Jutland Redux

BlondieBC

Banned
According to most sources I have found the British committed aprox. 180,000 men over the course of the 4 odd year campaign. The bulk of these forces were comprised of militia type units from south Africa, Rhodesia and other areas of the British African holdings. there were also numbers of Indian troops as well as the African members of the Kings Own African Rifles.

Wiki says 250,000, but a lot could depend on how they were counted. But look at the civilian losses of 360,000 for an average combat strength of 15,000. Since most of these civilian deaths were porters working for the Entente, it means 20 people died for each solider in combat. And most of the time, only a small minority of the British were actually in contact with the Germans. This should help indicate how horrible the logistic situation was. Now there is a lot of dispute on the deaths of blacks,and the counts simply for the reason that it was not worth the effort to record black deaths. Number of horse dying in the Boer wars have been well analyzed but the a few hundred thousand native dying is not worth the ink to keep records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Campaign_(World_War_I)

While wiki is not perfect, it generally matches the few books I could find on the subject.

The Commonwealth forces deployed neither well trained or led initially, with a goodly number of them being not much better than an organized rabble consisting of white settlers out for a bit of adventure. The total original force, numbering around 20 thousand effectives, was very much a polyglot of of nationalities as well as from different regions and back grounds.

Taking nothing away from the noted advantage both in skill set, morale and ability, for the German forces under L-V were competent, well trained and much better led, just about any force that would have deployed against the Empire troops in East Africa would have looked surprisingly powerful and brilliantly handled.

No, they would not look powerful, the only one looking powerful is the god of disease, crippling the fine youth of Australia. The Germans also had issues, but they were using a low value resource to the German empire (black africans) to tie up high value resources such as good combat units from South Africa and shipping. The best move the for British would be simply to take the ports and forget about the interior. Let disease and hardship slowly wear out the Germans. What resource was in German East Africa besides the ports that could have possibly let the Germans win the war? If the ports are not taken, then there is a risk the Germans can resupply or conduct U-boat operations from Africa. After the ports are taken, there is no other targets of military value.

While you state that even though it is understood that the German forces knew that they were fighting a second -or even third rate - foe, they were training to fight the best. Now I'm just not sure, given the circumstances and conditions, just how one would prepare to fight a first rate force, when in fact you have never been exposed to one to know the difference.

The German officers have training in European warfare. And many 3rd rate Guerilla forces have done well against 1st rate armies.

But for the sake of argument, I will allow that these colonial German troops were the finest trained troops on the face of the planet during the war years. But what exactly did these fine troops do?

The German were trying to get the Entente to divert resources to Africa. So what do the Germans do, simple. Allow disease to kill the Entente soldiers. Allow the Entente to waste VAST amounts of resources supply a corp of troops running around deep Africa. And attack any vulnerable targets that are available.

Any of the troops they tied down while all of this was taking place were at the best second rate troops with even more mediocre command. Even with these low level forces the German forces had been forced back sufficiently that toward the end of 1916 L-W was basically being contained in the south by a force mainly comprised of battalions fro the Kings Own Africa Rifles.
Even General Smuts must have felt the situation to be well in hand as he buggered off to partake in the Imperial Council in London.

Of course they were easily contained. The same logistical issues that make the Entente life hard also work against the Germans. The UK could have chosen the containment strategy at any point and time IOTL.

As I have stated before, the whole campaign was fought by forces no larger than brigade strength (3 battalions) in any one locale.That is not to say that an overall battle might have had two or more brigades active in it, but rather that these forces were operating independently.

3 battalions = one regiment, not a brigade.

And with the extra forces eating supplies, you will not get even this many forces into a battle.

So up against the light forces he was historically facing, L-V would be able to campaign in the limited manner he did for as long as he did with little difficulty. There was never a sufficient force assembled at one time or place to mark him down.

And there never will be without a railroad being built. If sufficient forces were ever assembled, L-V would simply retreat and allow hunger and disease to cripple the British forces. The idea of trying to supply a division or larger unit deep in Africa with a porter system would be extremely dumb.

As is understood, the Imperial and allied forces deployed against him were in numbers up to at least 180,000 men over the four years of the campaign in East Africa. But that is not to say they had 180,000 men in the field at the same time. From what I can discern the Empire was lucky if it could amass 20,000 troops for any one particular engagement. This restriction was not so much due to supply restrictions but rather by the fact that was all they had available at a given time.

