What are plausible decisions Nazi Germany could have made to improve their performance in the War?

thaddeus

Donor
read Wolves without Teeth https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1599&context=etd about German torpedo crisis, correct their problems would be war changing.

Test your Torpedos and magnetic detonators in various sea areas rather than just the Baltic. Change in magnetosphere, water density and temperature impacted Torpedos to the point that almost a year of submarine warfare was lost due to faulty equipment. It was still successful overall, thanks to Deck gun and lack of Allied preparation but loses could have been far far worse if proper testing was done.

There were not enough subs. Even if every torpedo fired by U-Boats worked, there still wouldn't be enough of them to make a big enough impact.

they had torpedo problems when fired from destroyers also, not to the same extent, but it proved costly, at Narvik for instance.

in addition there was single minded focus on correcting torpedo problems, when they could have been plotting advances?
 
Also, like, you guys realize that former Venezuelan Presidents, Eleazer Lopez Contreras and Isaias Medina Angarita, were vocal supporters of Mussolini, right? Like, they could've turned Fascist, Pre Allied persuasion in 1941.
Venezuela is in South America. Nazi Germany is in Europe. There is something called The Atlantic Ocean on the shortest, direct, route in between South America and Europe. How do you propose that Nazi Germany move large quantities of oil from South America to Europe across the Atlantic Ocean if there is a British naval blockade?
Since this is not the Alien Space Bats forum, answers which involve teleportation or advanced cloaking technology of large oil tankers are not valid/'plausible' with the available 1940's technology.
 
Last edited:
Venezuela is in South America. Nazi Germany is in Europe. There is something called The Atlantic Ocean on the shortest, direct, route in between South America and Europe. How do you propose that Nazi Germany move large quantities of oil from South America to Europe across the Atlantic Ocean if there is a British naval blockade?
Since this is not the Alien Space Bats forum, answers which involve teleportation or advanced cloaking technology of large oil tankers are not valid/'plausible' with the available 1940's technology.
Couldn't Germany just transport the oil via Airlift, they could essentially do opposite Berlin Airlift. It's not that hard, plus, they could also sea travel via Pacific Ocean.
 
Couldn't Germany just transport the oil via Airlift, they could essentially do opposite Berlin Airlift. It's not that hard, plus, they could also sea travel via Pacific Ocean.
Transporting large amount of liquids via air is difficult, not to mention dangerous, even today. Liquids have no fixed form and will shift around, messing up the balance.
And those air transports will consume so much fuel (aircraft engines in 1930s were not very efficient) that the plan will be basically consuming more fuel than they're transporting.
That's why oil tankers are still around today.
 
Also, like, you guys realize that former Venezuelan Presidents, Eleazer Lopez Contreras and Isaias Medina Angarita, were vocal supporters of Mussolini, right? Like, they could've turned Fascist, Pre Allied persuasion in 1941.

They are right across from the United States too. Siding with the Axis, even prePearl Harbor would not have been conducive to keeping power.


Couldn't Germany just transport the oil via Airlift, they could essentially do opposite Berlin Airlift. It's not that hard, plus, they could also sea travel via Pacific Ocean.
...no.

But let’s set aside economic inefficiencies that render the idea ridiculous. What PLANE are the Germans going to use?

As for Pacific Ocean travel...uh...from where? Venezuela doesn’t have a Pacific coast. The US will laugh in their faces if they try to use Panama, so around S. America they go. Oh, and since I doubt the British will let them use Suez. Well, more than once after the British sieze the first convoy while laughing themselves silly, that means also going around Africa, and then onto the direct route from S. America to Europe. Having added 20,000 km (or significantly more rather) to their journey for no reason whatsoever.
 
They are right across from the United States too. Siding with the Axis, even prePearl Harbor would not have been conducive to keeping power.



...no.

But let’s set aside economic inefficiencies that render the idea ridiculous. What PLANE are the Germans going to use?

As for Pacific Ocean travel...uh...from where? Venezuela doesn’t have a Pacific coast. The US will laugh in their faces if they try to use Panama, so around S. America they go. Oh, and since I doubt the British will let them use Suez. Well, more than once after the British sieze the first convoy while laughing themselves silly, that means also going around Africa, and then onto the direct route from S. America to Europe. Having added 20,000 km (or significantly more rather) to their journey for no reason whatsoever.

