What Would Have Made The Allies Lose WWII?

Discussion in 'History' started by Omega133, May 19, 2010.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    I'm fairly sure you're aware that there were more allied tanks than the M3.

    Except that it's far from a fact.

    If by "we" you mean the US then I'd ask you stop being so parochial. There were more countries involved than just you.
    How would you rate the T-34, or the KV-1 for example?

    At the start of WWII the French had better tanks and more of them. (To give one counter example).
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    OriginalBiggles, you were right, he was Emperor BEFORE he was ripped of his crown. Technically, he is the last Emperor.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. BlueRidge Registered Senior Member

    The T34 was a superior weapon. It scared the Nazis to death. When it couldn't out gun a Tiger, it simply rammed it doing the same job of killing them. They were that tough. It was easy to produce, easy to maintain and designed for the hard Russian winters no panzer could endure. The Germans had to keep their tanks running to prevent freeze up. This cost them precious fuel they no longer had. The T34 introduced sloped armor design which even 88mm panzer main guns had a hard time penetrating. Their wide track design also allowed the Soviets to cross the Russian marsh land where panzers failed. But again. The T34 was introduced half way through the game like all other more advanced allied weapons.

    The allies all had shit tanks at the outbreak of war. There's no discussion about it. While the Germans were perfecting tank warfare in conjunction with air power and infantry, most of the allies were still playing with horses and cavalry charges. The only visionary the US had was Patton, he knew the capacity and value of tanks. The M4 Sherman was death trap. Easy to maintain, but that baby BURNED when it got hit. The rule of thumb for Sherman's vs Panther's was 4:1. No M4 couldn't take on more than an outdated Panzer 3. The only advantage to an M4 was production and ease of upkeep. They won on shear numbers, not quality.

    My God, the British used bi-planes to the war's end. This is hardly super advanced equipment. While the allies were working on developing jet aircraft, the Germans were actually using them.

    The only thing the Americans really did right was supply lines and air power. WWII taught all the allies valuable lessons. Lessons that would lend to us being super powers later in life. But frankly speaking, the Japs and the Krouts caught us with our pants down. There's no arguing that.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    The T-34 was introduced into service in 1940. The KV series predated even the T-34.

    One more time: at the start of WWII the French had more and better tanks.

    No more than any other tank.

    It did the job it was required to do.
    If you want to talk about "outdated" I'll remind you that even at the end of the war the German army was still somewhere around 40% horse-drawn... From ~80% at the start.

    The Gloster Meteor entered squadron service before the Me 262 did.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2010
  8. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Dywyddyr, a interesting point at the end of the war the numbers of units in the German Army that were going back to horses for transportation were increasing because of lack of fuel.
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Something people don't know but my grandfather told me( he lived in germany during the war) the german army at times choose to invade and conquer certain areas because of the oil fields in those locations. its one of the reasons the german high command didn't like hitler's decision to go after st. petersburg and moscow pulling troops away from Ukraine where the oil was.
  10. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, Hitler wasn't the greatest tactician.
  11. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    He ruined Operation Barbarossa, Paulus never forgave him for that.
  12. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Not to mention the whole Dunkirk thing.
  13. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Like hitler or hate hitler the fucker had balls.
  14. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    That's why he put a gun to his head instead of facing the Russians.
  15. soullust Registered Senior Member

    hey he was a brave mother fucker during ww1.

    I would have done the same I think if I was in his shoes, I mean fuck you, kill my self, now you will never have the satisfaction of delivering my death..
  16. BlueRidge Registered Senior Member

    OMG. I have no idea where you get your military history, but clearly you don't know shit. I've been adsorbing WWII history and facts since before that was FM radio. I've debated with a bunch of people, but you're a pip! Get the history channel, military channel, and a mountain of books and videos, learn it all-- and come back in 40 years.
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    BR, the French did have better tanks, take the Char B1 and the PzKpfw III A- C model, which faced each other at the beginning of the war.

    SOMUA S35....Char D2, the French had some very good designs at the beginning of the war, it was their tactical doctrine that let them down.

    The majority of German Tanks at the start of the war were the PzKpfw II, with a bunch of PzKpfw I and a some PzKpfw IV A-C.

    Another Tank the Germans had problems with early in the war was the British Matilda, Due to the thickness of its armor, it was largely immune to the guns of the German tanks.

