could have concentrated on producing weapons that were more reliable, and longer ranged, not to mention, by '48 at the latest he would have had atomic weapons, and had subs that were not able to be found by Allied ASDIC, and could launch V2 rockets off of these subs into places like New York, Norfolk, etc.

If Japan hadn't attacked the U.S. and instead had a better build up period, attacking China inward instead of spreading outward like they did, this would have put them in a good place for resources and a joint attack on Russia with Germany. This would have a two fold problem for Russia. Attack from 2 angles, and atomic weapons. Stalin was a ruthless man, but he would have been no match for atomic weapons.

The major problem with the Axis in WW2 was quiet simple. Too much too soon spreading themselves too thin. America probably wouldn't have entered the war at all had PH not have happened, and if they had, it would have been later, after the fall of Britan and China. We as a country were not in the mindset that we are in today, in that back then if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We also were not building up our forces until really '43, 2 years after the start of the war, and that would have happened whenever we actually went to war, as it took time to build up capacity.

We knew of a few of Germanies secret weapons programs, but the type 21 and 23 were something we didn't know anything about until the war ended, but we were honestly ignoring the war until PH, and had that not happened, we would probably be Sprechen sie Deutche!

I wish that I was better at modding games, it would be great to model an alternate war to the way things could have went.

[c13Garrison]

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!

[Rockin Robbins]

The real question of WWII: what if the Germans, rather than waste all the money and good men on useless submarines which could only bring disaster on their nation, were spent on standard munitions instead for a winnable ground war.

And what if the Germans, after letting the British escape from Dunkirk, played nicey-nice. "Our brothers in England. We have no quarrel with you. Our peoples have been united in blood and enterprise for two hundred fifty years. Your obligation with Poland has been honorably fulfilled. We propose a peace between our great nations whilst we take care of those slimey Communists to the east.

England was thoroughly tired of war before WWII even started. They had lost an entire generation of young men in the first world war. Some of their leaders and military men may have hesitated, but the British people might have seized on such an offer with enthusiasm.

Result: end of war with Britain, but most importantly, with no submarines to wreck disaster on the German people, the US never enters the war. I say that scenario is the ONLY one that results in German victory, short of Germany never going to war in the first place.

[agrims]

RR, there is one flaw with what you propose. Germany actually had quite the ground force compared to what WE even could muster. Also, the way they fought war was radically different than what the world had ever seen prior, and one that we adopted quite well. It was the Blitzkreig, and you HAVE to have the airpower aspect before the ground forces even come to the scene, as we all know playing our sub games, airplanes are bastard machines that fight in an unfair place. They have things that naval and ground don't, altitude, speed, and fear factor. Also, their target in the beginning and all along was England and the U.S., as we were the ones that caused them all the pain and suffering after WW1. Russia was the biggest threat to them, and that is why Adolf struck the peace treaty with Stalin at the breakout of the war. England was a tiny island, that depended on the sea for materials. Cut the material's and cut the people down. Russia on the other hand was vast, resource rich, and was ruled by a ruthless man who even Hitler didn't trust, (At least he didn't starve HIS OWN people.... I speak of Hitler..) Also, at the time, the U.S. wasn't much of a threat, we spoke highly against another war, and we had an entire ocean between us.

So, in the end, he would have had to have attacked Russia. He may have won had his troops been better clothed, fed, and supplied for the harsh winter. And after bringing England to their knees, he wouldn't have need for a large fleet, thus the subs were his best choice. Suprise and stealth.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by agrims

Being a history major helps a lot!

And sometimes it hurts, leading you to assume what you're taught and not do your own research.

Had the battle of Britan lasted a week longer, Churchill wouldn't have had any planes left to fly,

On August 21, 1940, the RAF had 615 Hurricanes and 326 Spitfires. On October 18, 1940, the RAF had 512 Hurricanes and 285 Spitfires, or roughly 85% of the strength they started with.

