The WWII in "Central Powers won WWI" World

daveman83

Banned
Actually you are not venting. You are in specific violation of Board Policy that requires



I would strongly recommend that you keep this in mind.


If i say that I'm venting or being friendly then that is what I mean. If policy prevents insults, what is an insult and what isn't is purely an opinion. If someone says that i don't know history then i can take that as an insult. Or if someone says I'm an idiot I don't have to take it seriously. However, if you want to be a Nazi then you are obviously free to do so. What are you going to do? Kick me from the Forum? OH BUMMER. If it even bothered me(which it wouldn't) I could simply go make a new email for free and make a new profile which would all take a matter of minutes. So you go Moderator. Do what you "have" to.
 
I think the technology of the war has to be looked at thoroughly as well. If ATL WWI ends quickly, how will tank technology have developed? Airplane? Now granted there will be interwar development but could less experience with say aircraft lead to more battleship centered navies in this ATL WWII?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I think the technology of the war has to be looked at thoroughly as well. If ATL WWI ends quickly, how will tank technology have developed? Airplane? Now granted there will be interwar development but could less experience with say aircraft lead to more battleship centered navies in this ATL WWII?

Generally speaking if WW1 end early, the general technology level will be much higher by 1940 than OTL, but some specific military will be retarded by lack of funding. WW1 killed huge numbers of future scientist and engineers. It largely bankrupted all the powers involved. Only Japan won WW1.

Airplanes were being used prewar, and would have shown great value even in a war of a few years. They will be more advance overall than OTL.

Air cars had been looked at prewar. Motorized transports regiments in corps exists. Likely again to be more advance until you get the specific runup to a new major war.

If WW2 had been fought a half decade earlier, it still would have been a battleship focused war. To some extent, it still had a large surface focus in the early days. It is harder to call in an ATL due to various competing factors.

In a "quick" WW1 ATL, the economies are bigger than OTL. There is still a navy rivalry. The military budgets in the 1920's are larger. The RN budget is a lot larger. So we will see better battleships. With serious funding for AA defenses, we could see radar controlled 40mm guns and proximity fuses years if not a decade earlier. A ship much like the Iowa class in 1944 could have been operational in the early 1930's. CLAA could have become standard escorts. In this environment, one can see difficulty securing funding for major carriers. A task force of 4 Iowa's, 8 CLAA and 16 Destroyers of the 1944 technology era (OTL) would fair quite well against a pair of carriers with 1935 technology (OTL).

On the other hand, there are trends that would push carriers. Even without a naval limitation treaty, all sides will have budget issues even if mainly political. Germany or other powers may pursue large submarine forces with a merchant warfare strategy. They may pursue surface raiders. Carriers are a good partial answer to both issues. Plane technology could be years or even a decade head of OTL. The basics needed for precision guide weapons exists. If there is a move towards 17"-19" guns BB, then cost will soar. In a win for Germany, the lesson is that the world's largest and best navy did not prevent defeat, so there can be pressure to learn different lessons from OTL.

It could go both ways on BB versus carriers.
 
...

Unless its a total route of France (seems hard to do considering OTL), Germany would be wise to not make too many demands besides forcing France to politically recognize Alsace-(and possibly)-Lorraine (or should we say Elass-Lorthagin lol if its spelled right) as indisputably German territory...they would probably be forced to yield parts of the Congo and Morrocco but that's it IMO. Most African territory that would have been taken would have been acquired by the Belgians. Its in Germany's interest to keep France from going over the top, while enjoying the spoils of Victory...however, the East is a different matter...
 
If i say that I'm venting or being friendly then that is what I mean. If policy prevents insults, what is an insult and what isn't is purely an opinion. If someone says that i don't know history then i can take that as an insult. Or if someone says I'm an idiot I don't have to take it seriously. However, if you want to be a Nazi then you are obviously free to do so. What are you going to do? Kick me from the Forum? OH BUMMER. If it even bothered me(which it wouldn't) I could simply go make a new email for free and make a new profile which would all take a matter of minutes. So you go Moderator. Do what you "have" to.

Since you clearly have no respect for this board or its rules and don't have any intention of following them, I'm just doing what I "have" to do.

Banned.
 
Top