If D-Day failed..
-
If the German did not launched Barbarossa, if the Japanese did not shout tora tora tora, WW2 would have come out differently. I think the German and the Japanese only made ONE mistake each. One strategic mistake is enough to do what losing all battles cannot do, losing the war. Go figure that out.Originally posted by ray243:I will take the allies leaders screw up almost all their battle for the axis to stand a chance....
Sweeping statement? I would like you to show me some prove that the axis actually stand a chance to defeat the allies. -
for jeepun is being committing it's best of the best navies to midways which ended gone....somemore they never learn from their victory in one and only sea battle outside malaya(the two battleship were just simply sitting ducks for the zeros with no accompanying 'protection' ships....and in midway the japs forgotton that somehow and pit battleships against US navy but US aircraft carrier just need to vomit out planes and voila..Japanese major defeat and eventual overall defeat...
-
Haha, officially there is no such thing as a Panzer V. The Panther and T34-85 were considered the two best tank designs in the war, the Panther however lacked side and rear armor and it only had a 75mm gun while the Tiger had a 88mm gun but the difference is that the Tiger had extremely thick armor which slowed it down.Originally posted by abao:Oh, btw I think more Panthers (aka Panzer V) should be built instead of the Tigers. The Panther, being faster and similarly armed, will be able to give the German army better mobility for attacking.
I feel that if given enough time, The Tiger II would be the best tank because of the all-around armor defense along with th sloped frontal armor and it's 88mm gun. -
True that the Panther was weak in side armour, but although its equipped with a 75mm gun, the gun's performance was superior to the Tiger I's 88mm. The Germans also remedied the weakness in side armour by adding side skirts and zimmerit coating on it.Originally posted by Agenda:Haha, officially there is no such thing as a Panzer V. The Panther and T34-85 were considered the two best tank designs in the war, the Panther however lacked side and rear armor and it only had a 75mm gun while the Tiger had a 88mm gun but the difference is that the Tiger had extremely thick armor which slowed it down.
I feel that if given enough time, The Tiger II would be the best tank because of the all-around armor defense along with the sloped frontal armor and it's 88mm gun.
The Tiger II might be the best tank, had it had more time in Research and Development. If only the engine problems were solved, the Tiger II would have been as fast as the Panther. But I preferred the Germans to build Panther's due to its considerably cheaper cost to build.
Imo, 1 supertank is still not a match against 100 medium tanks. -
I'm talking about the momment USA and RUSSIA joined the allied side...the axis is screwed.Originally posted by sgdiehard:If the German did not launched Barbarossa, if the Japanese did not shout tora tora tora, WW2 would have come out differently. I think the German and the Japanese only made ONE mistake each. One strategic mistake is enough to do what losing all battles cannot do, losing the war. Go figure that out. -
USSR joined the war in June 1941, when Hilter declared Operation Babarossa.Originally posted by ray243:I'm talking about the momment USA and RUSSIA joined the allied side...the axis is screwed.
At that time, the Wehrmacht (OKW) had 1 million strong army, along with a good tatical airforce, although many elite pilots had been lost through Operation Sealion. Had the Wehrmacht prepared properly for the Russian winter and supplied the army with adequate winter protection, a siege of Stalingrad, Leningrad and Kursk would not happen.
If this had happened, Moscow would have been in an untenable condition and the Soviets might have capitulated instead.
------------------------------
And the US entered the war on the side of the Allies after December 1941, when Pearl Harbour was attacked.
Although it is almost certain that the Japanese would face a complete defeat once the US joined in the war effort, had the Japanese deployed their forces more discreetly at Coral Sea and Midway, they could have held on to their territories longer. At least long enough to have the new plane models ready for operational deployment in large numbers.
And had the Japanese adopted wolf-pack tatics for its submarines, sinking traffic along the US/ Australian route, do you think Australia can be used as a army base for long without Military Supplies?
------------------------------
As for the US effort in the European Theater, they did supply Britain with much needed fuel and supplies that the British used to rebuild their forces and plan for D-Day.
Finally, I wish to say that the WW2 was fought both on Military power and Political power. Its not just a deployment of Generals and troops. -
somemore there's a lot of Soviet dissidents around in the communist giant etc. Ukraine, Belrus, Latvia etc...even in Russia itself there are many people are unhappy with Stalin's rule....if Hitler had treated these dissidents well and set up pro-nazi govt in Soviet states...the war might have turned out well for Germany without losing so much blood...
-
The main point is...the deciding factor of world war 2 does NOT lies with D-Day.
I think the case is closed...for now. -
then sgf will become sf only lor...
-
Sure it is not, but had D-Day failed, the Eastern Front may not collapse at all.Originally posted by ray243:The main point is...the deciding factor of world war 2 does NOT lies with D-Day.
I think the case is closed...for now. -
I won't go to say D-Day was not decisive, but if it failed, it would not have been fatal to the point of an Axis victory.Originally posted by abao:Sure it is not, but had D-Day failed, the Eastern Front may not collapse at all.
I think the Soviets were more than capable defeating the Nazis given their ability to produce larger quantities of war materials (in addition to Anglo-American lend lease) and soundness of the befehlstatik style art of maneuvere. The campaigns from the Dnepier to Eastern Prussia are adequate proof of these.
The main question is a geostrategic one. How far west would the western powers allow the Soviets to advance? If they could could advance to Brandenburg and Saxony, then there was no stopping them from the Pyrennees.
The implications are serious - should the Soviets be able to consolidate west of the Rhine, then it would effectively lead to the vietnamization of the UK. -
Originally posted by Laplace:
I'm not saying the Germans will win the war. Just that the Soviets might not have broken through the defenses if the Germans had more material on hand had D-Day failed. -
Well then we have two differing beliefs here. Nothing wrong with that.Originally posted by abao:I'm not saying the Germans will win the war. Just that the Soviets might not have broken through the defenses if the Germans had more material on hand had D-Day failed.
And to add on to my post, I am quite unsure how would the Americans react to an overwhelming Soviet victory over the Germans. By 1944 Roosevelt was advocating the "Four Policemen Theory" and he did place high emphasis on cooperation with the Soviets on a common vision. That together with his personal distain for France might have introduced a willing for the Soviets to head all the way west. He did sound off many a times of his unwillingness to be preoccupied with post-war recuperation of Europe and would rather either the British or Soviets do it.
Stalin as usual was the realpolitik player, pocketing all territories the red army could cover as bargaining chips for a post-world negotiation with the west. I sincerely doubt he would have stopped out of consideration! -
had japan not attacked america and germany not touching russia things might be different .... and about the tanks i will rather them merge both of the panthers and tigers to form a medium/heavy hybrid tank instead