|
Agesilaus II posted:There are a few changes to history that could have brought about Britain making peace after Dunkirk. In the first instance my personal opinion is that it would only have taken Lord Halifax to become Prime Minister instead of Winston Churchill to bring about this outcome. What is your justification for this opinion? quote:Assuming this did not indeed happen then the Germans would have needed to accomplished a few things. The first was destroy the RAF. Had the Germans stuck to bombing British airfields instead of switching to city targets then this might have been achieved If the RAF bases in Southern England were heavily attacked they would have simply moved their operations to more northerly bases. The RAF was already preparing to do this historically, when the Germans diverted their focus. Rebasing would put them out of range of German bombers, but still close enough to contest German air raids against London and other targets in southern England. It would have been more difficult to intercept German planes, and they would have less flight time in combat, but they still would have been in the fight, and they would still retain many important advantages over the Luftwaffe. quote:but it is very dubious whether air supremacy in itself would have been sufficient to allow the Germans to invade the British Isles. Dubious is an understatement. Sealion was about as feasible as an invasion of the moon.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Dubious is an understatement. Sealion was about as feasible as an invasion of the moon. God, it would suck to be a german soldier on one of those barges if they had tried. Just the fact that the barges would take 30 hours to get across the channel alone is terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 02:23
|
|
|
Tell me more about this invasion of the moon by the Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Tell me more about this invasion of the moon by the Nazis. Also interested in Albert Speer's spoor. What if Churchill was a porpoise, how would the war have gone? Medieval Chinese Warfare. What kept China from conquering the rest of south-east asia? If the Chinese had more vigorously pursued gunpowder, is it likely that they would have been able to better resist the colonial powers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Tell me more about this invasion of the moon by the Nazis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lJAw_BtM2g
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:If the RAF bases in Southern England were heavily attacked they would have simply moved their operations to more northerly bases. The RAF was already preparing to do this historically, when the Germans diverted their focus. Rebasing would put them out of range of German bombers, but still close enough to contest German air raids against London and other targets in southern England. It would have been more difficult to intercept German planes, and they would have less flight time in combat, but they still would have been in the fight, and they would still retain many important advantages over the Luftwaffe. The entirety of the British Isles was within range of the German bombers operating from both France and Norway, although these bases probably wouldn't have been seriously targeted as they were out of range of the 109s. In any case, it would have been a disaster for Fighter Command to try and defend southern England from bases in the north: they would have been meeting the 109s roughly halfway, and that would have negated their single most important advantage which was their endurance. The BoB wasn't a tactical battle, it was a battle of attrition, and RAF losses would have been far worse had they been operating at the extent of their range. Also, while I think we can all agree that Sealion wasn't going anywhere, I think that many historians kind of miss the fact that the Germans would have had a major leg up in the Battle of the Atlantic if they'd had air superiority over most of the British Isles, and who knows what would have happened had the Germans won that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The entirety of the British Isles was within range of the German bombers operating from both France and Norway, although these bases probably wouldn't have been seriously targeted as they were out of range of the 109s. In any case, it would have been a disaster for Fighter Command to try and defend southern England from bases in the north: they would have been meeting the 109s roughly halfway, and that would have negated their single most important advantage which was their endurance. The BoB wasn't a tactical battle, it was a battle of attrition, and RAF losses would have been far worse had they been operating at the extent of their range. It is a myth that the RAF was on the ropes until the Germans started targeting cities. Pilot replenishment and plane production was outpacing losses the entire time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The entirety of the British Isles was within range of the German bombers operating from both France and Norway, although these bases probably wouldn't have been seriously targeted as they were out of range of the 109s. Sorry, I mistook myself there, but the effect is the same. The bases were not outside the range of the bombers, they were outside the range of the Me-109s, which meant that the bombers could not attack them without risking an aerial massacre.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:It is a myth that the RAF was on the ropes until the Germans started targeting cities. Pilot replenishment and plane production was outpacing losses the entire time. I'm not sure what the "on the ropes" metric is, but Fighter Command's pilot quality was massively diluted by mid-August (on average new pilots were getting a whopping 15 hours of flight time before being thrown into the fight). Plus, although you're correct that production numbers of single seat fighters generally kept up with losses throughout the battle, squadron mechanics had a hell of a time keeping all aircraft that were on the books in the air. Depending on the source, most FC units had around half of their aircraft serviceable by mid-August; even if the planes were on the books, they weren't flying. The Luftwaffe had some similar (but not as pronounced) problems with maintenance, but their pilot trainees were still getting 250 hours of flight time prior to shipping off all the way through the Battle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
