Had the Axis Won in Eurasia and Africa, Did They Have a Chance at Conquering North America?

Yes, 4 total aircraft carriers, of which the US would outnumber the Germans about 8-1.
The picture is bleaker than you paint. The German aircraft carriers were hot garbage. They could only hold something like 30 planes. Each US carrier could hold 2-3 TIMES that. So the Germans are orribly outnumbered in decks, but when you consider the actual point of carriers they are outnumbered even worse.
 
But boosting the Fascist Party in the USA is more easy, fam. So, you don't have to invade North America to trigger the peace conference
 
It's actually not even that close. The US would have 17 new battleships (North Carolina class and up) plus the 12 Standards, the two New Yorks and Arkansas. That's thirty-two battleships against Germany's ten. Three-to-one odds is not a formula for success for Germany. And that's not even counting @CalBear favorite ships, the six Alaska class. Which would probably be tasked with hunting down Germany's heavy cruisers and pocket battleships. And that's assuming that the carriers completely miss the German fleet (unlikely) or the two sides run into each other in bad weather and the aircraft are grounded. In other words, no matter how Germany meets the USN, they lose. And not only do they lose, they get crushed.

B-b-but muh Nazi Super Science!
 

SsgtC

Banned
B-b-but muh Nazi Super Science!
Well, maybe your Nazi super science could design a few ROVs to check out the wrecks of what's left of the Kriegsmarine in a few years and count the shell, bomb and torpedo holes
 
Mo, they just have to beat the Russians. They would have the industrial capacity of Europe and able to outbuild Britain + USA. After that, the Germans would have air superiority and could bomb Britain into submission rather easily.

Not really. Firstly the British have the help of the USA, whose aircraft industry outproduced everyone else combined. Secondly the industrial productivity of the conquered territories in the west was dismal, I doubt conquered Soviet industry is going to do better, especially when combined with a policy of extermination and no they can't 'play nice' temporarily, they need to starve those people to free up the food to keep Germany and Western Europe from starving. The armaments boost Germany experienced in 1943-44 is in no small part the product of cannibalizing what was left of the civilian sector, the basic necessities of life vanished and infrastructure such as railways and electricity supply were teetering on the brink. The NAzi economy was basically a series of desperate measures designed to stave off disaster even when they weren't at war, it simply can't be sustained for the kind of investment needed to build a force to invade the USA.
 
And then the US Navy shows up along with marines/the army and politely informs the idiots in charge that they really should reconsider. Or they inform the suddenly extremely well-equipped neighbors of that country that season’s open.

Even at its most isolationist the US drew the line at the Western Hemisphere.
Fidel Castro might have something to say about that.
 
Fidel Castro might have something to say about that.

Have had. Past tense, given he can't exactly say much.

But The Cuban Revolution was a bit of a unique case. Strictly speaking, Washington DID draw the line at the Western Hemisphere in the sense of keeping Eastern Hemisphere military forces out (The Soviets withdrew the nukes), and it was done under the shadow of M.A.D.
 
Have had. Past tense, given he can't exactly say much.

But The Cuban Revolution was a bit of a unique case. Strictly speaking, Washington DID draw the line at the Western Hemisphere in the sense of keeping Eastern Hemisphere military forces out (The Soviets withdrew the nukes), and it was done under the shadow of M.A.D.

This. What exactly is Hitler going to do if the marines storm ashore against a Facist Castro?

Absolutely nothing. Because he CAN'T do anything effective against the USA.
 
Nazi Germany is not the USSR. It’s not efficient or powerful enough. And for the reasons I laid out above MAD won’t be a thing.

where does this myth come from that the nazis were "ineffcient"? I wouldn't ask them to develop a sustainable,competetive peace-time economy,but in war (including multi year spin up for war) they were scarily effective. Which is apparent from the fact they took a medium tier,poverty ridden nation,entered a war 6 years later,and kept the better part of the rest of the planet engaged for 6 years,wasting much of it in the process.

I mean,yeah I know its en vogue to trash man in the high castle style fantasies,but lets not overcorrect. the memetic nazis some of here conjure would have collapsed 1937,or be conquered by the czechs in 38.
 
where does this myth come from that the nazis were "ineffcient"? I wouldn't ask them to develop a sustainable,competetive peace-time economy,but in war (including multi year spin up for war) they were scarily effective. Which is apparent from the fact they took a medium tier,poverty ridden nation,entered a war 6 years later,and kept the better part of the rest of the planet engaged for 6 years,wasting much of it in the process.

I mean,yeah I know its en vogue to trash man in the high castle style fantasies,but lets not overcorrect. the memetic nazis some of here conjure would have collapsed 1937,or be conquered by the czechs in 38.