Not counting porters, I doubt they ever had 20,000 combat effectives in theater.

So we now have the Anzac Corps taking the field against L-V and his forces. The Anzac's roughly 50,000 men and well equipped are going to have some initial problems. The first will be to lighten up. They won't be quite so hard hitting as they would be in a more traditional battlefield, but suffice to say that they will still be packing a sizeably more qualitative whallop than the German forces facing them.
They will have more machine guns, mortars and even artillery than L-V can even imagine, for while the country precludes support forces at a level that they have been previously used to, they will still be able to bring significant batteries into play here. For if previous British forces as well as L-Vs troops had been able to man handle an assortment of dismounted naval guns up to 6" calibre through he African wilderness, you may rest assured that the Anzac's will find away to bundle along a portion of their 18pdrs with them.

As to the problems with supply, yes there will be concerns and real serious issues as well. But keep in mind that the British carrier Corps numbered some 50,000 men .... a sizable portion of their 180,000 troops in theatre. Now you can add to that at least double the number from the Portuguese, and th supply situation can be managed.

so now we have L-V facing down the Anzac Corp ... whats going to happen? Well in the first few encounters I see the Germans actually having a bit of an upper hand. They will be better able to manage the terrain and environment, which should translate into a certain degree of tactical advantage. The heavier fire power of the Anzacs will be a rude surprise and any sort of concentration of artillery fire will provide an interesting out come I would think.

The big advantage for the Germans which the have had up to now however will be fast sliding away. This disappearing advantage is the ability to break contact and withdraw. They will get away with it a few times, but eventually even the'poorer trained' Anzacs will figure it out, and when they do L-V and his troops will be in the dah dah.

Once the Anzacs realize the size of forces that are deployed against them, the marking down of the Germans will become fairly simple. The Anzacs have the big battalions and are capable of using them appropriately.

Very basic tactical deployments will be used to best the Germans ... advance to contact in the center. Then while using superior fire power to hold the contact, the forces on the wings flank the German position. This leaves two choices for L-V, bolt or be pocketed.
No matter how elite you might think L-V's force is it does not have the numbers to protect it's flanks. To stand is to die. He will have only one option and that is to continuously fall back. That will only work or so long as Africa is only so big.

Sooner or later The Anzacs will turn a flank or two. It is not likely to be a complete rout off the hop, but rest assured that each time it happens more of the resolve of these exceptional soldiers of the Kaiser will fade away. And each time that it does happen the losses of the Germans will be harder to recoup.... and sooner or later with sooner being the a better chance of occurring ... a proper envelopment will occur.

and as to getting to Portuguese territory, looking at it in light of events here, there's not much of a chance they'll make it that far, and if they do it's going to be a rag tag bunch of joggers.


You scenario is wrong. The number of porters was well over 100,000 men for about 15,000 men. To go to 50,000 men, you will need easily over 325,000 porters. The food for these porters also has to be brought in. As you increase the density of the porters, controlling disease like typhus becomes harder. So do a mental exercise, imagine the somehow the porters are at a rate of about 2000 men per mile of trail and the trial stretchs 160 miles form the port (only 1/3 of the length really needed). Every bit of food eaten by the porters has to be hauled from the coast. L-V retreats a mere 50 miles perpendicular to the porter line. That means everyone has to walk 50 miles perpendicular to the trail and establish a new path. This will take 2-7 days just to walk the distance. This may sound doable, but the problem is their will be not spare food laying around, since it is already a shoe string logistical budget. Not only would the men not eat for 2-7 days, they would have to wait until food could be hand carried the whole 160 miles form the coast, since the porters near the coast will have eaten any food in route.

So what has to happen is the ANZAC will have to leave a small contact force, maybe a battalion and their porters. The bulk of the ANZAC will have to then march toward the coast with the bulk of the porters and establish a new supply pathway from much near to the coast to L-V locations. Once this is done, L-V could just move again, maybe back to where it started. Chasing a few thousand poorly armed men who are controlling no strategic resources or high value assets with 50,000 men is just stupid.

