Collection of opportunities in WWII

[Grey Wolf]

AXIS:

1) No big battleships - 400 U-Boats instead
2) Take out one country at a time, ie Poland, Denmark, Norway, & then France.
3) Settle down for a long struggle with the UK using the U-Boats to starve the UK into submission.
4) Offer generous terms of surrender to the UK with a long term strategy of gaining the UK as an ally.
5) Don't attack the USSR until UK is an ally (this maybe around 1945).
6) Don't declare war on USA after Japan attacks.
.

Are not 2. and 4. actually what they did do ? And although they continued to complete the Bismarck and Tirpitz, they did scrap the H-class battleships which they had just laid down in favour of building u-boats so there is a partial 1. there too in the historical record. 5. also is what they intended, in so far as the peace terms offered in 4. envisaged a hope of British c-operation against Communism afterwards. Churchill rather got in the way of that one though.

Grey Wolf

 

[Wozza]

The problem with this "what would you do approach" is that some decisions are only revealed as flawed in hindsight. The other is that is pre-supposes godlike powers, in fact even the most powerful figures have limited information or influence over certain individuals or processes.

In the meantime, as for all the ideas raised so far:

1. No halt before Dunkirk
The Panzers had no fuel anyway

2. Not letting up on the airfields in the Battle of Britain
Probably not decisive

3. No halt order by Hitler on R&D that won't yield results within a year
The Germans have quite enough resources spread on projects that will not come to fruition as it is

4. No Operation Barbarossa
A good point but then Hitler might as well not fight the war!

5. No declaration of war upon the USA
Yes, but how much would it help in the medium term. Also only clear in hindsight - a Japanese attack on the USSR could have been very valuable to Hitler

6. Use of the V-weapons against the embarkation ports for D-Day
Yes, but decisive?

7. Use of the V-weapons against the bridgeheads in Normandy
Yes, but decisive?

- Melting pot strategy instead of racism:.
It;s just completely ahistorical, and ignores what the war is about, other than that I agree with you.

- Competition instead of synergy: The Nazis increased production and productivity by combining companies of an economic branch into huge monopolies.
Production increases but productivity decline in the late 30s. The natural cartellisation of the German economy and the drive to autarchy also stifle this.
In fact if there had been no war till 44, as planned, the Germans would have had a military economy up there with the USSR or the USA anyway. For all the German war economy's weaknesses I am not sure it could have been exploited that much more.

More subs, to allow an effective war against British shipping in case of a war against GB.
Yes, but also more planes, tanks and everything..

Quick development of tactics against German tanks after - An offensive against Germany within the first few days of the declaration of war, to quickly gain south west and western Germany.
The Allies are not ready for war, simple as that.

I figure it would be useful to secretely distribute old and damaged tanks, as well as some cannons, along the whole coast line,
Well, there is the Atlantic Wall...

Worker and Peasant's Air Fleet placed on alert
-Better logistics for Soviet counterattacks
-Better co-operation with Polish and Baltic states, possibly first do not occupy them

Definitely yes be prepared to meet operation Barbarossa - that is not a hindsight mistake.
Soviet logistics cannot be improved so easily however
As for the third, if you did that, you would not be Stalin


I will respond to more of these later, but many of these suggestions below were tried and failed, or constrained by resource difficulties

 

[Wozza]

Axis

- adopt a fluid defence startegy as proposed by Manstein (after Kursk)
- create better encription codes
- impliment jet power for fighter aircraft
- stop waisting resources on futile projects
- impliment the Final Solution until after the war is won
- get descent allies (for Germany)

Allies
- retreat armies rather than have them fight encircled (SU)
More as I think of them...

Fluid defence, yes, definitely, but will it only delay the inevitable?
better encryption!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jet power, well, nice idea, but
Futile projects - I'm glad you know in advance which will work, note this is contradictory with another suggestion in this discussion arguing for more long-term research
Decent allies - good idea, but where from?
Retreat armies - a problem for Stalin mostly, and one he starts to learn to avoid, inadequate logistics are also a big factor here surely?