The Nazis weren't scarily effective so much as the Allies were scarily ineffective during the early stages of the war, when it was really just one colossal blunder after another(that all of this still was not enough for the Nazis to actually win the war is telling). And while the Nazis did not collapse in 1937, they certainly would have in 1939 had the Allies bothered to, you know, actually fight a war.
 
where does this myth come from that the nazis were "ineffcient"?
This little place called reality.

The Nazis were horribly inefficient by design. There’s a reason Britain outproduced them in every category other than small arms until 1943. With a victory as laid out in the OP this will be even worse since there will be no shift to a total war footing.

Look for instance at the Victory program, which cost 2 billion dollars and produced nothing of value. Compared to the V-2 Germany could literally have dumped that money in a hole and BURNED it and come out ahead. In comparison the US took that amount of money and built cans of instant sunshine.

The Germans were equally bad at other facets of production. Their tanks for instance had to be hand finished, and were welded, a time consuming process that was both impossible to check, and difficult to fix. The Americans by contrast riveted their tanks. This was fast, easy to check, and simple to fix. Sherman’s could literally be driven off the assembly line. No touch-ups required.

I wouldn't ask them to develop a sustainable,competetive peace-time economy,but in war (including multi year spin up for war) they were scarily effective. Which is apparent from the fact they took a medium tier,poverty ridden nation,entered a war 6 years later,and kept the better part of the rest of the planet engaged for 6 years,wasting much of it in the process.

The Nazis built up by overheating their economy unsustainably.

Also, what you’ve laid out is NOT evidence of efficiency in any form.
 
where does this myth come from that the nazis were "ineffcient"? I wouldn't ask them to develop a sustainable,competetive peace-time economy,but in war (including multi year spin up for war) they were scarily effective. Which is apparent from the fact they took a medium tier,poverty ridden nation,entered a war 6 years later,and kept the better part of the rest of the planet engaged for 6 years,wasting much of it in the process.

I mean,yeah I know its en vogue to trash man in the high castle style fantasies,but lets not overcorrect. the memetic nazis some of here conjure would have collapsed 1937,or be conquered by the czechs in 38.

If you really want to understand the Nazi economy then I suggest reading Tooze's 'Wages of Destruction'. The Nazi 'peacetime' economy was a trainwreck that made war all but inevitable and they launched war in 1939 because they realized that their lead in rearming had peaked and the western allies would soon overtake them. Their wartime economy staggered on for six years courtesy of a heady mixture of looting, mass starvation, slave labour and brutal repression. By 1944 they had come up with such delightful schemes as 'performance feeding' and anyone who failed to meet their targets was apt to wind up in a concentration camp, from where they were apt to wind up being worked to death building things like the Nordhausen V2 production line. Nazi Germany wasn't efficient, it was simply willing to cannibalize every other aspect of society to meet the demands of Hitler and his military machine.
 
It's actually not even that close. The US would have 17 new battleships (North Carolina class and up) plus the 12 Standards, the two New Yorks and Arkansas. That's thirty-two battleships against Germany's ten. Three-to-one odds is not a formula for success for Germany. And that's not even counting @CalBear favorite ships, the six Alaska class. Which would probably be tasked with hunting down Germany's heavy cruisers and pocket battleships. And that's assuming that the carriers completely miss the German fleet (unlikely) or the two sides run into each other in bad weather and the aircraft are grounded. In other words, no matter how Germany meets the USN, they lose. And not only do they lose, they get crushed.

The picture is bleaker than you paint. The German aircraft carriers were hot garbage. They could only hold something like 30 planes. Each US carrier could hold 2-3 TIMES that. So the Germans are orribly outnumbered in decks, but when you consider the actual point of carriers they are outnumbered even worse.

Oh, I'm quite aware. Even if you only pick the numbers that little, comparing modern bb vs modern bb and actual cv size vs each other makes it stand out even more starkly.

When it's unachievable when you compare raw numbers, and then compare everything else that the US has and the quality advantage the US will have... It's not even funny.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Oh, I'm quite aware. Even if you only pick the numbers that little, comparing modern bb vs modern bb and actual cv size vs each other makes it stand out even more starkly.

When it's unachievable when you compare raw numbers, and then compare everything else that the US has and the quality advantage the US will have... It's not even funny.
Yeah, I was looking at some numbers earlier today. Had the US not cancelled a ton of ships towards the end of WWII, they would have had 73 Light Cruisers, all commissioned from 1938 on. 56 Heavy Cruisers, built from 1929 on (with the bulk of them being newer Baltimore, Oregon City and Des Moines classes). Hell, the USN would have had so many cruisers, they could have stopped the hypothetical invasion using just them and they could have left their capital ships at home!
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The first thing to keep in mind is that if there is no embargo or other U.S action in the Pacific, the Japanese never engage the U.S. or UK. Much as the Navy might want some additional basing to the South the Army is never going to allow a distraction from the war in China. That sort of stops the scenario cold right out of the gate.

However, lets look at the chances of the Reich engaging the U.S.

