Hitler's shoes (You're in Charge)

Discussion in 'General' started by Gage, Mar 19, 2006.

  1. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    I'm not really sure how far Germany was from making their own Atomic weapon. And let's face it Hitler wouldn't have had any qualms about using it.
    If Britain had been successfully invaded I don't think America would have worried about the Nazis all that much.
    The invasion of Britain and Russia seems to be the key to this.
     
  2. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    we've gone round in that circle again, everyones too unsure of what the Soviet Union would've done.
    So. If Great Britain is occupied & The Americans are fighting In the Pacific, likely to come to terms with Occupied Europe after Japan is dealt with.
    Hitler pauses, Noone is sure what happens next...
    What do the Soviets do? Nothing? Ally? Attack? (The new Grossdeutschland or perhaps some other opportune target.) or Just a different kind of Cold war? (soviets, Germany & America as protagonists, wouldn't America be more likely to ally with Germany in the long run?)
     
  3. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    we've gone round in that circle again, everyones too unsure of what the Soviet Union would've done.
    So. If Great Britain is occupied & The Americans are fighting In the Pacific, likely to come to terms with Occupied Europe after Japan is dealt with.
    Hitler pauses, Noone is sure what happens next...
    What do the Soviets do? Nothing? Ally? Attack? (Grossdeutschland or maybe some other opportune target.) or Just a different kind of Cold war?

    Well, on the other hand, we have to consider what Strategic choices would have allowed Hitler to succesfully invade the British Isles. Seems that it would have required a real improvement of the Kriegsmarine, the Z Plan comes to mind here. The thing is the resources needed for all those extra vessels would have depleted the German Iron and Steel reserves, which in turns means that its quite unlikely that they would have been able to equip 10 Pz-Divisionen in 1940, let alone 20 in 1941.
    A weaker OstHeer would have certainly be seen as a good target by Stalin in 1942. Btw, I think the Germans didnt have the resources to succesfully invade both the UK and the USSR.
     
  4. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    Btw, I think the Germans didnt have the resources to succesfully invade both the UK and the USSR.

    I think that's a good point. Hitler would have make a decision between GB and Russia.
    What about just taking on Russia from the start?
    What if the Japanese didn't get involved at all or they attacked Pearl Harbor a year later?
     
  5. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    I think that's a good point. Hitler would have make a decision between GB and Russia.
    What about just taking on Russia from the start?
    What if the Japanese didn't get involved at all or they attacked Pearl Harbor a year later?

    Well, the Wehrmacht wasnt ready at all to deal with the USSR in 1939-1940. They just didnt have enough manpower to do the job.
     
  6. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Taking on Russia from the start leads to a similar situation to what actually happened, Great Britain as a jumping off point for the Western front. If we're playing the 'what if' game then I'm proposing that Britain is out. (Either occupied or settled with, What her Empire's doing?... Who knows?) I still see that as a possibility purely based on the perceptions of the British General Staff/goverment/people and the agreed significance of the Battle of Britain.
    As to the Japanese, If no Pearl Harbour then There's even less incentive for America to Intervene in Europe.
    If I'm in Hitlers shoes... for the moment.
    He pauses, feeling rather satisfied.
    America Watches.
    Stalins Move? (If he moves at all....)
     
  7. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    My head hurts.
    As i understand it, Japan had been planning war with America for at least a decade because they knew that their expansionist views would put them in direct conflict with the US. So if America had been completely engaged in the Pacific, instead of sending troops to fight Japan's ally Germany in Europe, then i think Hitler would have focused on just the one front. But why open up a Russian front when you have a treaty with them to keep them out of the way whilst dealing with Western Europe? What was the thinking behind this?
     
  8. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    What does Stalin do? Is he ready to do anything?
     
  9. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    Well, the Wehrmacht wasnt ready at all to deal with the USSR in 1939-1940. They just didnt have enough manpower to do the job.

    Explain, please.
     
  10. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Explain, please.

    They had about 8O divisions combat ready in 1939, 140 in 1940. Compare that to the 250 1941 divisions (200 allocated for the OstHeer) and remember that Barbarossa wasnt historically a Sunday walk for the Germans, and you'll get the point about how bad it would have been for a smaller and less experienced Wehrmacht to attack the USSR before 1941.

    (figures might be not 100 % accurate though)
     
  11. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    They had about 8O divisions combat ready in 1939, 140 in 1940. Compare that to the 250 1941 divisions (200 allocated for the OstHeer) and remember that Barbarossa wasnt historically a Sunday walk for the Germans, and you'll get the point about how bad it would have been for a smaller and less experienced Wehrmacht to attack the USSR before 1941.

    (figures might be not 100 % accurate though)

    Ok, fair enough. I don't know about the figures. But as a counter balance, what about the state of the Russian army?
    Let's face it the Russian army didn't do very well when Germany invaded anyway. So surely the Russian army wouldn't have faired any better in 1939?
     