Alright, alright. That's enough debating. Can we please get back to what this post was ORIGINALLY for?

Thank you.
 

donanton

Banned
looks pretty good for Nazi Germany, though i have some questions

1. There were not enough subs. Even if every torpedo fired by U-Boats worked, there still wouldn't be enough of them to make a big enough impact.

2. You mean give Slovakia to Hungary right? They had a pretty short war in March 1939 where Hungary almost crushed Slovakia. If Germany supports Hungary then the Slovaks are screwed.

3. Germany can't really give anything to Finland. They are still under the MR treaty, which gave Germany the raw materials it needed to stay alive. Though covert assistance (the CIA type) is not ruled out though. But overt assistance is definitely a no.

4. I agree. Sweden was playing both sides in WW2. They sold iron ore to Germany and intel to the UK. Typical behavior for a country stuck between a rock and a hard place.

5. I disagree on this point. The Germans could never hope to get to the Caucasus by winter 1941. Moscow is far better, as its a rail hub, transport hub, symbolic city, and home of Josef Stalin. If Stalin stayed and the Germans killed him somehow, then resistance would collapse pretty quickly. The Soviet only fought on in 1941 because they were more scared of Stalin than Hitler.

6. Looks like Heydrich is going have a lot more work to do. The SS would probably get rid of all current assets, and maybe if they looked closely enough they might find files about the Oster conspiracy. But that's a whole new TL in itself.

1. I know. But wars are rarely won just by one arm or one thing. An extra million tons of merchant shipping could be a difference in terms of British willingness to talk peace or fail an operation or two. Even possibly death of Churchill and sinking of Nelson class at the same time.

2. True. But I doubt Nazis really cared for Slovak plight and Hungarians are an actual fighting force that could have eased some of Wehrmacht manpower issues of by nothing else serving as garrison troops. A more trusting Hungary would be willing to do so.

3. Overt is definitely out of question but nothing is forbidding Germany from selling some tanks, aircraft or submarines to Swedes or Norwegians. Not Hitlers problem what they do with it or that Fins get an explanation of such covert aid.

5. Entire Moscow push happened due to Halder. In fact even planing for Fall Blau was subverted by Halder who sent supplies to center hoping to force Hitler into a push on Moscow by presenting him with fait acomply. Instead he got a mess, made Hitler paranoid about micromanaging everything and ensured Fall Blau failed thus losing Germany the war. Russians didn’t surrender when Napoleon took Moscow. They still held Archangels, Murmansk and Vladivostok. Supplies will flow. Without cutting access to Soviet oil Soviets will fight on. It’s a war for survival after all.

6. Yep. But bottom line being that even not having an intelligence agency is better than having a secretly hostile one undermining you.

they had torpedo problems when fired from destroyers also, not to the same extent, but it proved costly, at Narvik for instance.

in addition there was single minded focus on correcting torpedo problems, when they could have been plotting advances?

There wasn’t really that great of an innovation when it came to torpedos. Arguably most were worse than basic oxygen contact torpedo due to having shorter range. Only exception being Zaukonig sound guided torpedo. It could have been a war changer early on. Others were mostly just pattern searching torpedo.
 

thaddeus

Donor
they had torpedo problems when fired from destroyers also, not to the same extent, but it proved costly, at Narvik for instance.
in addition there was single minded focus on correcting torpedo problems, when they could have been plotting advances?
There wasn’t really that great of an innovation when it came to torpedos. Arguably most were worse than basic oxygen contact torpedo due to having shorter range. Only exception being Zaukonig sound guided torpedo. It could have been a war changer early on. Others were mostly just pattern searching torpedo.

my point was they were dealing with a crisis, largely of their own making due to minimal testing, when they could have been working on advances based on wartime experience .

just from a practical sense they might fire multiple torpedoes, giving away the fact there were uboats in the area, when they could have employed just one. this also shortened the time they could remain at sea.
 

thaddeus

Donor
2. Split Czechoslovakia with Hungary to win them over.