Can I get some recommendations for book on the Battle of Britain? I'd prefer books that are told from the viewpoint of the pilots, but I'm not adverse to more strategic-level writings, either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Can I get some recommendations for book on the Battle of Britain? I'd prefer books that are told from the viewpoint of the pilots, but I'm not adverse to more strategic-level writings, either. This is a pretty good collection of oral histories: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Voices-Blitz-Battle-Britain/dp/0091910048/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317138308&sr=8-1
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 16:45
|
|
|
I know next to nothing about asian history, and lately I've been really curious about one thing; During the ancient times, more specifically the early era of republican Rome, what were countries like Japan, Korea and China doing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 17:12
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:I know next to nothing about asian history, and lately I've been really curious about one thing; During the ancient times, more specifically the early era of republican Rome, what were countries like Japan, Korea and China doing? Japan was pretty much not doing anything (as in, not existing as a political entity) until around the 6th century. Even then, "Japan" (rather, Yamato) was more like a small confederation of people in the southern part of the country. Korea was divided in several kingdoms that fought each other all the time, with China either responding to agression or poking their head into the beehive now and then. China itself was in a repeating pattern of dynasties overtaking their previous rulers, expanding strongly, deteriorating and finally falling for the next dynasty in spectacular civil wars. When they were not fighting off various precursors of the Mongols, that is. In the meantime, current minor countries were strong kingdoms, such as the Khmer (current Cambodia) and Vietnam. Vietnam, at this time, was busy fending off Chinese agression with the help of badass chicks. No, really: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trung_sisters lilljonas fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Sep 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:On the subject of Alternate-History, is possible the Japanese could have won the pacific? I know this is a bit late and has already been answered, but I just wanted to point towards this basic article. The sheer economic realities facing Japan were absolutely ludicrous. (In Japan in 1943, 769,085 tons worth of merchant ships were produced. In the US? Over Eleven Million.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
That site reminds me, anyone who wants a book on endless statistics of WW2, from resource and weapon production, to weapons specifics, to army size, organization of divisions, where units were stationed, populations and casualties, ect, ect, this book is basically a wet dream: http://www.amazon.com/World-War-Statistical-Essential-Combatants/dp/0816029717/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1317153491&sr=8-12
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I know this is a bit late and has already been answered, but I just wanted to point towards this basic article. The sheer economic realities facing Japan were absolutely ludicrous. (In Japan in 1943, 769,085 tons worth of merchant ships were produced. In the US? Over Eleven Million. "Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor posted:If I am told to fight regardless of the consequences, I shall run wild for the first six months or a year, but I have utterly no confidence for the second or third year. The Tripartite Pact has been concluded and we cannot help it. Now that the situation has come to this pass, I hope you will endeavor to avoid a Japanese-American war. Japan could have held Korea and the eastern part of China. There was a lot of moral outrage about Japanese invasions there, but nobody did anything about it. The great irony of Japan at that time (the irony of all fascist governments) is that, once the expansion started, it couldn't stop. It took huge amounts of bravery, nationalism, and inhumanity to blatantly invade other countries. A country with those characteristics will never be satisfied with doubling/tripling/quadrupling its territory. It will keep expanding until it finally faces a coalition strong enough to utterly destroy it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Can I get some recommendations for book on the Battle of Britain? I'd prefer books that are told from the viewpoint of the pilots, but I'm not adverse to more strategic-level writings, either. The most recent book I read that covered the battle was "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay http://www.amazon.co.uk/Most-Dangerous-Enemy-History-Britain/dp/1845134818/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317164936&sr=8-1 It was pretty good, I recommend it
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Bagheera posted:Japan could have held Korea and the eastern part of China. There was a lot of moral outrage about Japanese invasions there, but nobody did anything about it. The great irony of Japan at that time (the irony of all fascist governments) is that, once the expansion started, it couldn't stop. It took huge amounts of bravery, nationalism, and inhumanity to blatantly invade other countries. A country with those characteristics will never be satisfied with doubling/tripling/quadrupling its territory. It will keep expanding until it finally faces a coalition strong enough to utterly destroy it. Can't agree. Japan's expansion was a deliberate and calculated move to obtain economic self-sufficiency. Likewise the same aim was at the heart of Germany's expansion (albeit warped by Hitler's erratic risk taking).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
Who did the Japanese fight besides Chinese nationalists? Was the rest of it colonies?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 10:56
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Who did the Japanese fight besides Chinese nationalists? Was the rest of it colonies? The British Empire. The Dutch Pacific holdings. The United States and her Pacific Island territories. Vietnamese Revolutionaries and Nationalists. And in the closing days of the war, The USSR.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 11:50
|
|
|