 

[Wozza]

what if Rosenberg's views of Ukrainians had prevailed, and he had Hitler's support instead of Bormann ?Grey Wolf

It would have helped a lot.
but everyone thought Rosenberg was an idiot (which he was)
whilst Bormann was a ruthless operator who knew how to get his own way
Hitler never even bothered to read Rosenberg's book

 

[Wozza]

AXIS:

1) No big battleships - 400 U-Boats instead
2) Take out one country at a time, ie Poland, Denmark, Norway, & then France.
3) Settle down for a long struggle with the UK using the U-Boats to starve the UK into submission.
4) Offer generous terms of surrender to the UK with a long term strategy of gaining the UK as an ally.
4) Don't attack the USSR until UK is an ally (this maybe around 1945).
5) Don't declare war on USA after Japan attacks.

I think this was broadly, Hitler's plan, events got in the way...

ALLIES:

1) Commence large scale bombing on German industry the second war is declared.
With what exactly?

3) Ensure Generals Hobart, De Gaule, Montgomery & a few others are in high commands.
I am not sure quite who would be in charge of postings in the British and French armies at the same time.
considering Montogemery and De Gaulle have no notable achievements at this stage your choices would have been a bit random at the time. Hobart of course was deliveberately brought back by Churchill

4) Don't head north to support Belgium & Holland when first Germany attacks in the west.
Is this because the Allies are actually psychic? This is pure hindsight

5) Wait until Germany reaches the North Sea Coast, then counter-attack behind the German armies on the coast.
Straight into the Luftwaffe and highly flexible German ground formations who have a much faster tempo of battle, just not losing would be nice!
6

 

[Wozza]

Well, as the allies.

1. Getting the Belgians to not surrender for a while. Evacuate them and take the n00b Leopold III with you.
2. Getting more men and equipment out of Dunkirk.
3. Having the French territorial army, but not France, surrender 1940. Means that the Frecnh navy and French colonial forces, plus whatever could be ecacuated from the south, including more Poles and Czechoslovaks, fights on for the Allies.

I agree with all of this, but the British did try rather hard not to get the French to surrender, but I think you are right it ranks as a major lost opportunity

 

[Wozza]

Axis:
Declare war economy in 1939.
Don't stop long-term projects.
Get the jet He-280 in 1942-43.
Avoid BoB. Get a naval air force and go for the ports and ships.
Send troops to Iraq in 1941.
Don't declare war to USA
Go for Moscow in august 1941.
Don't ve overconfident about Enigma.
Allies:
Invade Germany in 1939.
Don't send troops to Greece in 1941.
British: better defence in the Pacific.

The Germans have a war economy from about 1936.
I think you are right about Mosow in Auust 1941 being a major lost opportunity.
The British expedition to Greece was also a cardinal error that could have been avoided, and would possible have allowed Overlord in 1943 due to a shorter North African campaign - and also the successful defence of Malaya

Germany persuades Spain to join the Axis and attacks Gibralter. U-Boats based on Spanish ports and Gib could seriously mess up the UK-Africa convoys.
Germany tries, Canaris deliberately sabotaged his own mission here.
More fundamentally Hitler has to choose between French or Spanish friendship and deliberately plumps for French.

 

[jolo]

The problem with this "what would you do approach" is that some decisions are only revealed as flawed in hindsight. The other is that is pre-supposes godlike powers, in fact even the most powerful figures have limited information or influence over certain individuals or processes.

1. No halt before Dunkirk
The Panzers had no fuel anyway

Afaik, Manstein wanted to advance but was stopped by Hitler. I trust him to know where to get the necessary fuel, if he proposes to advance.

2. Not letting up on the airfields in the Battle of Britain
Probably not decisive

More than attacking cities - but admittedly only a small difference.

5. No declaration of war upon the USA
Yes, but how much would it help in the medium term. Also only clear in hindsight - a Japanese attack on the USSR could have been very valuable to Hitler

Very good point - I'm really wondering how Hitler always tried to ally with governments that only tried their own thing, and which he alienated too much for any fruitful cooperation - like Japan in 1939.