    Char B1

    Weight 28 tonnes
    Length 6.37 m
    Width 2.46 m
    Height 2.79 m
    Crew 4


    Armor 40 mm
    armament 47 mm SA 34
    armament 75 mm ABS SA 35 howitzer and 2 x 7.5 mm Reibel machine guns
    Engine petrol
    272 hp
    Power/weight 9.7 hp/tonne
    Suspension bogies with a mixture of vertical coil and leaf springs
    range 200 km
    Speed 28 km/h (17.4 mph)
    21 km/h (13 mph) off-road

    VS: the PzKpfw III

    Weight 23.0 tonnes (25.4 short tons)
    Length 6.41 m (21.0 ft)
    Width 2.90 m (9.5 ft)
    Height 2.5 m (8.2 ft)
    Crew 5 (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator/bow machine-gunner)


    Armor 5–15mm (0.20–2.8 in)
    armament 1 × 3.7 cm KwK 36 Ausf. A-F
    armament 2-3 × 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34
    Engine 12-cylinder Maybach HL 120 TRM
    300 PS (296 hp, 220 kW)
    Power/weight 12 hp/t
    Suspension Torsion-bar suspension
    range 155 km (96 mi)
    Speed 40 km/h (25 mph) road, 20 km/h (12 mph) off road


    Gander, Terry J. Tanks in Detail; PzKpfw III Ausf A to N ISBN 0-7110-3015-4.
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Yes I see. Lots of rhetoric but no actual substantiation.
    Is that how you win your "debates"?
    Next time you're "adsorbing" try to actually understand what you're reading. And FYI I already have a mountain of books, and in 40 years I'll probably be dead of old age.

    Somua S35: 47mm armour, 47mm gun.
    Char B1 bis: 60mm armour, 47mm and (low-velocity) 75mm gun.
    Pzkpfw IIID: 30mm armour, 37mm gun.
    Pzkpfw IVD: 30mm armour, (low-velocity) 75mm gun.
    Matilda 1 (A11): 60mm armour, .50 cal MG.
    Matilda 2 (A12): 78mm armour, 40mm gun.

    An example of the efficacy of the Char B facing, among others, Pzkpfw III, Pzkpfw IV and anti-tank guns (Battle of Stonne):


    * This number is mostly, if not all, B1 bis, of which 369 were built, as opposed to 34 B1 and 2 B1 ter.

    I have a couple of suggestions for you:
    1) Don't make statements like "clearly you don't know shit" when it's you who is the ignorant party.
    2) Forget TV programmes for genuine data and dump your Janet & John books. You're obviously reading rubbish.
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2010
  19. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    The fact is that the most significant superiority the Germans had was in their tanks. But how many other advantages did they have?

    Infrantry wasn't that much better, just look at Bastogne, nuff said.

    Planes were pretty much on the allies side, the fighters at the beginning were even but the bombers were better for the allies.

    Naval ships also goes to the allies, even though there was the Tirpitz, Bismark, etc... those were not nearly the best battleships in the world. I believe an Iowa could even outclass them.

    The allies had far from the worst tanks in the war, of the major players the Japanese had by far the worst tanks.
  20. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Dyw, buffalo, and I both know a lot about the history of WW2.

    Besides the fact that FM radios and the history channel are pathetic. Theyre great if you dont actually care that much for the history, but the fact is those are both pathetic compared to a real historian.

    Blue, if you read a book every so often you may, and I stress MAY, know this stuff.

    You haven't learned it all, dont make me laugh.

    Don't tell me, you learned most of your WW2 history from saving private ryan didn't you?
  21. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Germans had better trained troops for the most part of the war. Also, their pilots, most of the aces with 100+ kills are Luftwaffe.
  22. OriginalBiggles OriginalBiggles, Prime Registered Senior Member

    To get back on track with the title of this topic..............

    What would have made the Allies lose WW2?

    Approaching this question from a purely weapons sophistication angle has too many unresolvable arguments. We achieve a very similar situation when using particular battles or tactics to generalise on a wider scale.

    As for WW2 in Europe; I see [A] the loss of the Battle of Britain [Jul-Oct 1940] through Goering's incompetence in believing an aerial blitzkrieg would automatically be as successful as had the land-based ones and misplaced and excessive confidence and nationalist pride in Aryan superiority as being significant contributing factors.