You also need to think about a porter eating food, and how the food being eaten impacts the war. Estimates is that IOTL, only 1% of the food reached the combat troops. The porter ate the rest. To add that one porter at the very end of the trail to go from 160 miles to 165 miles, can literally mean 100 more porters along the length of the trail. It is an exponential relationship. The operation you are proposing requires millions of porters, perhaps up to 5-10 million. The Entente simply did not have that much spare food laying around.
 

sharlin

Banned
Blondie who are you having an argument with apart from some old posts which you already commented about and got replies about? Its rather obvious you don't like Germany loosing but it happens in fiction as it happened in reality.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Blondie who are you having an argument with apart from some old posts which you already commented about and got replies about? Its rather obvious you don't like Germany loosing but it happens in fiction as it happened in reality.

No, I don't like ASB battles in the post 1900 forum.

Read again what I posted. I did not say the CP would win due to this battle, I said they would waste a lot of resource and take a lot of casualties. I guess you just don't understand that if you send 50,000 men into the heart of Africa without supplies, they just die. And if you try to supply them using porters, which was what was available it is still a disaster. The Belgians did attack through the Congo, where they had both some rails and waterways to use, at only the cost of 100K to 1000K dead. The scenario in this TL related to East Africa is every but as ASB as the High Seas Fleet being nuclear powered, and therefore having unlimited range and 35 knot cruising speed. The logistics proposed in the TL only become possible for the USA near the 1950 using massive amounts of airdrops. You can't fight over 500 to 1000 miles using porters when the land has not farming to live off of. Napoleons logistics in the Russian Winter after Moscow is the closest to what is being proposed, and Russia would be a bit easier because roads existed.
 
and now to pd....

Yes, at first glance ( and more than likely the half dozen or so that follow) it is a bit ASB-ish, but keep in mind that the germans have been thinning out considerably due to the conditions in the east and Balkans. The Western Front for the Germans here is significantly weaker in this TL as opposed to the historical.

The British have not been taking the casualties in 1916 they did historically, and thus have been able to amass a much stronger force for this offensive.
Take another look at late 1918 - the British army of 1918 was about as strong, massively better trained and equipped than in 1916, and facing a German army that was bled white, half starved and ravaged by influenza. To get a good feeling for how bad their state was, try reading Junger's In Storms of Steel. Despite all this, the advances of 1918 were a great deal slower - in three months, they got halfway to Brussels. You've had the British army traveling roughly four times the distance in a third of the time. Even if the entire German army just decided to up sticks and go home the British would have struggled to move an army that fast - indeed, IIRC at the end of the war it took them 6 weeks to reoccupy the captured territory up as far as Germany, even without any opposition.

As to the depth of the advance and the composition of both attacking and defending forces, neither side would have anything approaching a properly organized force, but more in the vein of skirmishers for the most part.
If they're only deploying skirmishers, unless the Germans decided to ignore the war and go home then the British simply couldn't advance. As demonstrated many times in the war, without overwhelming force even a scratch defence of cooks, cleaners and bottle-washers could stop and advance cold. Haig know this, and was thorough enough that he wouldn't let small forces like that get mousetrapped by superior German forces. In the event of the German front collapsing (itself very unlikely, but more plausible in 1916 than 1918 as nobody really went in for defence in depth at the time) then I could see cavalry raids getting that far. Problem is, as in 1918, if they went too far they would get shredded in short order as soon as they ran into serious opposition.

The British advantages would be running more on their initial successes while the Germans were dealing with the need to remove as many troops as possible from a potential encirclement. Once both sides were away from the bulk of their support, supplies and communications it would have degenerated into a foot race to see who can reach their desired position.
Why would the German general staff (who were NOT prone to panic!) start running away? They know logistics very well (were superb at it in fact), and will be well aware that the British simply can't attack in enough strength fast enough to reach the Dutch border and cut them off. Orders would have been given to hold in place while the reserves (or if necessary, divisions taken out of the line while others were thinned out) were rushed to wall off the advance. The Germans rotated about 50 or so divisions through the battle of the Somme in OTL, with a relatively small number on the line at any one time and the battle of Verdun going on at the same time. Haig will, at best, have destroyed those divisions in the line when he attacked - which means that (absent any reinforcements for the Danube) Germany has 50+ divisions available even without taking any out of the line elsewhere. With the crisis facing the French, they can quite happily strip those German divisions facing the French out of line and send them elsewhere. There's no way they're going to send 100 divisions to the Danube in the face of a threat like Haig's attack.

As much as it would appear that the Germans have taken a grevious loss here, it will turn to a more advantageous position in coming posts believe it or not. Until both the Germans and British get themselves sorted out probably about the most cohesive Entente army in the west for the next few months is the Belgians and they are over stretched as well at this point.
As written, Haig is setting himself up for a gigantic version of Cannae. He isn't that dumb, no matter what Lloyd George may have written about him in his memoirs.

