• As you know, I love my German tanks, but I do not believe 1300 tanks would have made that much of a difference in 42. I would have liked to see them in North Africa, but am sure supplying them with fuel while Malta remained enemy held, would have been too great a task.
    I believe the latest and most potent  Submarine and the pressure  that brings to bear on Britain and the stretched convoy routes would have  hurt the Allies more.

    You enjoy your holiday Worsham.
    And you  Toblerone.

  • Customizer

    Anything to stop tonnage (bombs/weapons) from being used against Germany. I choose subs over jets but either seems the best of choices. Had the Type XXI been available earlier with better torpedoes, I think while not a war-winner, would have put some serious hurt on the Allies which would’ve helped over-all.

    Happy Thanksgiving All!


  • @rjpeters70:

    I think what would have been useful in 42 would have been a grand strategic thinker, someone who could have identified key areas to hold, to take, and to abandon in order to link operations with broader strategic goals.  By 42, that was Germany’s biggest challenge.

    Agreed, assuming that the cloned Frederick the Great would get to replace Hitler as Germany’s leader. The year given in the poll is 1942, which is the point at which a great leader and a great general would have made a crucial difference. John Keegan’s book The Mask of Command has a chapter on Hitler, which focuses on his “generalship” at the mid-point of the war (specifically during the Stalingrad campaign).  Keegan finds this period a better test of a leader’s ability than the early phase of the war (which was marked by easy victories against ill-prepared enemies) or the late phase of the war (in which Germany was basically on the defensive and reduced to fighting delaying actions).  At the war’s mid-point, Hitler was in a position of having relatively free but appreciably constrained strategic choice, and it was here that he got himself into trouble. The Stalingrad campaign was originally just meant to be a supporting operation to secure the flank of a main drive into the Caucasus region (which had important oil fields), and its objective was originally just supposed to be to reach the city and surround it on the western bank of the Volga.  Hitler lost sight of his strategic objectives, however: he simultaneously stripped Von Paulus’ 6th Army of much of its armour (sending it to support the Caucasus drive) and gave Von Paulus the supplementary mission of actually capturing the city (which was a much tougher proposition than just besieging it).  During the arduous month-long fighting which followed, Hitler made the additional mistake of thinking too much like a corporal and not enough like a general: being too concerned about whether this company had captured that neighborhood rather than stepping back to wonder whether the campaign as a whole was serving Germany’s larger strategic interests.  Frederick the Great would presumably have had more good sense if he’d been in command.

  • Customizer

    @wittmann:

    As you know, I love my German tanks, but I do not believe 1300 tanks would have made that much of a difference in 42. I would have liked to see them in North Africa, but am sure supplying them with fuel while Malta remained enemy held, would have been too great a task.
    I believe the latest and most potent  Submarine and the pressure  that brings to bear on Britain and the stretched convoy routes would have  hurt the Allies more.

    You enjoy your holiday Worsham.
    And you  Toblerone.

    Thank you wittman. It’s one of my favorite holidays.


  • Hitler did his best to isolate the Crown Prince influence during the war. I can only imagine how a resurrection of Frederick the Great would have caused in the ranks of the German Elite.


  • @ABWorsham:

    I can only imagine how a resurrection of Frederick the Great would have caused in the ranks of the German Elite.

    There’s an old joke about Soviet scientists discovering a way to resurrect famous historical figures.  The first three individuals they decide to bring back are Hannibal, Julius Caesar and Napoleon.  The experiment works.  Soviet leaders decide to showcase this technical triumph by having these three great miliitary leaders (each of whom has been provided with a personal translator and with an assistant whose job is to explain the modern world to them) be the guests of honour at a huge military parade in Red Square.  When a formation of T-80 tanks rolls past the reviewing stand, Hannibal, greatly impressed, exclaims, “Why, if I’d had those tanks instead of my elephants, I would have conquered Rome!”  Next, when a formation of Red Army soldiers carrying AK-47s marches past the reviewing stand, Caesar, greatly impressed, exclaims, “Why, if I’d had those troops instead of my legionaries, I would have conquered the world!”  Napoleon, meanwhile, is paying no attention to the parade; instead, he’s reading a copy of Pravda with the help of his translator, and he eventually exclaims, “Why, if I’d had this newspaper back in my time, nobody would ever have heard about Waterloo!”


  • @rjpeters70:

    Didn’t COBRA try that, with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Ivan the Terrible, Napolean, and Sgt. Slaughter?  Came up with Serpentor?

    Um, I don’t know.  My cultural background in these matters is sadly deficient.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    @rjpeters70:

    Didn’t COBRA try that, with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Ivan the Terrible, Napolean, and Sgt. Slaughter?  Came up with Serpentor?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentor

    Serpentor was designed to be the ultimate Cobra leader. Under the direction of Doctor Mindbender, he and Destro combed the tombs of the greatest leaders in history to find cells with DNA traces. These long-dead genetic blueprints were combined to produce a clone with the genius of Napoleon, the ruthlessness of Julius Caesar, the daring of Hannibal, and the shrewdness of Attila the Hun.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Along that interesting note, this was too cool to pass up!