    Five months later the US Lend Lease operations to supply Britain began in March-April 1941

    Had [A] not been lost by Germany, would not have happened. I believe the war in Europe would have been won and consolidated by the Axis Powers. However, Russia and the Balkans provide the fly in the ointment. North Africa and Suez equally must be factored into this equation. I think Russia would have received the great bulk of the Lend Lease materiel as England is by now in German hands. A resurgent Russia in 1943 [additionally supplied by its industrial might now in the east], possibly with US aid in troops as well as weapons would probably have begun a push into the Balkans and ensured the total isolation of Italy. Germany would be embattled on an eastern front much closer to home.

    For Germany to be victorious in Europe, Operation Barbarossa must not be undertaken and the Russo-German trade and non-aggression pacts of Aug 1939 strengthened.

    With Spain on her side, Germany can now control the entrance to and thus the entire Mediterranean. Especially if French North Africa and its Middle Eastern territories of Syria and Lebanon ceded to the Axis powers. Operation Sea Lion would be already underway and Britain, desperately defending the home island, would have no significant forces to hold Suez.

    Axis forces in the Balkans would push south to neutral Turkey who had early signed a non-aggression pact with Germany [but declared war three months before the end of WW2 in Europe]. Troop movements through Turkey would have been negotiated under threat of invasion. This provides Germany a land route to the Indian Ocean via Suez.

    Spain's Blue Division, now not fighting on the German Eastern Front in Russia, would be an addition to the Axis forces in northern Africa. The nations of Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, already intimidated or sympathetic to German hegemony, probably would have added significantly to the Axis fighting forces especially in the Balkans and Middle East.

    Russia's neutrality and as a source of raw materials would be guaranteed by the axis powers, that is, by Japan as well as Germany.

    For these reasons, I believe if Germany had won the Battle of Britain and followed up swiftly with Operation Sea Lion and not invaded Russia it would have won WW2 in Europe and threatened the British Empire in the east.
    The secret strategic agreement between Germany and Japan to occupy all Burma and India is a real possibility.

    Questions to be asked;
    [a] What would have become of the British navy minus a significant air support and with Germany ruling the skies?

    What objections, if any, would the USA have made to the above, especially after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour and the Japanese threat to the entire western Pacific?

    [c] With the Axis powers occupying south and western Asia and north Africa, what designs may they have harboured on the rest of Africa?

    [d] Would Australia have been as attractive a base of Allied operations against Japan? Would the US have cared very much?

    [e] Should the IJN and IJA have invaded and occupied the Hawaian Islands on 7 Dec 1941?

    [f] Would Russia have signed a Lend Lease agreement with Japan? It should be remembered that while Sweden and Switzerland declared neutrality status, Sweden traded extensively with Germany and Switzerland granted rail travel rights for German armies and munitions into Italy during WW2. Both collaborated in other ways as well when German pressure was exerted.

    [g] Could the USA have defeated both Japan and Russia?

    [h] Though antagonists for most of the 20th century 'til then, could Japan and Russia agree on mounting a united front against the USA? [Russia is not fighting a war in Europe and Japan is hoping to join up with German forces in India]

    Had Germany, Japan and Russia written the official histories of WW2, how different would they be from those we already know?

    Biggles, Prime
  23. OriginalBiggles OriginalBiggles, Prime Registered Senior Member

    Well, I did harbour a notion that someone would pull my scenario to pieces.

    No arguments? No alternatives? No errors? No baseless suppositions or assumptions?

    "What about China?" I hear someone bellow..........or is that just a loud whisper?

    Could Japan, with all her other ambitious plans, have conquered all of China?

    In Manchukuo and other areas of conquered China the IJA set up biological and chemical warfare research units. The most notorious of these is Unit 731 under the command of Dr. Shiro Ishii located at Pinfang in Manchukuo. Here, horrible medical experiments and vivisections were carried out on live subjects, men, women and children, some of them POWs but most from local populations and prisons.

    It is estimated that 500,000 to 750,000 civilians in hundreds of villages and towns were killed by deadly gases or viruses, incuding Bubonic plague, typhus, anthrax, cholera, smallpox, botulism, dysentery.

    The USA may well have negotiated a lend-lease agreement with China.

    If the IJA's half dozen special units located around China began chemical and biological war................the outcome seems full of gloom.

    What sort of outcome is most likely?

    Biggles, Prime

Share This Page