As to the thousand tanks, I agree the number is high, but whether they had a thousand or five hundred, the initial result would be comparable at this point in the war, while their longevity would make the whole matter moot in a day or two anyway.
Anything more than 50 really stretches credibility given the available industrial base, and does make a big difference - this is an attack on quite a wide front. With 500-1000 tanks, that means there is a continuous line of them attacking, even allowing for breakdowns. Get much lower than that, and there will be significant gaps in the coverage. This in turn will break up the offensive, making it a great deal harder to advance beyond the German first line in most cases (tanks can to an extent substitute for artillery - lose both and WW1 infantry can't take and hold ground without prohibitive losses).

Oh, and I agree with BlondieBC about German East Africa - there really isn't much for the British Empire there to gain, no logistics to support them, and far better uses for a veteran Corps (the Government of the time was obsessed with "knocking the props from under Germany" - the colonies weren't supporting Germany with the blockade in place, but the Austro-Hungarian Empire was - so I'd expect the ANZACs to follow the Indian troops from Turkey to the Balkans). There is also the relationship with South Africa to consider - it was always the most independent-minded of the dominions, and the British had fought a war against them recently. The campaign in German East Africa was largely their show - and sending a contingent who could almost be regarded as the enemy (16,000 Australians fought in the Boer war) to pretty much take over would not be good politics and might well be vetoed by the foreign office.
 
Battalions, Brigades and regiments .... a note

3 battalions = 1 regiment
.... that is if those three battalions are from the same regiment.

3 battalions ( in some cases more and in the odd case only 2 battalions) = 1 Brigade.

In the British regimental system common in most Commonwealth armies the standard Brigade was made up of battalions from individual regiments. While in some cases battalions from the same regiment were included in the same brigade, in most cases the make-up of the Brigades battalions would be from different regiments

It is a common misconception by those who are used to the army structure based on the Regiment as used by the Americans or German Army

The main cause for this is that the British battalion components of their Brigades are in most cases identified by their regimental names without the battalion identifier.

example (from the Canadian Army, but using the same British regimental system:
6th Brigade (from 2nd Division)
1st battalion, South Saskatchewan Regiment
1st Battalion, Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada Regiiment
1st Battalion, Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal Regiment

Now the battalion components which made up the brigade were seldom identified as battalions, being identified by their Regimental Names or in the case of those who served in the Brigade, by their abbreviated names ... in this case the SSR, The Cameron's and the FMR. While they were Battalions in actual strength, the soldiers would identify with their parent Regiment, no matter which battalion of the Regiment they were in.

Whether you were from a training company in Weyburn, Estevan, Moosamin or any other of the various armories that existed across southern Saskatchewan, or whether you were on the beach at Dieppe, slogging through the mud of the Scheldt or the shattered remains of the Reichwald, you were a South Saskatchewan and that was all there was to it.

So yes , Grasshopper a Brigade can bloody well equal three battalions , and while I am apparently in no way near your absolute cranial capacity for military history, you sir (or Ma'am) are apparently not without fault either. So if you want to be so god damned sure of yourself you bloody well make sure that YOU have YOUR facts straight before you start lambasting me or anyone else.



I'm beginning to think that maybe it's time to just say Corporal Hitler crawled out of his trench and farted nerve gas and have the British surrender as a result. It would appear that this is the the only result you will seem to accept as passable.

You know what ... to hell with it ... I've better things to do than waste my time trying to figure this out to an allowable level, so how be I bow out and you can have this place to yourself ... as I can see now any one attempting to portray anything other than a complete disaster for the British will be ran off anyway .

Oh hell, I'll just get it moved to ASB ... hell , maybe there should be a few more moved over to ASB as well ... of course anything with a Reich victorious wouldn't likely be considered ... after all, how can one question that Germanic perfection !
 
I'm beginning to think that maybe it's time to just say Corporal Hitler crawled out of his trench and farted nerve gas and have the British surrender as a result. It would appear that this is the the only result you will seem to accept as passable.
Not from me – the Somme in OTL was largely a (very bloody) draw. ITTL the British forces are more experienced, particularly the junior leaders. They’re stronger, and have (some) tank support. Given this, and the weakened German army, the most likely outcome is a major victory for Haig. Better still for the British, it won’t be the bloodbath of OTL so they won’t have manpower problems. The Germans, in turn, will be faced with dealing with a form of attack they aren’t doctrinally prepared for and aren’t equipped to deal with. They’re going to be facing much the same sort of dilemma they did at Cambrai, but the correlation of forces against them will be worse. Lots of worried people in the German high command, although they won’t be thinking the war is over yet – perhaps pressure on the High Seas Fleet to do something desperate to knock England out of the war?