- Competition instead of synergy: The Nazis increased production and productivity by combining companies of an economic branch into huge monopolies.
Production increases but productivity decline in the late 30s. The natural cartellisation of the German economy and the drive to autarchy also stifle this.
In fact if there had been no war till 44, as planned, the Germans would have had a military economy up there with the USSR or the USA anyway. For all the German war economy's weaknesses I am not sure it could have been exploited that much more.

I'm not 100% sure myself - different approaches result in different problems, which also need to be solved. But all in all, I'd say thanks for instance to new materials due to a better functioning market, the German production is higher at about the year 1939 - but only if everything is done right.

Quick development of tactics against German tanks after - An offensive against Germany within the first few days of the declaration of war, to quickly gain south west and western Germany.
The Allies are not ready for war, simple as that.

Imo, it was mainly outdated tactics which led to a catastrophe for the allies. They tried to win with defensive tactics, "learning" from a few successfully defended places in WWI. They had the tanks and the first batch of soldiers ready from the beginning. I also believe they didn't need more than 2 weeks to recruit a large number of reservists and conscripts. And there were French Generals who wanted a more aggressive warfare - afaik, De Gaulle was among them.

I figure it would be useful to secretely distribute old and damaged tanks, as well as some cannons, along the whole coast line,
Well, there is the Atlantic Wall...

There were practically no tanks or mobile artillery anywhere near the landing sites. But that gives me another idea: How about many little bunkers with a rotatable cannon on top (like a ship's artillery, but concrete replaces most of the steel) instead of the rather few really large bunkers? Rotatable cannons would be useful to defend neighbouring bunkers under attack. Also nothing for which hindsight is needed.

I agree with you that the whole discussion is mostly about hindsight - but I believe it's still good for understanding strategy. It also allows to distinguish good and bad strategists on both sides, as most of what has been proposed here was also in the discussion at that time. Many decisions were obviously flawed from the beginning - but still pushed through. The Allies did most of their tactical mistakes in the beginning of the war, the Axis most in the middle of the war. In terms of grand strategy (including economics and more), imo the Axis powers did most errors, from the beginning.

 

[Wozza]

A HUGE debate. Excellent.
I think there are a mixture of hindsight and foresight errors - yes your are quite right, it does help indicate good vs bad strategists.


Imo, it was mainly outdated tactics which led to a catastrophe for the allies. They tried to win with defensive tactics, "learning" from a few successfully defended places in WWI. They had the tanks and the first batch of soldiers ready from the beginning. I also believe they didn't need more than 2 weeks to recruit a large number of reservists and conscripts. And there were French Generals who wanted a more aggressive warfare - afaik, De Gaulle was among them.

Hmm, I am not so sure,
British tactics involve combined arms, just like German, it's just they want to move at the infantry's speed - not the tanks. Trouble
Not so much tactics as 3C for the French, they cannot do anything fast enough, tempo always behind, this is not easily fixed, it needs a big infrastructure to work properly
But...
Two weeks to recruit soldiers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They need to learn to live in the field, practice with weapons, learn how to fight in combined arms formations,
individuals can be taughr to learn jobs very quickly I agree - but the experienced offices and NCOs to create the machine, that takes a long time.
Also equipment deficiencies last a long time, the British never get the chance to build a decent tank THE ENTIRE WAR.
This is not a technological problem - it is a result of not being prepared then having other priorities
British units have deficient equipment until 1942 because of low budgets in the 1930s. German preparation gives them a real edge.

 

[jolo]

British tactics involve combined arms, just like German, it's just they want to move at the infantry's speed - not the tanks. Trouble
Not so much tactics as 3C for the French, they cannot do anything fast enough, tempo always behind, this is not easily fixed, it needs a big infrastructure to work properly
But...
Two weeks to recruit soldiers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They need to learn to live in the field, practice with weapons, learn how to fight in combined arms formations,
individuals can be taughr to learn jobs very quickly I agree - but the experienced offices and NCOs to create the machine, that takes a long time.
Also equipment deficiencies last a long time, the British never get the chance to build a decent tank THE ENTIRE WAR.
This is not a technological problem - it is a result of not being prepared then having other priorities
British units have deficient equipment until 1942 because of low budgets in the 1930s. German preparation gives them a real edge.