While the Luftwaffe had 2800 aircraft available to the RAF's 675, only 800 of the German planes were fighters, and they were scattered all over Europe, while the British were contained in one relatively small geographic area. During the course of the Battle the British lost 1078 aircraft while the Germans lost 1562. The British built 2352 new planes while the Germans produced only 975.

The British were in trouble for a variety of reasons, and the outcome was never certain until it was over, but had the Battle of Britain lasted another week Churchill would have had almost one thousand planes left to fly.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by c13Garrison

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!

I have read that book but I find that Miracle at Midway, By Gordon. W. Prange. Happens to be the definitive book on the subject.(Much like his book At Dawn We Slept. is the definitive book on the Pearl Harbor attack)

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by agrims

RR, there is one flaw with what you propose. Germany actually had quite the ground force compared to what WE even could muster. Also, the way they fought war was radically different than what the world had ever seen prior, and one that we adopted quite well. It was the Blitzkreig, and you HAVE to have the airpower aspect before the ground forces even come to the scene, as we all know playing our sub games, airplanes are bastard machines that fight in an unfair place. They have things that naval and ground don't, altitude, speed, and fear factor. Also, their target in the beginning and all along was England and the U.S., as we were the ones that caused them all the pain and suffering after WW1. Russia was the biggest threat to them, and that is why Adolf struck the peace treaty with Stalin at the breakout of the war. England was a tiny island, that depended on the sea for materials. Cut the material's and cut the people down. Russia on the other hand was vast, resource rich, and was ruled by a ruthless man who even Hitler didn't trust, (At least he didn't starve HIS OWN people.... I speak of Hitler..) Also, at the time, the U.S. wasn't much of a threat, we spoke highly against another war, and we had an entire ocean between us.

So, in the end, he would have had to have attacked Russia. He may have won had his troops been better clothed, fed, and supplied for the harsh winter. And after bringing England to their knees, he wouldn't have need for a large fleet, thus the subs were his best choice. Suprise and stealth.

I agree with Steve there. You didn't point out a flaw at all. Usually when people announce that they will expose a flaw, they preceed to do that. Unfortunately, what you said is so unfocused I can't really tell what you think you are saying and how it could be in conflict with what I said. And you never got around to identifying any flaw. So I'll clarify my position a bit.

Actually, as they and you should know, the US sought to limit the cost to the Germans at the Versailles Conference, lobbying strongly and unsuccessfully against overly punitive reparations. LLoyd George and Clemenceau were not dissuaded and made Wilson out to be a fool, which he was, but not on that issue.

If you have read Mein Kampf, you know that Hitler truthfully told of his disdain, yes for Jews, but also just as viciously toward the Slav slime to his east. THAT was his primary aim in Europe after securing the continent so he could operate freely. It was all those eastern Eurpoeans with too many consonants in their names that were keeping the master race from.........whatever the master race wanted to do they could do it best without Slavs mucking it all up.

Brits were Aryans just like the Germans. They were destined to rule, just as Germany was. They were brothers. The French, on the other hand, didn't take showers and thought they were tough thugs. The low countries had the misfortune of owning real estate needed to crush the French. It was no mistake that Poland was attacked first--it was the gateway to Hitler's highest goal of invading Russia. He attacked east first because that was his most important goal. What school teaches that? It's so easy and obvious but they blind their eyes and hum loudly to avoid the obvious conclusion. It isn't that these history czars can't see--they WON'T see.

So there you go. Plan before the war: Execute von Schlieffen plan and squash the low countries as collateral damage on the way to destruction of France. Ally with Spain. Western Europe secured.

Then leave minimum forces in western Europe for a full-scale invasion of Russia--public enemy #1. Not enough room in Dodge City for two totalitarian governments.

What part of that demands anything more than coastal defense submarines? NONE OF IT!

Now, inconveniently, Germany found itself at war with its natural ally, England, because of England's treaty with Poland. Then Germany, with full ability to utterly destroy the British army at Dunkirk, let them escape. It was the perfect time to declare peace, and the appeal of peace would have been irresistibly strong for the English people, many of whom admired the German state, people and even military.