What I just can’t get my head around is the exploitation phase. Commanders spent the entire war searching for a breakthrough along the lines of the one Haig has achieved here, and never managed it. Railways and the telegraph meant that the defender could always move faster than the attacker, with the sole exception of the original Schlieffen plan – which got away with it for a few weeks due to the sheer unexpectedness of the place of attack but even then ground to pieces on the Marne. In the East and the Ottoman Empire it was sometimes possible, as the ratio of force to space was much lower. On the Western Front there were just so many soldiers about it wasn’t possible without destroying the German army by attrition first.

What problems there are with the land campaigns largely come about through not allowing for the logistical difficulties faced by a WW1 army. The actual battles are, to me, pretty plausible – my problem is that you sometimes either have excessively powerful forces operating without the logistic support they need, or have advances moving faster than they could be supplied. Since Marius, soldiers have always carried about the same amount of weight in arms and equipment – simply because that’s what the human body can deal with for any extended period of time. In 1916, this amount worked out at just about what was considered necessary to hold a trench after it had been taken – leaving little margin for exploitation. Realistically this means that soldiers were limited to attacking no more than a few miles from their lorries/railways/mule trains.


You know what ... to hell with it ... I've better things to do than waste my time trying to figure this out to an allowable level, so how be I bow out and you can have this place to yourself ... as I can see now any one attempting to portray anything other than a complete disaster for the British will be ran off anyway.
Please don’t. Most of it is very good, particularly the naval scenes. It would be a shame if this wasn't continued.
 

sharlin

Banned
I really hope you don't let (constant) comments of a few, lets be honest here, fanboys, get you down. Yeah its a bit unrealistic, but then so too is reality itself, this story is a darn fine read and is not trying to be a Allies wank or CP wank as both sides have their issues.
 

Adler

Banned
Atr first, don't stop posting here. However, I still need to say, that it is very unrealistic, IMO ASB, to have the ANZAC capturing all of GEA and to have 1.000 tanks in use. Even if they were produced, which would still IMO needs another pod, they needed to be ready for action. Over 1/3rd of the original tanks did not reach the lines. Furthermore, the bigger the units, the more propable it is, they were detected by enemy spies. If you have a tank army of this force would very likely be detected much earlier. Anyway, let's role the dice and the British have luck. This doesn't cure the reliability of these tanks. Yes, they would take more land, but it would not be a route.

Furthermore I want to say, that this critics is constructive. I don't want to destroy your TL. In contrast. I want to help you. There is no reason to act in this way you did.

Adler
 
Don't stop posting this story, because it is damn good. 1000 tanks to the front, would need an early POD that Jutland, but it could be done. Maybe with the machine gun proving so deadly in 1914, and the trenches forming they start putting money into the tank in mid to late 1914? You might get a 1000 tanks on day one, but even with the early R&D POD, it will not fix the reliability of the early tanks, and say 60% would break down on the fix day. But if you follow the the Early Cambrai for the British, and have enough Resverse to punch through the gap if could be done. But keep writing.
 
Perky,
Don't let the fanboys get you down, it is after all, your story, and a very good one.

One note, in 1916, British brigades had 4 battalions, the change to the three battalion structure came as a result of Lloyd George withholding replacements from Haig.

Best regards,
Gator
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I'm beginning to think that maybe it's time to just say Corporal Hitler crawled out of his trench and farted nerve gas and have the British surrender as a result. It would appear that this is the the only result you will seem to accept as passable.

You know what ... to hell with it ... I've better things to do than waste my time trying to figure this out to an allowable level, so how be I bow out and you can have this place to yourself ... as I can see now any one attempting to portray anything other than a complete disaster for the British will be ran off anyway .

Oh hell, I'll just get it moved to ASB ... hell , maybe there should be a few more moved over to ASB as well ... of course anything with a Reich victorious wouldn't likely be considered ... after all, how can one question that Germanic perfection !

