V1 and V2 are 3 months ahead of schedule

Wow.....can't really say much to answer that that would not involve me saying you'd be happy if the Nazi's won ww2.
I wouldnt, why would I? But I am just being objective and without bias. If someone asked me for instance what could taliban do to harm america I could give few things they could do, that doesnt mean I am being a Taliban. I am going to be honest and say that only guys I suport is the native americans, cause they didnt deserve what hapened to them during history, everyone else :p
 
When Adolf fucking Hitler shows more reluctance to attack civillians than Winston Churchill you realise just how fucked up everyone on both sides were, rant over.

If I was in charge of the Whermarcht 1944 I would recruit the camp guards for suicide missions ( karmas a bitch ) grab everyone who can hold a rifle and launch a major defensive campaign against the Soviets while ordering the western armies to move east or surrender. I doubt the U.S. army would rape Berlin.

My WWII scenarios involve WAllies being slowed down and the Soviets beaten back until as much of Germany is occupied by the West as possible.

So why not do that in the East, too? The Soviets weren't exactly rape-happy thugs, and if they march west unhindered, why precisely would the Soviets do this in this scenario? Shits and giggles? I would do the opposite: forget the East, send the huge armies west and underscore to the democracies that they never beat my armies, the Soviets did, to ensure maximum LULZ in the postwar scenario. The War in the East is already lost, the war in the West just might be won.
 
Well, that's the thing: some people want to see the roles reversed. To see Allies managing to screw everything up and the Nazis to be remotely competent at times. Whereas the Nazis were often plagued with terrible lack of foresight, an AH or PoD might be for them to have better foresight.

Even now, even in that post, you say the same things I was talking about, that Germany had absolutely no chance whatsoever at all, 0, zilch, nada, none, of ever succeeding because everyone there apparently have absolutely no idea what they were doing, and the Allies were capable of knowledge challenged only by [insert deity here] him/herself. Everything where a country does better sounds like a wank following that logic. In fact, seeing how the country was already wanked in history, nothing short of the Nazis taking over the UK and USA should be considered a wank at all. It's like saying a Napoleon AH in which his empire makes it through is a wank because of its continued existence.

They did roll sixes, and even in the East managed to twice halt Soviet offensives all along the Front, which in 1943 actually lengthened the war by a year or two in the Soviet Union's own territories. Third Kharkov was the best the Germans could do. The major dilemma for the Nazis is that when, not if, they invade the USSR the bulk of their combat strength is tied down in a war that as 1941 showed they can't even win when 97% of everything goes right in their favor. A stronger USSR, by comparison, can change very little to have a situation that favors itself even more and the Allied cause as a whole still moreso (albeit you then run into the Catch-22 that logistics makes a successful Overlord improbable before 1944 where a major Soviet advance earlier means a nasty little Cold War).

You never see POD's in which the Allies are making mistakes on this forum while the Germans do better? You're new here I think.

I think what some people are trying to point out is that OTL was such an unlikely German wank until 1941/42 that adding more improbables is like a dice player who has already thrown 3 pairs of sixes asking for another pair of sixes and asking everyone to comment on how likely it is to come up.

Another point is that you only have to scroll down all the threads opened on this website to see the large amounts of Axis doing better PODs. It's actually geting a little boring now as almost every scenario trying to get a Nazi victory has been explored countless times.

And of course in 1943 the Germans again rolled sixes in halting the general Soviet offensive of winter 1942-3, and tying the Allied down for months in North Africa (which was actually a very impressive feat), and in Italy (where to be fair the British seemed to neglect that charging up mountains when the enemy has firepower and the high ground will take time and effort, it was not a soft underbelly in any sense of the word). It was in 1944 where it all went south for them. Doing more than that by 1943 when the Red Army has the experience, will, and logistics to carry out major offensives is like having the Confederacy win the Civil War in 1865 after Lincoln was re-elected.

