You haven't stated any facts. Would you mind giving constructive criticism rather than vaguely-worded insults?
The Second World War, 1939-1977: An Alternate History of WW2
- Thread starter Egbert
- Start date
In my humble opinion, then ASB gets thrown around a bit too much, and often only rightfully so when used sarcastically in DBWI to highlight how difficult it can be to imagine different outcomes.
To quote Burton K. Wheeler's aptly named posting "What ASB is and isn't", then "ASB is for alternate history scenarios that involve time travel, magic, alien intervention, anything in the sea of time, and other such weirdness. [...] ASB is not for implausible historical scenarios. "Challenge: German naval invasion of Britain in 1941" is very implausible, but not ASB. "Axis Forces from Russian border 21 June 1941 appear in South England instead" is ASB."
As a fan of dystopian timelines, then I am personally looking forward to seeing what Egbert is cooking up here.
To quote Burton K. Wheeler's aptly named posting "What ASB is and isn't", then "ASB is for alternate history scenarios that involve time travel, magic, alien intervention, anything in the sea of time, and other such weirdness. [...] ASB is not for implausible historical scenarios. "Challenge: German naval invasion of Britain in 1941" is very implausible, but not ASB. "Axis Forces from Russian border 21 June 1941 appear in South England instead" is ASB."
As a fan of dystopian timelines, then I am personally looking forward to seeing what Egbert is cooking up here.
You’re gonna deal with that attitude a lot.
tHiS iSnT rEaLiStIc eNoUgH. SeNd It To AsB!!!!
Some people just can’t enjoy a cool and interesting concept.
But go full steam ahead, Egbert. I’ve enjoyed what you’ve written so far and excited to see what else you come up with.
How does Germany manage to do what took RAF Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce nearly 18 months at a muderous cost in men and machines with heavy 4e bombers and long range escorts
How did the Luftwaffe manage to neuter the RAF without heavy losses when faced the worlds most advanced air defense system in the world and on top of the fact that the RAF could simply withdraw north if losses became to heavy and come back with fresh machines and pilots while the LE frittered itself away on raids on civilian targets
Don’t understand how FDR could have lost to Willkie in 1940. FDR carried 38 states with 449 electoral college votes. He had a 9.9% advantage in votes. It just seems that on the verge of a war it would be even more likely that the trusted incumbent would be re-elected.
If there is no Norwegian campaign, what about the German iron ore supply? GB was moving to lay extensive minefields when the Germans moved on Norway. No invasion of Norway and the Germans lose up to around half their iron ore supply for large parts of the year.
If there is no Norwegian campaign, what about the German iron ore supply? GB was moving to lay extensive minefields when the Germans moved on Norway. No invasion of Norway and the Germans lose up to around half their iron ore supply for large parts of the year.
If Germany had the P51D(Me-151) with drop tanks(just push things a couple years), they might be able to take out the RAF(I have no idea, but it has a lot of range), or at least harass it even if it moves north.
A robust intelligence apparatus(yes, it is a massive wank) that is capable of repatriating at least a percentage of downed pilots. Maybe sending them across the channel on an early Fulton with returning planes pulling them back over friendly territory? Training pilots how to repack their chutes so they can cut the balloons and ditch once they're pulled over, or have hot air balloons bring them down. Fake MPs that "arrest" fallen pilots, but actually bring them into German terrorist cells.
RADAR sites get hit with truck bombs? Ballooning saboteurs over to Britain? Deliberately dropping duds for use in truck bombs? Have fake EOD squads take the bombs away and use them in truck bombs later. Maybe the Germans have their own wooden wonder, though it's more of a Nazi AN-2. And preserve the paratrooper force by doing a better landing(or not landing at all?) on Crete. Just to have a body of saboteurs.
The circumstances surrounding the formation of the Dunkirk pocket could change, so the civilian evacuation doesn't happen in time.
And some stupidity on the part of the British. Maybe they do some Perfidious Albion thing and kidnap some high ranking official's family, only for the Nazis to retaliate and kidnap someone, and it ends up in a big mess, and public support for the war drops.
These aren't probable, but at least they sort of lie in the realm of probability.
A robust intelligence apparatus(yes, it is a massive wank) that is capable of repatriating at least a percentage of downed pilots. Maybe sending them across the channel on an early Fulton with returning planes pulling them back over friendly territory? Training pilots how to repack their chutes so they can cut the balloons and ditch once they're pulled over, or have hot air balloons bring them down. Fake MPs that "arrest" fallen pilots, but actually bring them into German terrorist cells.
RADAR sites get hit with truck bombs? Ballooning saboteurs over to Britain? Deliberately dropping duds for use in truck bombs? Have fake EOD squads take the bombs away and use them in truck bombs later. Maybe the Germans have their own wooden wonder, though it's more of a Nazi AN-2. And preserve the paratrooper force by doing a better landing(or not landing at all?) on Crete. Just to have a body of saboteurs.