Most of your TL is fine, it is just when you get into land battles, you sometimes just make big assumptions that are not true. It is not even hard to fix, think in terms of the naval battles you seem to prefer. If one wants the High Seas Fleet to fight the USA Fleet at location X, you have to check if the ships have the range to get there. It is similar for land armies. First you have to check for the transport for the logistics. If there is not an existing battle that shows it can be done in that war or some other war, you have to then do a lot of work, just as a commander would have to do over unfamiliar terrain, but with much less detail. For example, in German East Africa, you would first look for battles where 50,000 men moved that far, that fast. AFAIK, there is none. OK, then they next step is to measure the distance that has to be moved, well over 500 straight miles. Next compare it to the European battlefield movement of WW1 where big advance on the Western front would be 10's of miles, and it might be hundred miles on the east. Then you look at the road map, rail map. Lots of RR and roads in Poland, Belarus. Look at German East Africa. Basically 3 railroads in theater, one based in Mombasa, one based in Tanga, one in Dar Es Salaam. The problem is you are trying to attack perpendicular to the RR system and in the South half of the country.

Yes it is some work, but if you want to write a major battle in ATL where one never occurred, be prepared to spend 30 minutes to a few hours writing the battle. Think of it in naval terms. It is easy to write a slightly modified Jutland where the Zeppelin spot the Grand Fleet early. To write a Jutland type battle in 1920, where WW1 starts in 1917 would take hours to 10 of hours to do.
 

Adler

Banned
I reread something about the first use of tanks. It was highly questionable, that they would work. Indeed many were against it. So only 50 were sent secretly to France. In the very first battle 49 of them were operational. Of them only 32 reached the first lines. And of thse 32 only 25 did actually attack. And 16 of them were either destroyed or struck behind. So less than 1/5th was operational after the battle.

Given these problems a POD is needed much earlier to introduce that number of tanks. Furthermore it must be tested thoroughly, kept secret and secretly brought to France. Oh, and a certain tactics is also needed to be used.

Otherwise the use of so many tanks is ASB.

Adler
 
I hope you continue your time line Perky, I for one think it's excellent please don't let the naysayers put you off, there are many more of us enjoying this than there are criticising it.
 
Sorry for the delay in getting back.

I'm piddling through a re-write, getting some stuff put together for the publisher, my 15 year old daughter informed me her mother can go to hell and that she wants to move her Punk Rock world in with me, work has been hellish busy the last three weeks (Three seventy hour shifts in twenty days), and I really need a Beer (Fort Gary Dark Ale ... maybe two!)

I'm hoping to have this rectified in the next week, but keep an eye on the ASB forum , I have a short story I'll be plonking there shortly just for light entertainment.

... Catch you all soon. ...
 
Is there any hope for this?

I am so very sad to get to the end of this thread and see that a nazi-FanBoy had derailed what was shaping up to be an excellent story :(

This TL has obviously been well thought out and researched and it upsets me that so many British TLs are lost to Anglophobe or FanBoys
 
I am so very sad to get to the end of this thread and see that a nazi-FanBoy had derailed what was shaping up to be an excellent story :(

This TL has obviously been well thought out and researched and it upsets me that so many British TLs are lost to Anglophobe or FanBoys

Kindly stop:

1. The practice of thread necromancy
2. With comments not even material to the thread.
 
... Thanks Obfuscated ...

Thanks, Obfuscated, I appreciate the thought.

I'm at present re-writing to make it acceptable to the fanboys and phobies here.... after all their opinions, thoughts and biases are to be accepted without question!

In the mean time I found a new time line on here in which Germany builds tanks in huge numbers in the latter years of the war and uses them along with tactics devised by Manstein to win World War One!

But of course as the story benefits a positive out come for the Germans the thought of branding it as ASB is verbotten!

You might want to take a look at it ... it's in post 1900 ... it's well written and a pretty good read for a German Wank ...
 
Thanks, Obfuscated, I appreciate the thought.

I'm at present re-writing to make it acceptable to the fanboys and phobies here.... after all their opinions, thoughts and biases are to be accepted without question!

In the mean time I found a new time line on here in which Germany builds tanks in huge numbers in the latter years of the war and uses them along with tactics devised by Manstein to win World War One!

But of course as the story benefits a positive out come for the Germans the thought of branding it as ASB is verbotten!

You might want to take a look at it ... it's in post 1900 ... it's well written and a pretty good read for a German Wank ...

Got a name ? Pretty please ?
 
Top