You can't really mean that there is no possible way for something who doesn't have every advantage to win, can you? Come on, now. The Nazis were more than capable of rolling a 6, and the Allies were just as capable of rolling a 1. Stop trying to strawman it; I'm not talking about "rolling a 19 on a 1d6", I'm talking about PoDs always getting shot down by the same, repetitive, if not ridiculously hypocritical(Nazis are too dumb to do something smart that might work, and too smart to do something "dumb" that might work) answers that only boil down to "No, the Nazis lose everything. Try to change it? Alright, they lose faster. Feel better?"

They did roll a 6 in 1943, however. It didn't do them a damned bit of good. They did roll a 6 in 1939, 1940, 1941, and a 5 in 1942. It did them no good. When they invade the USSR, they're dead, when they are at war with the USA, they're deader than dead. When they're at war with the USSR and the USA, the question is where the USA meets the Soviets. When at war with the UK, USSR, and USA, the question is where the Allies meet and when they meet, not if, and where the USA, UK, and USSR start remembering their real interests instead of the pesky idiots who don't understand that they're fighting a war they lost months beforehand.

Become slightly sane and withdraw from Stalingrad keeping an active reserve?

General retreat to a few rail hubs so as to make logistics that work?

Dont Launch Kursk at all?

It would end with mushroom clouds over Germany but still, more interesting.

None of those are an answer to the German dilemma. Withdraw from Stalingrad, they free up a huge mass of Soviet troops to attack the forces in the Caucasus from the rear. Withdraw from the attempt to seize Baku and Stalingrad, they confess they've lost, even while preserving a huge amount of troops, all of whom are demoralized at wasting all that blood for bupkiss.
 
Actually both Paulus and Zuhkov believed that 6th Army could break out of Stalingrad with ease, which is why Paulus requested permission to break out and Zukove grabbed as many troops as he could to fill up his lines expecting a breakout.

6th army would with certanty break out if it tried the question is what then?

leaving all of their heavy equipment behind and retreating at all after so much fighting would be very hard for them, and Hitler may just decide to recommit them.

That they believed it doesn't mean it was actually possible. People believe any number of things, even at the time, but even when they believe it they might in fact be mistaken or lying. 6th Army didn't have the logistical power to sustain a breakout, whatever the delusions of the Nazis in this regard. The Soviets, however, drastically undercounted their actual prisoner haul. Thus they attacked a force they estimated was 80,000 or something on that scale but was in actual terms in the triple digits.....
 

sharlin

Banned
Good point Snake, the Soviets did very severly underestimate how many they had in the Stalingrad pocket and they had very little information about their supply situation (or lack of it) and thought the germans were in a lot stronger position than they were.
 
Good point Jake, the Soviets did very severly underestimate how many they had in the Stalingrad pocket and they had very little information about their supply situation (or lack of it) and thought the germans were in a lot stronger position than they were.

And it's worth noting at the same time that the Stalingrad battle was a two-edged sword. The sheer length of time required to fully capture Paulus's army permitted the Germans to withdraw a good many forces west, to a point where Third Kharkov was feasible. If the Soviets get luckier then Third Kharkov or its equivalent is unlikely, and from then the Germans can only slow the Soviets when their logistics run short and then only temporarily, resulting in the 1944 scenario a year earlier.

While at the same time Overlord is unfeasible in 1943 for all the same reasons as per OTL, and the Allies are still going to have to launch Italy or something like it. The horrid truth in this sense is that logistics required for Overlord mean that the WAllies are going to be in a hell of a fix if the Soviet totalitarians are advancing at a jackrabbit pace without any real means to counter it. And the primary reason for this is that there aren't enough troops, enough landing craft, or enough plans to actually make an Overlord possible at that point. Where for the Soviets, it's actually rather simpler to advance overland and engage the Nazis in grand mechanized battles as opposed to having to worry about shipping, the CBO clearing the Luftwaffe from Normandy, and the whole war with Japan thing that dogged the Western Allies.

So the Nazis *did* actually accomplish a major feat with Third Kharkov. Their problem was that Third Kharkov itself was the last instance of Stalin contributing directly to disasters of Soviet arms in spite of repeated requests from STAVKA not to do that.
 

sharlin

Banned
Aye it was a bit of a switch for Stalin, he'd been listening to STAVKA and generally letting them do things all be it with his blessing and permission, only to interfear again and flub it up royally. Perhaps he thought that STAVKA was getting too much power and glory, his concerns about the popularity of Zuikov were made clear after the war.
 
