Worked out I ww1, I think the real problem is their tendency to fight the Russians, the French and the British all at the same time and then and the Americans on later.Germany invading Russia?
Dumbest strategic decision that each country participating in WWII could have made, but didn't?
- Thread starter Deleted member 97083
- Start date
-
- Tags
- operation pike ww2
Can you not read? Or were you too horry to make a joke?Germany invading Russia?
Invading France in 1942 like some Americans wanted to do. Conversely, continue attacking in Northern Italy instead of pulling French troops out to invade Southern France, as Churchill wanted.
Total divisions under the frontier military districts are 147, plus 5 more under the 13th Army under STAVKA command. The Southwestern and Southern Front's largely escaped the historical destruction around the frontier region. So it would be much more then what the Soviets lost OTL in the frontier region in June through early-July. It would basically be Minsk-Bialystok times Kiev.
I've discussed the issue at some length on this forum, will hunt down those posts momentarily, but it has the potential to be a war loser for the Soviets.
Yeah, you can contemplate plenty of worse operational decisions that the Germans seriously considered but strategically they pretty concretely pissed away victory. You don't get much worse then that.
Last edited:
Blondie covered this fairly well. WPO was rolled into the RAINBOW plans. Kimmel's WPP-46 published in March 1941 was that Pacific fleets operational portion. That was up dated & used by Nimitz from Jan1942.
WPO served as the template for US strategy & operations in the Pacific War.
The British Army continues to try and conform to outdated and ineffective French Orders during the Invasion of France.
Or even better
Britain Seeks terms following the Battle of France - giving Germany a free hand in the east
Or even better
Britain Seeks terms following the Battle of France - giving Germany a free hand in the east
Crap, sorry up at 2.00 a.m. needed sleep.
1. operation tannenbaum the german invasion of Switzerland in ww2.
2. operation cherry blossoms at night. proposed use by the Japanese in hit mainland America with bioweapons. no impact except making America angry.
3.operation roundup, D-day a year sonner
4. The ija gets to invade Russia
5. operation unthinkable
6. operation sealion
7. The allies plan to invade Norway
8. operation downfall
9. the plans for a Japanese invasion of Australia
10.Germany going all out to try and take Moscow in the winter of 1941-42 leading to a early Stalingrad.
Last edited:
Anything involving Winston Churchill without the calming hand of General Alan Brooke. Brooke was offered overall command of the Mediteranean and Middle East in 1942 if he had left Britain there would have been no one to moderate Churchill which could have led to an invasion of the Baltic coast in rocket powered Panjandrums or an invasion of Germany via China.
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
Border forces couldn't really defend properly, what do you think they would have done advancing against the most maneuver flexible force in the world sitting on their pre-war air bases and logistics?
Also the Soviets hadn't really even started the extension and expansion of logistics in the annexed Polish regions, which the Germans, when they invaded, found to be the weakest link in their own rail logistics that they weren't able to fix until 1942. So the Soviets attacking West out of that would find their logistics imploding before long, especially as their TOE of supply trucks for units like their Mechanized Corps were far too low for the task as they found in the defensive fighting in Summer 1941. That and they were in the middle of an equipment upgrade, so spare parts and serviceability was extremely low for both the new and old equipment, both of which broke down in shocking numbers before even getting into combat IOTL on the defensive.
Germany: Devoting all resources to Sea Lion would have been even worse than invading Russia
Japan: Attacking Russia at the same time it attacked US, UK, etc.
Italy: Sending more forces into the Baltics and/or Russia
US: Two alternatives: 1) Going almost full-out Japan first, 2) Insisting on a Normandy invasion in 1943
UK: Insisting on a Normandy invasion in 1943
USSR: Two alternatives: 1) Abandoning Moscow as with Napoleon, 2) Attacking Manchuria simultaneous with the German invasion
For Finland,
1.) Like others have already written, Finland accepting Soviet demands in 1939 and Finland making all-out attack against Leningrad in 1941.
2.) Not making peace in March 1940 and instead on counting Western help. Finnish lines were on verge on collapse and Soviets were planning a huge ice-bound flanking offensive in Ladoga as well.
3.) An all out counter-offensive in late Summer 1944. Wouldn't have a fair chance of succeeding, would have spilt a large amount of blood for nothing
4.) Trying to make a stand in VT line (main position in 1944). Would have lead into destruction of Finnish Army in fairly short time
1.) Like others have already written, Finland accepting Soviet demands in 1939 and Finland making all-out attack against Leningrad in 1941.
2.) Not making peace in March 1940 and instead on counting Western help. Finnish lines were on verge on collapse and Soviets were planning a huge ice-bound flanking offensive in Ladoga as well.
3.) An all out counter-offensive in late Summer 1944. Wouldn't have a fair chance of succeeding, would have spilt a large amount of blood for nothing
4.) Trying to make a stand in VT line (main position in 1944). Would have lead into destruction of Finnish Army in fairly short time
It doesn't seem like a bad idea to have built more fighters than bombers, given that the French air force was smaller than their German counter-part and would hence need to have a larger percentage of fighters to be competitive in the air.
Traditionally, you stop tanks with anti-tank guns. I'm given to understand the French were lacking in good numbers of those.
Yes and no. Really what works is a mobile defense of mechanized forces backstopped by a fortified anti-tank network. The AT defenses slow down and bleed the attacker while the mobile forces maeneuver around and roll up their flanks. The French didn't conceive of war in those terms in 1940. Conseqiently their defensive networks were too linear and their planned counterattacks were too slow in coming together.
Deleted member 1487
The French had more artillery than the Germans, those double as sufficient AT guns. Especially the 75.
Not exactly, their tanks were better than the Germans in terms of armor and armament so could stop them on the defense and with frontal attacks. But remember to the French innovated the hedge-hog defense during the 1940 campaign to stop the Germans. Operationally they had issues with mobile warfare not adhering to a strict plan due to the lack of radios and having lost air superiority. Just about anyone was going to lose in that situation and it was their bad luck to have walked into a trap and then lacked the strategic depth like the Soviets to recover and replace their losses and wear down the attacker with poor infrastructure and distance.
Last edited by a moderator: