WW2 Axis victory

First the obvious: There is no way the germans could invade Britain in 1940. A more succesfull Barbarrosa is possible, but have to explain how. Even if the carriers are sunk in Pearl, there is no way the japanese can defeat the US navy in 1943, even less in 1944.
If Rooselvet is dead in 1933 (-in itself an interesting point already discussed here), the fleet might not be in Pearl at all. It may butterfly away the whole Pacific war.
But even in the impossible scenario described, even if the Royal Navy was magically wiped out, there is no way the axis could invade, not even get to the shores of US in 1945. Just have a look at OTL's US Navy in that year.
The great thing about Alternate History is that it's plausible. Otherwise it's pure fantasy.
 
Well I want to thank the ppl in here that bothered to post a useful post in here. And yes I did miss a rules and guidelines post for the new members.
And for the wanker that doubted if I would ever come back again and posted something I like to say something that, IF there was a rules thread, would probably be forbidden to say anyway.

For most of the rest I wanne say post something usefull AFTER READING what I said, in stead of just looking at the picture and posting immediately!

What I wrote was that I found it VERY UNLIKELY for Japan to Invade mainland US. And you should look beyond it!

But WHY is operation Sealion doomed for failure, as there weren't any beach defenses in Britain in 1940? And even the Civilian Patrolling squads/ guards whatever they were called had just been formed.

I DO think about logistics and if the air would be ruled by the Luftwaffe, the canal be guarded by U-boats and sea mines as is read in the Wiki on operation Sealine WHY is it doomed to fail?

And there is no need for Japan to invade Canada, nor Panama, as they would control the seas around it anyway with the destruction of the Pacific fleet, just destroy the locks or gates and or place sea mines around it.

And 1 of my Questions was, WHAT would be needed for the world to turn out this way!
 
Well, after reading the last post!!!!!!!

All I can say is let battle commence - who's first for round one!?
 
First the obvious: There is no way the germans could invade Britain in 1940. A more succesfull Barbarrosa is possible, but have to explain how. Even if the carriers are sunk in Pearl, there is no way the japanese can defeat the US navy in 1943, even less in 1944.
If Rooselvet is dead in 1933 (-in itself an interesting point already discussed here), the fleet might not be in Pearl at all. It may butterfly away the whole Pacific war.
But even in the impossible scenario described, even if the Royal Navy was magically wiped out, there is no way the axis could invade, not even get to the shores of US in 1945. Just have a look at OTL's US Navy in that year.
The great thing about Alternate History is that it's plausible. Otherwise it's pure fantasy.

Well it depends on where you put the PoD. Remember the game scenario had 20 years of messed up history prior to the mid 40s.

If America stays in depression in the 30s, or its even worse, then maybe the US navy doesn't build up. Maybe the US situation is so bad, that there simply is no real will to fight or do the kind of arms build up that happened in OTL 1940s. Maybe the Brits don't even try to rearm, since their economy is also messed up, so Sealion is possible, and after the Brits surrender, the Germans get hold of the British & French hulls.

It's one thing to say Sealion couldn't happen in the conditions of 1940, or even if you started making plausible changes in 39 or 38... but if you have 20 years you pretty much remake the world.
 
The map of Eastern Europe makes me angry. It's not the ignorance, it's the complete lack of research required to sustain it. Do you intend to make all your maps as carelessly?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
...
And 1 of my Questions was, WHAT would be needed for the world to turn out this way!

The sudden crib death of every first born male under the age of 2 years in the English speaking world immediately after Hitler and Tojo procaimed it would occur.

This would, of course, have been preceeded by a series of other calamities, including sudden darkness, locusts, and the like.

In other words, it would require divine intervention.

Sealion is beyond unlikely. It is very literally a billion to one shot. The Reich lacked the airlift and sealift to maintain a reasonable force in the UK (it could not even support a much smaller force in North Africa). It also lacked the shipyards to construct sufficient bottoms to make the transport available. The UK had sufficient shipyards, without the U.S., to outbuild the Reich forever.

Militarily, Sealion was possibly the stupidest plan created since the creation of the "professional" officer corps in the 19th Century (quite an accomplishment since this encompasses disasters like the Somme and Verdun). It was logistically AND tactically impossible, something that SHOULD have been obvious to anyone in Germany above the rank of 2nd Lt.
 
But WHY is operation Sealion doomed for failure, as there weren't any beach defenses in Britain in 1940? And even the Civilian Patrolling squads/ guards whatever they were called had just been formed.
True, beach defenses were fairly light. True, the BEF hadn't proved that effective in the face of the Blitzkriege... But we're not talking about half a dozen Panzer divisions teleporting to southern England and driving towards London. Until the Germans secure a major port and get it functional all German armour, munitions, supplies and artillary will be coming over the beachhead (remember, we're talking crudely modified river barges as transports, not the purpose built LSTs, LSI, etc. used by the allies in 1944)... which means the opening battles (and quite probably the entire campaign) will be mainly infantry actions, due to numerical superiority (~300,000 troops evaced from Dunkirk plus several Dominion and Indian divisions plus other British divisions training plus home guard vs ~100,000 in the German's first wave) and being on the defensive the advantage goes to the poms.