Well, that's the thing: some people want to see the roles reversed. To see Allies managing to screw everything up and the Nazis to be remotely competent at times. Whereas the Nazis were often plagued with terrible lack of foresight, an AH or PoD might be for them to have better foresight.
You swap things around it gets even shorter, because a bunch of lucky Allied victories in the early years of the war basically sees German contained.

You can't really mean that there is no possible way for something who doesn't have every advantage to win, can you? Come on, now. The Nazis were more than capable of rolling a 6, and the Allies were just as capable of rolling a 1.
Germany, with some difficulty managed to put together a mixed formation of about 500 bombers (mostly medium bombers), by this time the Allies were putting together mono-type formations of over 1,000 heavy bombers. Germany couldn't match the Allies under any circumstances by that time.

This is on top of the guys at Bletchly Park having rubbed the '6's hitler's dice, and Canaris having loaded the dice to roll lower numbers.
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
Of course they were pinprick attacks, that`s the whole point, they were a waste of the biggest bomber force Germany could assemble at the time. If this bomber force was assembled within range of Pas de Calais, in line with German assumptions, then instead of being squandered in revenge attacks it could be expended attacking targets of real operational value in a very different operating environment.

So say if used instead at D-Day or the target of your choice, how much damage do you expect this bomber force to do?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Here's something I almost never see brought up: why is it that everyone immediately assumes that the Allies can never make a harsh error or otherwise fail/waste resources/lose in any measure, but the Nazis are so incompetent that every PoD either comes down to "It would fail and the Nazis would lose more" or "the Nazis are dumb and would never have thought of that"?

Heck, isn't the point of many PoDs to be that 1% chance? And yet, WWII seems to be the only conflict where there is a 99.9%(because there are admittedly one or two times where the idea was not shot down with the same logic) chance of the Allies succeeding exactly in OTL(if not more), and the Axis never being able to succeed more that OTL.

Well, that last part is a bit of a lie. They *can* succeed more, but then they lose faster everywhere else.

You ask a series of related questions here, so a series of answers.

1) Once Hitler has invaded the USSR, it is very hard to have a Nazi POD that gets a win. It would take very serious mistakes by the Allies or a long series of Nazi POD's.

2) Before Russia: If you believe Stalin will attack Germany anyway, it is hard to have a POD post Poland invasion. If you believe Stalin will attack only if Germany is clearly losing, then a POD is fairly easy. Something + no USSR invasion.

3) As to the emotional content. Hitler killed between 11-17 million civilians in actions totally unrelated to collateral damage. If he wins, the number is well over 50 million. Many people have trouble understanding 17 million deaths, much less 77 million deaths.
 
Anyway, I never suggested that the Nazis would win if they husbanded their bombers for use against Dday beaches. I merely said that they would achieve something, something more than was achieved in Op Steinbock and more than was achieved OTL Dday.

I don`t think that a force of 500 bombers getting some success in the particular conditions of the early Normandy invasion is a very `out there` suggestion. But apparently people think it is, and like to argue this with over the top points that I didn`t suggest.
 
Anyway, I never suggested that the Nazis would win if they husbanded their bombers for use against Dday beaches. I merely said that they would achieve something, something more than was achieved in Op Steinbock and more than was achieved OTL Dday.

I don`t think that a force of 500 bombers getting some success in the particular conditions of the early Normandy invasion is a very `out there` suggestion. But apparently people think it is, and like to argue this with over the top points that I didn`t suggest.

Given that the Allies expected the Germans to send 300 bombers and 200 fighters (or maybe it was 300 fighters and 200 bombers) the Allies were if anything prepared for strong Luftwaffe resistance, not the gutted out Nazi air force they actually confronted. No dice.
 
I just counted the front page of the Alternate Discussion Page after 1900. There are seven PODs on Nazis winning, doing better or what happens if the Nazis win or what happens if Hitler takes a dump at a different time of day.
 
Top