As noted, the Reich's fleet is, even in its most unlikely configuration, going to be notably weaker than the USN (no matter how fast the KM builds the USN will have a massive head start and what were, by 1942, the most efficient yards the world had ever seen). What has not be noted is that the USN would, in this scenario, be much LARGER than IOTL.

As a brief series of examples - IOTL the U.S. cancelled three Midway class CVA eight Essex long hull CV, failed to complete two Iowa class BB that were partly completed, cancelled five Montana class super BB, four of the loathed Alaska Class CB, fifteen CA (6 Oregon City class, 9 Des Moines class), 17 CL (11 Fargo class, 6 Worcester class), 66 DD (12 Sumner class, 52 Gearing class) and 113 SS (62 Balao class, 51 Tench class) simply because the war was won and there was no enemy left to oppose. The ships cancelled would outnumber the proposed KM in sheer number, much less in quality.

In addition to this, the Western Hemisphere would also undoubtedly host most of the Royal Navy (nice thing about a ship is that it moves, if things are going tits up at Portsmouth, there is always Halifax) along with the Royal Family/British Government in Exile, probably in Ottowa. While small compared to the USN, the RN would actually be pretty much an overmatch for the the Plan Z KM, especially in carriers.

So you have a naval force outnumbered at least 5-1, very likely more than 5:1 in critical areas (don't even look at aircraft, the fully built out Essex and Midway classes would mount ~3,900 combat aircraft, the KM ships might manage 150, this doesn't include the now undamaged pre-war Lexington, Yorktown, and Wasp class ships or the Royal Navy decks) that would have to destroy the Western Hemisphere forces before any sort of landing could even become a fever dream. That doesn't begin to account for the mind numbing number of heavy and medium bombers, land based fighter bombers and land based pure interceptors that would be available to face the KM. IOTL the U.S. produced 10,000 P-38, 9,500 P-39, 15,000 P-51, 3,300 P-63 (if there is one number that demonstrates just how much excess capacity the U.S. had, 3,300 Kingcobras has to be a strong candidate) 13,700 P-40, 15,600 P-47, 7,400 A-20, 2,500 A-26 12,700 B-17, 18,500 B-24, 9.800 B-25, 5,200 B-26, and 3,900 B-29. These would be opposed by the survivors of the 150 KM aircraft that had already faced well over 4,000 carrier aircraft mid-Atlantic (BTW: the actual number of carrier aircraft produced is ~33,000 fighter-bombers, 14,000 dive bombers, and 9,800 torpedo bombers). Now with the changes in this scenario the number of aircraft by type will undoubtedly be different, with more of the later model aircraft and fewer of the pre-war designs, this of course also means that, as an example, rather than facing 7,000 SB2C Helldivers it will be 11,000 AD-1 Skyraiders.

tl;dr: Impossible.
 
Last edited:
North Reich

American military forces are focused on fighting Japan after Pearl Harbor. Hitler's army has taken Stalingrad, defeated opposing countries in Western Europe, England has surrendered, and German troops, including the terrifying Gestapo, now control Canada, with a puppet government in Ottawa.

https://www.amazon.com/North-Reich-Robert-Conroy-ebook/dp/B008BVXZXO

Well if you had a North Reich scenario were the leadership of London, Washington and Ottawa are busy eating paint chips?

Washington: Germany has just couped Ottawa and is moving Army Groups from Europe into Canada? Eh, let’s ignore it we are busy in the Pacific... now pass the paint chips.

Nah.
 
Plan Z had essentially zero amphibious transports, LST equivalents, or landing craft. Of course no AKA or AO types. Assuming that these magically appear some time between 1948 and 1950, without of course interfering with the other German shipbuilding plans, there is the small issue of developing doctrine for amphibious warfare, including combat loading of ships (see Guadalcanal assault for what happens if not done properly), coordination of naval gunfire support and air support with the assault plans, and much more. While you are developing this you need to train the troops, boat crews etc. OTL it took the Marines from the early 1930s until Guadalcanal to begin to get it right, and even then they continually improved throughout the war. If you posit the Nazis go to Argentina and fight their way north, I'll give you their complete lack of amphibious capability may not matter as much - of course they have to get to Argentina and keep the supply lines from the factories in Europe open.

As far as German carrier aviation, assuming fighting on the continent stops around 1943, at this point they have zero carrier qualified pilots and air crew, zero flight deck crew. The black shoe types are easier. How long will it take to get an adequate number of carrier qualified pilots who can take off, find a target, have a shot at hitting something, and find their way back. After that they need to be able to defend themselves, and maybe defend their floating airbase. To go from zero to that is 5-10 years.

If it had not been for Okinawa as a base, invading Japan even after the 20th AF and friends had burned it to the ground, and no imports were arriving would have been almost impossible. Invading a USA untouched by significant destruction from the Azores, or using Bermuda as a base...really???
 
Top