The slow speed of the tanks belongs in the outdated strategy section. For conscripts, two weeks is little - but enough to let them do simple tasks and for learning while doing in stable areas of the frontier and in defense positions. For reservists and the professionals, even shorter times should be possible. Afaik, the British alone outproduced the Germans before and during the war - and some systems, like planes, radar, computers, and so on, where better than what Germany had. Their tanks were slow and sometimes not very reliable - but the Mathilda II wasn't among the worst.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The slow speed of the tanks belongs in the outdated strategy section. For conscripts, two weeks is little - but enough to let them do simple tasks and for learning while doing in stable areas of the frontier and in defense positions. For reservists and the professionals, even shorter times should be possible. Afaik, the British alone outproduced the Germans before and during the war - and some systems, like planes, radar, computers, and so on, where better than what Germany had. Their tanks were slow and sometimes not very reliable - but the Mathilda II wasn't among the worst.

I've seen some interesting mention, and possible photographs, of quite advanced German computers at Peenemunde

At which point, also, were British planes better than what Germany had ? A lot of what they started the war with were pretty crap - the Faery Battle for example, and even the Defiant was slower than the Me 110 (one of the fastest aircraft in the world at the time). The Bf109 is usually compared badly to the Spitfire, but whilst the Spitfire may have been slightly superior it wasn't THAT much of a gap as the 109s contested dogfights on their merit. It is interesting to note that both types remained in use till the end of the war in constantly-updated versions.

Grey Wolf

 

[Soyuz]

Originally Posted by Soyuz
Axis

- adopt a fluid defence startegy as proposed by Manstein (after Kursk)
- create better encription codes
- impliment jet power for fighter aircraft
- stop waisting resources on futile projects
- impliment the Final Solution until after the war is won
- get descent allies (for Germany)

Allies
- retreat armies rather than have them fight encircled (SU)
More as I think of them...

Fluid defence, yes, definitely, but will it only delay the inevitable?
better encryption!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jet power, well, nice idea, but
Futile projects - I'm glad you know in advance which will work, note this is contradictory with another suggestion in this discussion arguing for more long-term research
Decent allies - good idea, but where from?
Retreat armies - a problem for Stalin mostly, and one he starts to learn to avoid, inadequate logistics are also a big factor here surely?

Fluid defence - read the thread question:

Here I want to start a collection of strategies and tactics Allied and Axis powers could have used to get the war over with - either quicker (for the Allies) or the other way around (for the Axis powers).

Encription - is that sarcasm because I can't tell

Futile projects - sorry for not being clear. I meant those "superweapon" - unconventional weapons. Stick with building more tanks and U-boats, weapons you know work for sure.

Descent allies - I don't know where from, but if we have an early enought POD Germany can have one closer to home.


Another idea: get a competent intelligence and counter-intel service. The army HQ was pretty much fighting blindfolded while the allies knew how, when and where an a military plan was unfolding.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Fluid defence - read the thread question:

Encription - is that sarcasm because I can't tell

Futile projects - sorry for not being clear. I meant those "superweapon" - unconventional weapons. Stick with building more tanks and U-boats, weapons you know work for sure.

Decent allies - I don't know where from, but if we have an early enought POD Germany can have one closer to home.

Another idea: get a competent intelligence and counter-intel service. The army HQ was pretty much fighting blindfolded while the allies knew how, when and where an a military plan was unfolding.

On the question of allies, who knew that Italy would not be as strong an ally as she looked ? Italy had conquered Abyssinia and had participated in the learning experience that was the Spanish Civil War. She had a huge airforce and was constructing a modern spearhead for her large navy. There was nothing about Italy that made it appear to be less useful as an ally than, say, France

Obviously the best ally for Germany would have been Britain, and that is what Hitler was constantly working for, but despite organisations such as the Anglo-German Fellowship Group, a majority of British politicians never favoured working with the Nazis.

As to other allies - Finland had shown great mettle in the Winter War, Hungary was IIRC a pretty useful one, and Rumania provided a good deal of manpower. Bulgaria was useful if not wonderful. Slovakia probably did more than most people know about. Croatia, well...