  12. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    Ok, fair enough. I don't know about the figures. But as a counter balance, what about the state of the Russian army?
    Let's face it the Russian army didn't do very well when Germany invaded anyway. So surely the Russian army wouldn't have faired any better in 1939?

    Well the Red Army in 1939 had about 150 Rifle Divisions, 20 Cavalry Divisions, 6 Mechanized Corps. Even taking into account the fact that Soviet divisions were smaller than their German counterparts, the Soviets still have numerical superiority over the Wehrmacht (especially if taking into account the units of the 2nd and 3rd mobilization waves, about 100 Divisions).

    The fighting quality of those units would have been the same, overall bad, but remember that the 1939 Wehrmacht wasnt certainly the 1941 Wehrmacht when speaking about units experience and morale and leadership, while the 1939 Red Army wasnt really different than the 1941 Red Army.

    Attacking in 1939 roughly means that the Germans would have gone against the same enemy, without the benefits of 2 years of combat experience.
     
  13. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    Well the Red Army in 1939 had about 150 Rifle Divisions, 20 Cavalry Divisions, 6 Mechanized Corps. Even taking into account the fact that Soviet divisions were smaller than their German counterparts, the Soviets still have numerical superiority over the Wehrmacht (especially if taking into account the units of the 2nd and 3rd mobilization waves, about 100 Divisions).

    Attacking in 1939 roughly means that the Germans would have gone against the same enemy, without the benefits of 2 years of combat experience.

    I agree that the Germans should not have attacked in 1939. They were worn out from the Polish campaign. Units needed refits, many Panzers were in bad shape even before the French Campaign. The Germans attacked in the correct year 1941 at the wrong time. They should have started 3 months earlier and then pushed straight to Moscow and garrison the city.

    The Soviet Army was beheaded by Stalin. He had killed all or most of the Corps commanders as well as many Regimental commanders. The Soviets were not as well trained man for man and they were not as professional as their German counterparts. This was why the Germans had such an intial success, in addtion to the Blitzkrieg combined arms tactics.

    Hitler had a habit of moving troops around during the whole Russian Campaign which wreaked havoc on logistics and slowed momentum.
     
  14. ourbill

    ourbill Senior Member

    Hitler's shoes (You're in Charge)

    1. Shoot myself sooner, possibly on the defeat of Germany the first time!

    2. Go to Chile, Argentina or anywhere to play my silly games in peace.
     
  15. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    Well the Red Army in 1939 had about 150 Rifle Divisions, 20 Cavalry Divisions, 6 Mechanized Corps. Even taking into account the fact that Soviet divisions were smaller than their German counterparts, the Soviets still have numerical superiority over the Wehrmacht (especially if taking into account the units of the 2nd and 3rd mobilization waves, about 100 Divisions).

    The fighting quality of those units would have been the same, overall bad, but remember that the 1939 Wehrmacht wasnt certainly the 1941 Wehrmacht when speaking about units experience and morale and leadership, while the 1939 Red Army wasnt really different than the 1941 Red Army.

    Attacking in 1939 roughly means that the Germans would have gone against the same enemy, without the benefits of 2 years of combat experience.

    Thanks Exxley and Herroberst. Didn't know the state of things for both armies in 1939. You learn something new everyday.:)
     
  16. stalin

    stalin Guest

    it's not the matter of what state russian army was. as soon as russians declare the great patriotic war and guerilla, they're undefeatable. remember what happened to napoleon?
     
  17. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    it's not the matter of what state russian army was. as soon as russians declare the great patriotic war and guerilla, they're undefeatable. remember napoleon.

    Messed up in Russia, nearly destroyed his own coutnry through starvation and terror, and then got defeated not once, but twice! Yeah, Napoleon was a good choice of example there.
     
  18. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Bloomin 'eck! Someone agreeing with "stalin" there. That's a first.
    I can understand why he wants to remind us what the Soviets did in defeating the Nazis, just wish he didn't have to slag the Western Powers off.
     
  19. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I say give 'im a whole thread to keep pasting the same thing into over and over and over again. I think he'd like that.
     
  20. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    Messed up in Russia, nearly destroyed his own coutnry through starvation and terror, and then got defeated not once, but twice! Yeah, Napoleon was a good choice of example there.

    I was being sarcastic. I was not agreeing with stalin, as it my comment was about Napoleon's tactics in Europe prior to 1815 and his defeat at Waterloo. France was starving as all of the food was taken for the army/navy. There was a reign of terror to prevent anyone else usurping his power. and he got officially thrashed twice. So Napoleon was a wonderful example to choose to shore up a rubbish statement. i didn't get much sleep last night and so i forgot to post a smily. So here it is.
    :banghead:
     

Share This Page