It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: Raggedyman
So tell me genius,,if the Brits had it in hand, why was Churchill,begging the Yanksmto get involved, or didn't he in your timeline
Why did Bush beg the UK to into Iraq with him?
Doesn't matter what the advantage is in war, anyone with a ounce of sense and a working bran cell will try and call allies in, even if winning is a sure thing.
US entering the war just assure victory in less time will fewer dead Brits.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok
Delayed 2-3 years?? Really? I will be polite here and label that 'best case scenario'. Worst case scenario? Never.
Too many variables here. Lend-Lease on steroids? Not at all as the U.S. is focused on Japan? Goering comes to his senses and returns to bombing airfields, ports and infrastructure instead of London? A huge increase of German air assets due to victory in the east?
I say again, anyone's guess.
Two to three years not because of anything the UK did but as Speer stated that the Chromium and Tungsten receives Germany had would be gone by 1947. That means no more tanks or artillery. It was actually a genuine and terrifying fear of his. 1947 and the German industry's would collapse. After that Russia or the UK could walk in.
Germany could not have survived a prolonged war, there economy was too fragile.
I knew nothing of this shortage, however,one would think that all the occupied regions Germany now controlled would have some supply of both. What is the date of this Speer comment?
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: crazyewok
It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah, but one torpedo and that carrier is a reef
They didn't have one carrier, they had and were building over 60. Germany had no means to defeat the United Kingdom militarily.
As a matter of fact, since the German atomic program was so far behind the Allies as to be practically nonexistent the British could at some point deployed atomic weapons on the Germans if need be.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.
The Japanese very early on grasped the potential strategic importance of airpower versus naval vessels as demonstrated obviously at Pear Harbor, but even more so in the South China Sea where aircraft destroyed Prince of Wales and Repulse in open water.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah, but one torpedo and that carrier is a reef
They didn't have one carrier, they had and were building over 60. Germany had no means to defeat the United Kingdom militarily.
As a matter of fact, since the German atomic program was so far behind the Allies as to be practically nonexistent the British could at some point deployed atomic weapons on the Germans if need be.
Forgive my skepticism, but even the U.S. couldn't build 60 carriers. Planned, perhaps, not build.
Next, hiding them from the Germans would be tough, perhaps less so in France, but up north? Difficult, at best. The Germans could have easily followed those planes back to their carrier and attacked them at sea. German high-command were not slouches, by any means. They would have to remain well off-shore to avoid detection and thereby reduce the distance they could attack inland.
I believe you paint a rosy picture when it comes to the actual military aspect of this. You also rely on a massive indirect U.S. support without their involvement directly which is semantics in any scenario of the U.S. 'not being involved' in the European war.
I do agree on your take on Hitler and National-Socialism, however. The vast majority of their military was pure professional and would continue to give you fits, despite the political and economic barriers they faced. You faced your own economic and manufacturing issues , as well. Much of your material was shipped in....
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.
The Japanese very early on grasped the potential strategic importance of airpower versus naval vessels as demonstrated obviously at Pear Harbor, but even more so in the South China Sea where aircraft destroyed Prince of Wales and Repulse in open water.
Funny how an island nation pays attention to a naval force and land locked countries not so much isn't it
Now I want to insert the word genius to be patronising but I won't, because I want to be above that petty stuff, just once in this thread
Overhyped or not, the Nazis were formidable, I think we can all agree?
originally posted by: crazyewok
Another complaint of Speer and a example of NAZI stupidity was the mismanagement of Occupied territory's.
His complaint was he could barley use the capture industry's and resources because of sheer scale of incompetence in the conquered territory's.
His main example was his visit to a capture industrial site in Ukraine.
Most the factory's where intact and the people where treating the Germans as liberators (seeing as Ukraine's hated Stalin with a very justified passion).
6 months later half the population had turned on the NAZI and had become partisans. Why?
Because the SS Einsatzgruppen where sent in and started shooting people for being slavs.....
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.
The Japanese very early on grasped the potential strategic importance of airpower versus naval vessels as demonstrated obviously at Pear Harbor, but even more so in the South China Sea where aircraft destroyed Prince of Wales and Repulse in open water.
originally posted by: HorrorRoach
a reply to: Raggedyman
en.wikipedia.org...
The luftwaffe was incredible, ewok is saying their planes were inferior?
EJ