And Japan ? It would obviously have been more useful for Germany's interests if Japan had attacked the USSR in 1941 instead of the USA. But it would not have been much use to Japanese interests, and one cannot expect one's ally, especially a proud and independent nation, to sacrifice their own interests for yours

Grey Wolf

 

[Wozza]

]
Encription - is that sarcasm because I can't tell

Futile projects - sorry for not being clear. I meant those "superweapon" - unconventional weapons. Stick with building more tanks and U-boats, weapons you know work for sure.

not so much sarcasm as shock - the Germans put quite a lot of effort into encryption
arguably it is too good - and so they assume it will not be broken

The problem is not superweapons per se but too much ambitious development in too many areas - helicopters, jets, laser rangefinder tanks, rockets
they try to fight with the weapons of the 50s and end up stuck with those of the 30s

 

[Grey Wolf]

not so much sarcasm as shock - the Germans put quite a lot of effort into encryption
arguably it is too good - and so they assume it will not be broken

The problem is not superweapons per se but too much ambitious development in too many areas - helicopters, jets, laser rangefinder tanks, rockets
they try to fight with the weapons of the 50s and end up stuck with those of the 30s

Are you aware that due to bombardment by V1s and V2s Antwerp was reduced in use to the Allies as a supply centre by 75% ??? It became known to the Americans as 'The City of Sudden Death', there were over 100 ships sunk in the river etc, and could not be used as the forward base that the Allies had hoped

Grey Wolf

 

[Wozza]

Are you aware that due to bombardment by V1s and V2s Antwerp was reduced in use to the Allies as a supply centre by 75% ??? It became known to the Americans as 'The City of Sudden Death', there were over 100 ships sunk in the river etc, and could not be used as the forward base that the Allies had hoped

Grey Wolf

No! really? Over what perdiod?

Ships sunk by rockets? that sounds unlikely, are you sure they were not block ships?

 

[AMBOMB]

Here I want to start a collection of strategies and tactics Allied and Axis powers could have used to get the war over with - either quicker (for the Allies) or the other way around (for the Axis powers). Short TL's, if a change at one point leads to significant differences later (like other alliances).

Add ideas or comments to ideas, if you like.

Allies:Bomb German electric powerplants.
Axis: Don't go to war with the United States.

 

[AMBOMB]

As of the Ukrainians: They'd definitely be more valuable as allies - getting them, and some Russians, into the fighting on Germanys side would have allowed to recruit nearly as many people as the Russians, and to pursue more risky tactics (like more light tanks, self propelled artillery, and light artillery).

Ukrainians made up the largest portion of the SS.

 

[Grey Wolf]

No! really? Over what perdiod?

Ships sunk by rockets? that sounds unlikely, are you sure they were not block ships?

Google on the basis of this

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=antwerp+v1+v2&meta=

And follow the links that appeal to you

I think people today under-estimate the damage that could be causes by such a weapon as a V2. Not only with a 1000 kg warhead, but also the impact of the missile hitting the ground. It could destroy or damage up to 600 houses in a densely-populated area.

Eisenhower was freaked out when advised that if the Germans used V1s against the D Day embarkation ports he might not have anything left worthy of embarking.

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

This is quite useful

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/v_weapons.htm

Whereas the V1 was a visible weapon, the V2 was invisible. These weapons spread considerable fear in London. In response to them the government used its intelligence units to convince the Nazis that the government had moved its base from central London to the Dulwich area of London. This worked and the V2’s were targeted towards Dulwich. About 1000 V2’s were fired at Britain before their launch sites were overrun by the advancing Allies. In total they killed or wounded about 115,000 people.

It is difficult to assess the true military value of the V weapons. Their psychological impact was probably greater than the actual damage they did. With the V2’s no one knew in London whether they would be the next victim. But they were not used against the advancing Allied armies or against the Russians. Antwerp, a vital port for the Allies, was devastated by attacks from V weapons but, in general, they were used on civilian targets only.

Also look at :-

http://www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/antwerp.html

I got the statistics I quoted from a book, and can't find them replicated on the web so they could be faulty. I guess it depends how you interpret things - taking 3 months to secure the port before it can be used properly would have been a significant reduction in its overall effectiveness in the longer period in question

Grey Wolf