Discussion in 'History' started by Omega133, May 19, 2010.
We always look at what made the Axis lose. What, hypothetically, would have made the Allies lose?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
If Japan did not draw America into the war, then chance are, they would have done very well.
I think that was the deciding factor, but what about battles?
Easy peasy: the Axis winning. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Given Germany's economy it would have been pretty hard for them to win (if we take "win" to be the conquest of Europe and Russia - let's leave the US as an objective out of it).
I mean, bearing in mind they didn't even switch to war production rates until mid-'43 they didn't have a chance of catching up, let alone beating the Allies.
The U-boat war was close-run (and could have crippled Britain), but again Germany was late with producing the numbers required by which time we'd got anti-U-boat tactics and technology working quite well. Maybe the Type XXIs could have made a difference if they'd been introduced much earlier, but...
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Manpower and resources, the Axis didn't have the manpower of the allies nor the resources.
You don't say? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
True, but the had the help of the Japanese who had access to quite a few resources in te Pacific.
[OTE]I mean, bearing in mind they didn't even switch to war production rates until mid-'43 they didn't have a chance of catching up, let alone beating the Allies.
The U-boat war was close-run (and could have crippled Britain), but again Germany was late with producing the numbers required by which time we'd got anti-U-boat tactics and technology working quite well. Maybe the Type XXIs could have made a difference if they'd been introduced much earlier, but...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, depth charges can really rip up a sub.
But, what about battles? Which ones could have turned the tide?
Guadalcanal, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Stalingrad, Normandy.....
Resources don't mean much if your factories aren't running to capacity.
It's not so much the depth charges as knowing where and when to put them. Hedgehog was better. Radar helped, as did ASDIC/ Sonar, the convoy system and long-range aircraft.
Well Hitler learned that the hard way.
Well I could well imagine that Sonar helped. It's pretty much the only thing that can find submarines. Unless ofcourse they're running atop.
Radar helped in Allied air superiority.
U.S wouldn't have been as muc on the offensive if we lost here.
Didn't we lose Pearl Harbor? And obviously it didn't hamper our war efforts, so I question this choice.
Debateable. In fact there's a thread on it.
Well if they took Stalingrad it would have just been Moscow and Leningrad. The forces would have been shifted North. Russia could have lost, maybe.
Debateable. I'm sure we would have tried again/a different strategy.
I mean, lose it worse then we did
Turning point and influential are two different concepts, Midway was not the turning point.
Then they would have been clear in the East and gained access to more resources
The loss of allied forces and morale would have been huge
One way of looking at Pearl is that it gave the US Navy a faster fleet: the majority of the ships sunk at pearl Harbour were older, slower types that maybe wouldn't have been as effective, and also maybe would have delayed the introduction of the newer ships if they hadn't gone down and stayed in service.
If we hadn't got ashore at Normandy it would have
A) lost us a lot of men and equipment
B) affected Allied morale badly
C) set back any further attempt at invasion until we'd regrouped. Maybe another year...
That would have given Germany time to bolster their forces while we were replacing losses.
Well then we might have met a bump or two. But overall we probably would have continued on.
I think if that happened the world would ofhad an even harder time. Good things the Russians can't be beat in the winter.
True. But remember Operation Market Garden failed and we still managed to win the war.
A) We did lose alot of men at Omaha. 75% of man in the first wave died. But, we took the beach.
B) How come the same didn't happen after Market Garden?
C) Yeah, that really would have made the war tough.
Would have cost the US a great deal, due to the ships lost.
The forces deployed was as nearly as great as Normandy, and MANY nations participated. The schedule setback would have gave the Germans more time.
Well I was talking about morale. We lost, horribly, and we still fought on.
Omaha was one beach, we still had Gold, Juno... and they got ashore at Omaha anyway, in numbers sufficient to hold it. That's what counted.
Market Garden? Because, despite the size of the operation, it was seen as a (worthwhile) long shot to start with. (Incidentally I actually knew two separate guys who were in the paras for that op).
Yes, but that wasn't a giant offensive ( as in Normandy size ). The morale would have been so low if Normandy was lost that there won't be any will to fight. There is a certain limit of when people will break.
Well sure, who wouldn't be home by Christmas? Too bad it failed.
Separate names with a comma.