3. Provide far greater aid to Finland during the winter war to indebt them to you.

2. You mean give Slovakia to Hungary right? They had a pretty short war in March 1939 where Hungary almost crushed Slovakia. If Germany supports Hungary then the Slovaks are screwed.

3. Germany can't really give anything to Finland. They are still under the MR treaty, which gave Germany the raw materials it needed to stay alive. Though covert assistance (the CIA type) is not ruled out though. But overt assistance is definitely a no.

2. True. But I doubt Nazis really cared for Slovak plight and Hungarians are an actual fighting force that could have eased some of Wehrmacht manpower issues of by nothing else serving as garrison troops. A more trusting Hungary would be willing to do so.

3. Overt is definitely out of question but nothing is forbidding Germany from selling some tanks, aircraft or submarines to Swedes or Norwegians. Not Hitlers problem what they do with it or that Fins get an explanation of such covert aid.

my suggestion was for a M-R Pact that excludes Finland and the Baltics, but rather includes Romania. they needed both their trading partners around the Baltic Sea (to avoid becoming solely dependent on the Soviets) and the oil of Romania (all of it and without the historical barter)

which leads to a division of Romania by Germany-USSR-Hungary-Bulgaria. "but they needed Romania to invade East" how did that work out for them? they prompted Romania to build up their forces to incredible level, were not able to equip them properly, and then became the victim of the Frankenstein army they helped create.

you would have recruited Hungary into the Axis with the territory they actually wanted, Transylvania, and positioned them on natural defensive line of Carpathian Mtns.

my scenario is always to build up the Hungarian air force, that could be in numbers to actually have some impact, and was done to certain limited extent historically.

Germany did not think this way historically, but a loose federation of the linguistic "cousins" Hungary-Finland-Estonia could be their excuse for the Soviets not encroaching further West?
 
my suggestion was for a M-R Pact that excludes Finland and the Baltics, but rather includes Romania. they needed both their trading partners around the Baltic Sea (to avoid becoming solely dependent on the Soviets) and the oil of Romania (all of it and without the historical barter)

which leads to a division of Romania by Germany-USSR-Hungary-Bulgaria. "but they needed Romania to invade East" how did that work out for them? they prompted Romania to build up their forces to incredible level, were not able to equip them properly, and then became the victim of the Frankenstein army they helped create.

you would have recruited Hungary into the Axis with the territory they actually wanted, Transylvania, and positioned them on natural defensive line of Carpathian Mtns.

my scenario is always to build up the Hungarian air force, that could be in numbers to actually have some impact, and was done to certain limited extent historically.

Germany did not think this way historically, but a loose federation of the linguistic "cousins" Hungary-Finland-Estonia could be their excuse for the Soviets not encroaching further West?
Is their any other way? Like, are their other options for Germany to keep a semi alliance with the Soviets?
 
Ok, but, like..
Can we stop with the debates, now? Could we talk about the DECISIONS Nazi Germany could've made to improve their perfomance in the war. Y'know..
Like, the title says.
EDIT: Also, like, you guys realize that former Venezuelan Presidents, Eleazer Lopez Contreras and Isaias Medina Angarita, were vocal supporters of Mussolini, right? Like, they could've turned Fascist, Pre Allied persuasion in 1941.

Alright, alright. That's enough debating. Can we please get back to what this post was ORIGINALLY for?
Thank you.

What seems to be the problem? You asked questions on a public forum, yet don't like the anwers and discussion about the answers, to the point of asking people how and what to post.
Seems like that airlift of crude from Venezuela to Germany is far easier to pull off than not starting war with Soviet Union and not declaring war on USA.
 
What seems to be the problem? You asked questions on a public forum, yet don't like the anwers and discussion about the answers, to the point of asking people how and what to post.
Seems like that airlift of crude from Venezuela to Germany is far easier to pull off than not starting war with Soviet Union and not declaring war on USA.

Sorry, sorry. Yeah, that's on me, I just get a little peeved sometimes, didn't mean to make anyone upset.
 
They are right across from the United States too. Siding with the Axis, even prePearl Harbor would not have been conducive to keeping power.