Submarines, promoted by power-grabbing admirals seeking cash to build their personal glory, had sold Hitler on the submarine. These subs were scantly modified WWI U-Boats with not enough range, not enough firepower to matter, no way to fight in a way that would not bring many, many other nations who otherwise wouldn't be interested, into the war against Germany.

You see, there is a fundamental difference between the situations of island nation Great Britain and island nation Japan. Island nation Japan ships all of its supplies on Japanese bottoms. Sink Japanese supplies and nobody but Japan gives a rat's patootie!

But Britain is very different. So different that using submarines to fight her is completely inappropriate and guarantees the defeat of Germany. It's because, you see, British supplies weren't on British bottoms. No, British supplies came in on American, Canadian, Brazilian, Argentinian.......... bottoms. Can't you see that sinking those supplies is an act of war against those neutral nations? Can't you see that GUARANTEES the defeat of Germany? Can't you see that you cannot strangle England by sinking a few supplies? You make her stronger as you kill your own best commanders and men. And that is exactly what happened.

So a wolfpack of 14 toothless old submarines encounters a convoy of 1000 ships, accompanied by incredibly skilled escorts. Can this result in any significant losses? YES! But only for the submarines. The convoy cannot be significantly hurt by weapons lacking in firepower to get the job done.

Every penny and every man in the submarine navy of Germany was a tragic waste from Germany's standpoint and a great investment by Allied standards. They COULD NOT deliver victory in any event. They GUARANTEED Nazi Germany's utter defeat by bringing in insurmountable adversaries who need not have been concerned with the war.

The flaw was the man, Adolph Hitler. He was crazy. Insanity does not make decisions in its own best interest. When he agreed with Raeder and Donitz to build a submarine fleet he doomed his thousand year reich. In 1939 he was a dead man.

What kind of history program doesn't teach these fundamental facts about World War II? Did they not have you read Mein Kampf? Did you not have to read "A Man Called Intrepid?" Do they not have any historical perspective at all? It's time to question authority and start learning. The only thing you'll learn in college is what other people think and how to learn. One is invaluable and the other is of limited value.

[agrims]

Very true and valid points. And sorry for the grainy response. I've been sweating my ass off out here in Bahrain for too long today.. Adolf was a crazy man, there is no doubt about that. And the submarine war was effective for a while as the allies didn't have good asdic in the beginning.

There are many topics about the B4B and There is a consensus that had it gone on much longer, Britain would have surrendered as there was no real way out of it at the time. There was a lot of collateral damage and supplies were dwindling.

In the beginning at Dunkirk, he should have either crushed the British army or offered a peace treaty, but neither happened and he is where he is now. A dead man. A dead crazy man. The war could have ended very differently. That is fact. Also the man wasn't the only flaw. His admirals and generals were all vying for power, that and all the misinformation and deceit his own military leaders had lead him to an early and fortunately untimely grave.

Honestly, Japan had the worst odds. They should have stuck to invading China.. They were focused on the decisive battle and that never happened for them.. Anyways, I am not disagreeing with you, you merely stated in the above that he should have invested more on the ground than the sea when he had the most advance ground weaponry of the time and was complemented by air power. He was also terrified of the British fleet, and that was a big reason that they invested so heavily in subs. Also the limit on the size and makeup of his fleet didn't help!

Still would be nice to work up the OP's main topic about an alternate universe war.. As it was plausible.

[Admiral Halsey]

WW2 wasn't like WW1 in regards to the submarine force. If Dönitz had the 300 subs he wanted from the outset Germany would have most likely won the Battle of Atlantic. Plus the American public was super isolationist.(If the Panay incident didn't make them go to war what makes you think that a couple of accidental sinkings of American merchants would?)

[vanjast]

Adolph was not as crazy as you think..

He was a very perceptive military strategist with regard to blitzkrieg and identified goals and targets precisely.

His downfall as a military strategist, and in general, was that he had no Plan-B (or C) if Plan-A failed. Allied spying intelligence saw to it that most of his Plan-A's failed.
That and his alter-ego which would eventually bring him into conflict with his generals, further damaging his military abilities