I DO think about logistics and if the air would be ruled by the Luftwaffe, the canal be guarded by U-boats and sea mines as is read in the Wiki on operation Sealine WHY is it doomed to fail?
First, the Luftwaffe is unlikely to rule the air as: (1) both sides started with roughly equal numbers of fighters; (2) the british were producing new aircraft at a higher rate than the Germans and (3) if things were going poorly for Fighter Command the remains of 11 Group would have been pulled back north out of range of the Luftwaffe but ready to be recommited in the event of a landing, not left to be destroyed.

Second, the Luftwaffe is of only moderate anti-shipping utility as: (1) the Germans didn't have many torpedo bombers; (2) Level bombers could not reliably hit manouvering warships; (3) Ju-87 Stukas did not (in late 1940) carry sufficiently heavy bombs to be effective against capital ships and (4) As shown at Dunkirk, even against light units in confined waters the Ju-87 was far from deverstating.

Finally, U-Boat are great for slaughtering lightly escorted civilian shipping moving at 10-15 knots... they're rather less use against well escorted heavy naval units moving at 20 knots.

Putting those togeather with the major differance in size between the Kriegsmarine and RN and the chances of the poms breaking through and raising havoc amoungst the German supply ships and transports are very large indeed.
 

burmafrd

Banned
That was a succinct and very good short reply to why Sea Lion never was a realistic idea. I question just how much it was ever really believed in by anyone; I have always thought it was mostly a bluff to try and force England to the negotiating table.
 
True, beach defenses were fairly light. True, the BEF hadn't proved that effective in the face of the Blitzkriege... But we're not talking about half a dozen Panzer divisions teleporting to southern England and driving towards London. Until the Germans secure a major port and get it functional all German armour, munitions, supplies and artillary will be coming over the beachhead (remember, we're talking crudely modified river barges as transports, not the purpose built LSTs, LSI, etc. used by the allies in 1944)... which means the opening battles (and quite probably the entire campaign) will be mainly infantry actions, due to numerical superiority (~300,000 troops evaced from Dunkirk plus several Dominion and Indian divisions plus other British divisions training plus home guard vs ~100,000 in the German's first wave) and being on the defensive the advantage goes to the poms.

Don't forget the mustard gas, the plan to set fire to the channel in case the Germans invaded and Dad's Army. Dad's flipping Army.
 
Hallo!

I think the only chance for a German-Italian Victory with a rather late PoD is
* to concentrate shipbuilding on U-boats
* to get Franko into the boat and take Gibraltar then Malta for a better position in North Africa
* to not declare war on the US and let them not enter the war on their own
* to not bomb Britain
* to be nice to all British civilians and prisoners of war
* to negotiate a peace with Britain and the allies to go after the USSR.

Of course this will end with a Japan defeat on the hands of the allies. So a Japan Empire is impossible. No German Britain or even France (but perhaps some military bases there especially the right to station U-boats). British rights to cross Gibraltar straight, Suez maybe still British. German gains in the east, Italy in North Africa and the Balkans.

Kind regards,
G.
 
The unlikeness of Sealion has been debated to death. I would only say that attempting a shore landing against a country that has overwhelming naval superiority is stupid and has never been done in history.
Chances of victory for the Axis? In my opinion, they had two chances. One, diplomaticaly, after the fall of France but before the BoB. Britain could have agreed to a settled peace, but you have to remove Churchill and/or have a US president who is clearly against intervention and thus gives the british no hope. The other one, in Barbarrosa. With some changes, the germans COULD have achieved a decisive victory in the summer-fall of 1941, combined with a no-war declaration against USA. The diversion of panzers to Kiev instead of Moscow is often viewed as a lost opportunity. Or the taking of Leningrad early on. With the USSR in german hands (or good part of it) the western allies would have to agree to a reasonable peace.
If you change too many things too early (in those 20 years) you can get to 1939 with an unreconigzable Europe that may not have a WWII.
 
Karlos: I agree with your post.

The more earlier POD's occur the better for Germany it acts as a multiplier. That is, if neither Churchill nor Roosevelt in power, more chance of peace in Europe before BoB, and less likely any lend-lease to Russia from the US. This gives Germany, greater opportunity to roll over Russia who hasn't got anyone to lift-a-finger, let alone give a hand!

Hence, the Battle of Britain was crucial to what happened next.
 

burmafrd

Banned
One factor not mentioned enough a bout the BOB is how many of the top German pilots and their crews were lost there. Take away those losses and the Luftwaffe is even more effective in Barbarossa and maybe that makes the difference as well.
 
Top