...no.

But let’s set aside economic inefficiencies that render the idea ridiculous. What PLANE are the Germans going to use?

As for Pacific Ocean travel...uh...from where? Venezuela doesn’t have a Pacific coast. The US will laugh in their faces if they try to use Panama, so around S. America they go. Oh, and since I doubt the British will let them use Suez. Well, more than once after the British sieze the first convoy while laughing themselves silly, that means also going around Africa, and then onto the direct route from S. America to Europe. Having added 20,000 km (or significantly more rather) to their journey for no reason whatsoever.

Venezuela got coast though.

It's called the Venezuelan Coastal Range.


Germany can literally make two round trips, via airlift, by Pacific Ocean or North Atlantic Ocean. They can land at one of the Venezuelan airports, load the oil barrels or whatever onto the Transport plane and then fly back to Germany.

It's really not hard.
 
Germany can literally make two round trips, via airlift, by Pacific Ocean or North Atlantic Ocean. They can land at one of the Venezuelan airports, load the oil barrels or whatever onto the Transport plane and then fly back to Germany.

It's really not hard.
It really is. Let's start with the transatlantic distance being twice the range of the FW Condor; the fuel usage in flight; and all those Caribbean islands owned by Britain and the Netherlands.

You are going to become a meme on this site. ;)
 
Venezuela got coast though.
On the Atlantic. Not the Pacific.


It's really not hard.
With what PLANE? It’s 5000 miles from France to Venezuela. What transport plane has the range to make that trip? If you’re going via the Pacific well that’s not 5000 miles. That’s TWENTY thousand.

Fuel is HEAVY. Really heavy. And the oil drums are also really heavy. You have to be able to lift that load and then keep it in the air for 5000 miles. And you don’t get the bomber chest of coming back a couple hundred or thousand pounds lighter. You can’t just wave a magic wand and make these problems go away.
 
Last edited:
It really is. Let's start with the transatlantic distance being twice the range of the FW Condor; the fuel usage in flight; and all those Caribbean islands owned by Britain and the Netherlands.

You are going to become a meme on this site. ;)
Ok?? I don't see what youre trying to say aboutme, if you don't got anything nice to say that isn't constructive criticism, don't say it. Be nice, dude.
 
On the Atlantic. Not the Pacific.



With what PLANE? It’s 5000 miles from France to Venezuela. What transport plane has the range to make that trip? If you’re going via the Pacific well that’s not 5000 miles. That’s TWENTY thousand.

Fuel is HEAVY. Really heavy. And the oil drums are also really heavy. You have to be able to lift that load and then keep it in the air for 5000 miles. And you don’t get the bomber chest of coming back a couple hundred or thousand pounds lighter. You can’t just wave a magic wand and make these problems go away.

But, that's what I said though?? Huh?? I'm bringing up my own speculative scenarios and you keep shooting them down. Chill, ok?
 
But, that's what I said though??
You said they should transport the fuel across the Pacifuc. I was pointing out that since Venezuela has no Pacific Coast that would require going around South America as well as the entire distance.


I'm bringing up my own speculative scenarios and you keep shooting them down.
Yes, because they don’t satisfy the OP’s questions. Crashing overloaded planes into the Atlantic and burning up far more fuel trying to transport oil from a country that’s getting ready to have its presidents kicked over by US marines (or their own subordinates to prevent said external kicking over).

You wanted plausible. Transporting fuel from South America is not plausible.
 
You said they should transport the fuel across the Pacifuc. I was pointing out that since Venezuela has no Pacific Coast that would require going around South America as well as the entire distance.



Yes, because they don’t satisfy the OP’s questions. Crashing overloaded planes into the Atlantic and burning up far more fuel trying to transport oil from a country that’s getting ready to have its presidents kicked over by US marines (or their own subordinates to prevent said external kicking over).

You wanted plausible. Transporting fuel from South America is not plausible.

Ok, ok. I'm sorry. I'm just having a rough day.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Do y'all actually WANT me to come back in here and sent foilks off the pitch for a week, or so?

If not play the ball.

Otherwise just carry on as you are doing and I'll come back with the ice tongs.
 
Top