The circumstances surrounding the formation of the Dunkirk pocket could change, so the civilian evacuation doesn't happen in time.
And some stupidity on the part of the British. Maybe they do some Perfidious Albion thing and kidnap some high ranking official's family, only for the Nazis to retaliate and kidnap someone, and it ends up in a big mess, and public support for the war drops.
These aren't probable, but at least they sort of lie in the realm of probability.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
That wasn't a fact. That was your opinion. I may well agree with your sentiments but not the way you (didn't) present them.
The October Ceasefire was signed in October 1941, which I should have been more clear on. The Germans also suffered heavy losses. The Germans also have slightly better intelligence (a little implausible, yes) and so bomb military rather than civilian targets more extensively.
I think someone commented that, I haven't actually touched America yet. I will in the upcoming updates. Wilkie, however, doesn't win. Sweden is still exporting ore to Germany, and they were as late as 1944 OTL. Still-neutral Norway is also.
These are all very interesting ideas, and I'm definitely going to use these during the actual European war. Thanks!
And thanks to everyone for their kind words.
New update should be out tomorrow. Thanks for the feedback!
This is already one of the most rapid era's of aviation development only being beat by the 1st World War you aren't going to be able to "push" things by a couple of years, aircraft development takes time and pushing a plane into service half-cocked without sufficient time allocated for both pilot familiarity and testing will prove more detrimental than useful.
The RAF was producing more planes than the Germans were shooting down while the German Aviation Industry could not keep up with losses it is a losing battle for the Luftwaffe.
There having the Germans do better and then there is having Britain drink lead paint. An operation of this scale would have so many failure points as to make nearly a complete pipe dream.
The Germans cannot keep going until October of 41 hell they couldn't even have kept going after October of 1940, there is no feasible way from them to actually neuter the RAF to any extent because when Bf-109s have less than 20 minutes of fuel North of London the RAF can and will withdraw if possesses become too heavy. They can decide whether or not they want to fight and they can do so on their own choosing, the Luftwaffe cannot.
Britain is not leaving the war in October of 41 if you want Britain to have the British government sign an armistice and then a white peace following Dunkirk. Also if Germany is pushing for reparations and what not White Hall is not having it nor are they going to accept having to pay for PoWs with Industrial Machinery. Such terms can and will be flatly rejected out of hand.
It's possible for the P51 to be introduced a earlier in the war. The air frame and the engine were available in 1940. Even if operational losses end up higher, the Nazis could gain enough in Air to Air to offset them. And I wouldn't say the Luftwaffe was adverse to pushing incomplete prototypes into the field. It's just this time, it just happens to work out. Maybe more breakdowns happen under circumstances that allow the pilot to return to base with a fixable plane. And maybe the earlier introduction of this plane hampers research elsewhere, and the specific reasons why the Me-151 could be introduced earlier don't apply to later aircraft. It's a little authorial fiaty, but less so than what happening now.
What about an earlier move to total war production? Their economy would implode, but it gives the author more room to fudge things.
This was more a bunch of different plans and methods of executing those plans, scale would be the number of RADAR sites being targeted, and the number of pilots that can expect to be rescued. And I don't think whole thing doesn't fall apart because one part fails. When the British figure something out the Germans are onto something else. The Germans can fly in saboteurs, and they could rescue a number of pilots. I don't think they'll come close to rescuing a significant number of them, but they could always get a couple of aces back. I also honestly think the Nazi agents could get away with impersonating British soldiers, pretending to be EOD techs and MPs and that they'd be able to run amok for long enough to cause significant damage. And we're not trying to destroy every single RADAR site, but destroy enough to make a hole( a "small" and vague number to give the Luftwaffe and the author some room).
I still don't think winning the Battle of Britain would get an armistice, though. The British will have to drink lead paint at some point, we just have to make it plausible. I mean it is sweet.
Taking out the radar sites would not be enough to win the Battle of Britain for the Luftwaffe. The Chain Home stations were not capable of tracking enemy aircraft once they had crossed the English coastline, and Chain Home Low, which would have done so, did not yet have the coverage. The visual tracking posts operated by the Observer Corps and their reporting network -which was the RAF's primary tracking service overland- would also have had to be neutralised.
Alternatively, the Germans could have just shot Beppo Schmid, head of the Luftwaffe's intelligence branch, and put somebody competent in charge of bombing assessment. Somebody who could work out that grass airfields with craters could have them filled in very quickly and be operational the next day.
Egbert, I do have to take you to task over your assumption that the RAF bombing Soviet targets would result in communist riots in British cities. Communist groups did not have widespread support in the UK, less so after the war started. Furthermore, Stalin's decision to invade first East Poland and then Finland led to a lot of revulsion in the country at the Soviet Union. Had the RAF action you describe actually taken place I think the general feeling would be 'serve them right'.
Alternatively, the Germans could have just shot Beppo Schmid, head of the Luftwaffe's intelligence branch, and put somebody competent in charge of bombing assessment. Somebody who could work out that grass airfields with craters could have them filled in very quickly and be operational the next day.