Bagheera posted:Japan could have held Korea and the eastern part of China. There was a lot of moral outrage about Japanese invasions there, but nobody did anything about it. The great irony of Japan at that time (the irony of all fascist governments) is that, once the expansion started, it couldn't stop. It took huge amounts of bravery, nationalism, and inhumanity to blatantly invade other countries. A country with those characteristics will never be satisfied with doubling/tripling/quadrupling its territory. It will keep expanding until it finally faces a coalition strong enough to utterly destroy it. The irony with economic self-sufficiency is that more that Japan fought someone, the more it needed the resources that someone had...so the more it needed to fight someone. Or find someone else to steal the resources. I mean, Pearl Harbor started because of American refusal to sell oil to the Japanese, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 12:38
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The British Empire. Everyone forgets the Australians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 13:58
|
|
|
Australia was part of the British Empire, dummy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 14:04
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Australia was part of the British Empire, dummy. Not by the start of the war, dummy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 14:09
|
|
|
Not since 1901 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 14:11
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Not by the start of the war, dummy. Well shut my mouth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
The Australians are a lot like the Wombles. They do actually exist, but everyone thinks they were made up for children's television.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 14:15
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Australia was part of the British Empire, dummy. Technically, they were a dominion of the British Empire. But the Japanese really did bite off more than they could possibly ever chew with that war. Almost went that way for the United Nations Forces during the Korean War when China joined in.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Everyone forgets there were still 1.3 million Japanese troops in Manchuria in 1945. The ineffectiveness of the Japanese army in conventional mechanized warfare was really laid bare when the 6th Guards Tank Army arrived to deal with them, mostly without leaving the comfort of their IS-2s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Technically, they were a dominion of the British Empire. Well the UK severed constitutional ties in 1931 and it just took the Australians until 1942 to ratify that action (relating back to 1939 so legally completely independent at the start of the war). e: ^^ That's not entirely fair to the Japanese. There's no way they could have held off the Soviets, but they were caught in the middle of a mass reorganisation and redeployment when tanks started rolling over the border, so they had no hope of resistance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
Having T-34's and IS-2s face off against Ha-Go tanks must have been quite a sight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Having T-34's and IS-2s face off against Ha-Go tanks must have been quite a sight. If I remember right the last chapter of David Glantz's When Titans Clashed is about the Manchuria campaign, which he pretty much describes as being the most by-the-numbers, perfectly executed offensive in the whole war. The Japanese were poorly equipped by comparison and inexperienced with fighting that kind of war, but on the other hand the Manchuria theater was enormous (580,000 square miles, more than twice as large as France) with extremely varied and challenging terrain, and the Soviet had it completely overrun in under two weeks. It's basically the single best piece of evidence to refute the idea that the Soviet military was at all unprofessional or incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:If I remember right the last chapter of David Glantz's When Titans Clashed is about the Manchuria campaign, which he pretty much describes as being the most by-the-numbers, perfectly executed offensive in the whole war. The Japanese were poorly equipped by comparison and inexperienced with fighting that kind of war, but on the other hand the Manchuria theater was enormous (580,000 square miles, more than twice as large as France) with extremely varied and challenging terrain, and the Soviet had it completely overrun in under two weeks. It's basically the single best piece of evidence to refute the idea that the Soviet military was at all unprofessional or incompetent. Man, and I thought Americans got the biggest battles in the Pacific War at the least...  fake edit: Holy poo poo, Soviets did that in eleven days?! Okinawa took two months!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Having T-34's and IS-2s face off against Ha-Go tanks must have been quite a sight. The Red Army was much much more modern than the Japanese army in almost all respects. The most glaring, noticable difference would probably be in artillery, since the Japanese artillery was so bad compared to the way the Red Army could concentrate and use heavy guns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Man, and I thought Americans got the biggest battles in the Pacific War at the least... Yeah, but that just illustrates what happens when you have a bit of space to conduct mobile warfare and don't have to just charge trenchline after trenchline ww1 style.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Man, and I thought Americans got the biggest battles in the Pacific War at the least... The island campaigns were a completely different beast. Put in that situation the Soviets would have been hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
This map on Wiki is great. It looks like the American contingency plan for when Pakistan's government falls.  Love how they threw in a couple of mass parachute jumps (1st Guards Airborne Division) and amphibious assaults in the rear for good measure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:This map on Wiki is great. It looks like the American contingency plan for when Pakistan's government falls. The American contingency plan for when Pakistan falls is a Russian invasion of China?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The American contingency plan for when Pakistan falls is a Russian invasion of China? Yes. Using Russia and Mongolia as staging areas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Yes. Using Russia and Mongolia as staging areas. I have no clue what you're talking about. Do you have a link to clarify or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 19:17
|
|