Search results

  1. Pacific War Redux

    For those who have been awaiting the next update, my apologies. :o I dinged my right hand up a bit on Friday, nothing serious but annoying, and typing is a bit more of a chore than usual (my three post tonight took almost an hour of typing). I will get more posted ASAP. Thanks for your...
  2. USA fights only Japan

    Nukes? Not Germany. Not hardly. Not until the British have working weapons as well as the U.S. Germany's research program was an utter failure and would need more than a bit of time to get squared away.
  3. USA fights only Japan

    The big problem here is that the Reich lacked the naval power to shut down the Channel or Malta. Never had it, never had much hope of getting it. As I noted in my other post, it is also very likely that the U.S. would use it's status as a nation attacked to become VERY defensive with regards...
  4. USA fights only Japan

    Disadvantage in capacity?:confused: To ANY version of the USSR?:confused::confused: You have go to Be joking. You are talking about an economic system that, for the better part of half a century, controlled Europe from the inner German border East to the Urals and still could not feed...
  5. Pacific War Redux

    No. Short break (I discovered Hulu. :eek::D). I will hopefully have some updates by the weekend.
  6. WunderWaffen, how plausible were they?

    Many of them DID work, while others were simply idiotic. The Type XXI was an excellent design that worked very well, and several of the early jets worked exactly as designed. Others were so far ahead of the available tech that they were impossible as the Star Trek's Enterprise-E. The giant tanks...
  7. Was the Cold War Preventable?

    In 1948 the USAF had EXACTLY 96 fighter bomers in Western Europe, a wing of P-47s and a wing of F-80s. By 1948 the West WAS relying on the A-bomb to hold the Soviets at bay and was in no shape to fight a war in Europe. The U.S. has demobilized, the UK had cut its military to bare minimums and...
  8. Was the Cold War Preventable?

    You are making the same error that Hitler made, with even less excuse since history shows that the concept is flawed. You expect a populous to cave in on itself because a few cities are bombed. It simply does not work that way. You have to put boots on the ground to defeat an enemy with WW...
  9. How could the Axis have won WWII?

    Hmmm... Germany 1/3 + Italy 1/3 + Japan1/3 __________ Axis 3/3! :D:p:D
  10. How could the Axis have won WWII?

    Except Germany is only a third of the Axis. Italy and Japan also have to achieve victory.
  11. How could the Axis have won WWII?

    Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: If you mean by Victory Germany, Italy, and Japan achieving their goals defined as: 1) German hegemony over Western Europe, a defeated and destroyed Soviet Union and German replacement of Slavic residents of Eastern Europe up to the Volga, and a...
  12. Hitler employ more elastic strategy...

    The basis of this POD is remarkably unlikely. Hitler, as well as the Reich leadership below him, shared a trait of rigidity of thought. The entire Nazi braintrust (such as it was) was driven by ideology not by any sort of reality. To have Hitler and his lackeys suddenly adopt a radically...
  13. Where Jets that useful in WW2?

    It is strikingly unlikely that the addition of more FW-190 and/or JU-88 airframes would have substantially altered the timeline of the European War. The Allies were outproducing the Reich as such a high rate that there was no way for the Luftwaffe to even keep pace. EACH of the three allies...
  14. Different Japanese Naval Construction Program?

    The OP doesn't mention any such trade. The Treaties also didn't provide for any such exchange of tonnage between "capital ships" exceeding 10,001 tons and aircraft carriers which were treated a special category of sub capital ship. The totals were the totals and were absolutely rigid. The...
  15. Different Japanese Naval Construction Program?

    Assuming the Japanese comply with the 1922 and 1930 Naval Treaties (or as IOTL, mostly comply until circa 1934-35) there would be virtually no difference. Japan, as well as the U.S. & UK had built out to their Treaty limits on carrier tonnage just as they had in other classes of vessels (frex...
  16. Normandy: Redux

    Dear God! Don't try to discuss common sence with Bard! For that matter, don't try to lure him back!!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek: ;):p
  17. what would the least number of troops needed to......

    Modern Day level tech? 40,000,000, maybe more. Effectively impossible to have a successful invasion if the aliens have same level tech since there is no hope of bringing enough force to bear to overwhelm the total military forces of the Earth. 50 years out? That would probably indicate orbital...
  18. Most plausable good breaks for D-Day

    The difference is that none of the Allied landings in the ETO had been "kick in the door" style landings. (in North Africa the only credible defense was by the Vichy French forces in Morocco and it was minimal, Sicily didn't have any noteworthy beach defenses at all, Salerno was a hodge-podge...
  19. Soviet advisors die in Vietnam

    The Superpowers during the Cold War had advisors in virtually every hot spot on Earth. I doubt that there was a single war between 1945 and 1991 that did not have a American, British, Chinese, French, or Soviet advisor element. Most of the time both sides did. Afghanistan to Zaire there were...
  20. Most plausable good breaks for D-Day

    There are several that spring to mind 1. The Allied bombing of the beach defenses is far more successful and manages to eliminate the barricades on the beach exits from Omaha. This will mostly reduce losses rahter than change the war, but it still a substansive difference. 2. Somebody...
Top