Egbert, I do have to take you to task over your assumption that the RAF bombing Soviet targets would result in communist riots in British cities. Communist groups did not have widespread support in the UK, less so after the war started. Furthermore, Stalin's decision to invade first East Poland and then Finland led to a lot of revulsion in the country at the Soviet Union. Had the RAF action you describe actually taken place I think the general feeling would be 'serve them right'.
The Pacific Campaign
Hopefully better research than the last update (
). Comments?
American bomber over Tokyo, c. 1946.
From "The Second World War: 1939-1977", by Michael Fairfield
"Shorn of any Eastern allies, the United States and Britain were at odds. Britain wanted to maintain a “Europe First” strategy, while the United States looked increasingly toward the Axis nation in the Pacific: Japan. The attack on Pearl Harbor, and subsequent invasions of the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island, had been major blows to US power projection in the region. Throughout 1942 and 1943, as the “white peace” reigned in Europe, the United States’ naval power was reconsolidated, and carrier raids were consistently carried out against Japanese holdings. On a darker note, anti-Japanese sentiment surged at home, culminating in the March 1942 internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans.
Between 1944 and 1945 the primary three US holdings in the South Pacific, the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island, would be liberated. The Marianas, Okinawa, and Saipan would be the site of savage fighting, but with naval superiority firmly belonging to the United States, the pendulum swung in favor of the Allies. Royal Navy forces decisively liberated the East Indies, Burma, and Malaya. The Japanese Empire would slowly be bottled into the Home Islands.
One of the most controversial decisions of the Pacific Campaign, possibly the entire war, was the decision not to use the atomic bomb in Japan. Recent studies have suggested that their use could have hastened Japanese surrender by as much as a year. President Truman was called to use it no less than nine times, and refused in every instance. Ultimately, however, the fear that the lagging Soviet and German missile efforts would be transformed into true nuclear programs was an overriding one. But even had they been used, the occupation of Japan would have been no less brutal.
The mining of the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan isolated the nation from its Soviet ally, and near-continuous firebombing from American B-29, later B-36, fleets shattered their industrial capacity. The effectiveness of the submarine blockade was near-total. Red Navy ships attempting to provide relief were sunk without warning, making those sailors the first forgotten casualties between the two powers. The Unconditional Surrender issued on October 24, 1946, and Douglas Macarthur was appointed military governor. Nearly 4 million civilian lives and the existence of Japan as an industrial nation had been the price."
). Comments?American bomber over Tokyo, c. 1946.
From "The Second World War: 1939-1977", by Michael Fairfield
"Shorn of any Eastern allies, the United States and Britain were at odds. Britain wanted to maintain a “Europe First” strategy, while the United States looked increasingly toward the Axis nation in the Pacific: Japan. The attack on Pearl Harbor, and subsequent invasions of the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island, had been major blows to US power projection in the region. Throughout 1942 and 1943, as the “white peace” reigned in Europe, the United States’ naval power was reconsolidated, and carrier raids were consistently carried out against Japanese holdings. On a darker note, anti-Japanese sentiment surged at home, culminating in the March 1942 internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans.
Between 1944 and 1945 the primary three US holdings in the South Pacific, the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island, would be liberated. The Marianas, Okinawa, and Saipan would be the site of savage fighting, but with naval superiority firmly belonging to the United States, the pendulum swung in favor of the Allies. Royal Navy forces decisively liberated the East Indies, Burma, and Malaya. The Japanese Empire would slowly be bottled into the Home Islands.
One of the most controversial decisions of the Pacific Campaign, possibly the entire war, was the decision not to use the atomic bomb in Japan. Recent studies have suggested that their use could have hastened Japanese surrender by as much as a year. President Truman was called to use it no less than nine times, and refused in every instance. Ultimately, however, the fear that the lagging Soviet and German missile efforts would be transformed into true nuclear programs was an overriding one. But even had they been used, the occupation of Japan would have been no less brutal.
The mining of the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan isolated the nation from its Soviet ally, and near-continuous firebombing from American B-29, later B-36, fleets shattered their industrial capacity. The effectiveness of the submarine blockade was near-total. Red Navy ships attempting to provide relief were sunk without warning, making those sailors the first forgotten casualties between the two powers. The Unconditional Surrender issued on October 24, 1946, and Douglas Macarthur was appointed military governor. Nearly 4 million civilian lives and the existence of Japan as an industrial nation had been the price."
There will be no love lost between China and the USSR if the Soviets aren't merely neutral towards Japan, but fully fledged allies of the Empire of the Rising Sun.
Thanks!
A praise-hungry, strutting autocrat in general's clothing.
The Sino-Soviet split will occur far earlier than OTL, and will be a major stepping-stone to Chinese reunification.
Thanks for the feedback!
Yep. New update should be out tonight or tomorrow. Should be about the Axis during the cold peace period.