    Serpentor was first released as an action figure in 1986, packaged with the Air Chariot.[2][3] The Air Chariot is like a flying throne, with two 7.62mm attack guns, reinforced battle shield, and hover engine.

    If only the Germans had a few of these!


  • @Gargantua:

    Serpentor was designed to be the ultimate Cobra leader. Under the direction of Doctor Mindbender, he and Destro combed the tombs of the greatest leaders in history to find cells with DNA traces. These long-dead genetic blueprints were combined to produce a clone with the genius of Napoleon, the ruthlessness of Julius Caesar, the daring of Hannibal, and the shrewdness of Attila the Hun.

    Wouldn’t combining the DNA of Hannibal and Caesar – a Cartheginian and a Roman – produce a person with a severe dissociative personality disorder who’d spend his time fighting himself?


  • @rjpeters70:

    I went to High School with a guy who was German (Dad’s side) and Turkish (Mom’s).  I wondered the same thing…

    Not a problem.  Turkey was an ally of Germany in WWI and a neutral in WWII.


  • @rjpeters70:

    Yes, but that was a long time ago.  Today, things between Germany and Turkey are far from great.

    Ah, I see – good point.  These things do indeed change over time, such as when Britain and Germany (or more correctly Prussia) were fighting as allies at Waterloo against their common enemy: France.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I’ll do you one better Marc.

    Remember when the Germans fought FOR the British, in America?

    As the primary force against George Washington and other American Revolutionaries?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_(soldiers)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans_in_the_American_Revolution#Allies_of_Great_Britain

    I specifically like this quote

    Americans were alarmed at the arrival of German troops on American soil, viewing it as a betrayal by King George III. Several American congressmen declared they would be willing to declare independence if King George used German soldiers.[5] German soldiers provided American patriots with a propaganda tool; they were derogatorily called “mercenaries,” and were referred as such in the Declaration of Independence:[6]”


  • @rjpeters70:

    Yes, but that was a long time ago.  Today, things between Germany and Turkey are far from great.

    ?? how is that??


  • @Gargantua:

    @rjpeters70:

    Didn’t COBRA try that, with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Ivan the Terrible, Napolean, and Sgt. Slaughter?  Came up with Serpentor?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentor

    Serpentor was designed to be the ultimate Cobra leader. Under the direction of Doctor Mindbender, he and Destro combed the tombs of the greatest leaders in history to find cells with DNA traces. These long-dead genetic blueprints were combined to produce a clone with the genius of Napoleon, the ruthlessness of Julius Caesar, the daring of Hannibal, and the shrewdness of Attila the Hun.

    I loved the character Serpentor in the GI Joe series!


  • @CWO:

    Agreed, assuming that the cloned Frederick the Great would get to replace Hitler as Germany’s leader. The year given in the poll is 1942, which is the point at which a great leader and a great general would have made a crucial difference. John Keegan’s book The Mask of Command has a chapter on Hitler, which focuses on his “generalship” at the mid-point of the war (specifically during the Stalingrad campaign).  Keegan finds this period a better test of a leader’s ability than the early phase of the war (which was marked by easy victories against ill-prepared enemies) or the late phase of the war (in which Germany was basically on the defensive and reduced to fighting delaying actions).  At the war’s mid-point, Hitler was in a position of having relatively free but appreciably constrained strategic choice, and it was here that he got himself into trouble. The Stalingrad campaign was originally just meant to be a supporting operation to secure the flank of a main drive into the Caucasus region (which had important oil fields), and its objective was originally just supposed to be to reach the city and surround it on the western bank of the Volga.  Hitler lost sight of his strategic objectives, however: he simultaneously stripped Von Paulus’ 6th Army of much of its armour (sending it to support the Caucasus drive) and gave Von Paulus the supplementary mission of actually capturing the city (which was a much tougher proposition than just besieging it).  During the arduous month-long fighting which followed, Hitler made the additional mistake of thinking too much like a corporal and not enough like a general: being too concerned about whether this company had captured that neighborhood rather than stepping back to wonder whether the campaign as a whole was serving Germany’s larger strategic interests.  Frederick the Great would presumably have had more good sense if he’d been in command.

    Good post.

    I’d initially voted for the Type XXI U-boats. But now I want to change my vote to Frederick the Great!

    To add to what you’ve written: in the summer and fall of 1941, the German Army achieved a staggering 10:1 exchange ratio against its communist opponent. By 1943, improvements in the Red Army had caused the usual ratio to decline to 3:1 or (at best) 4:1.

    But in the street-to-street fighting to capture Stalingrad itself, the exchange ratio was 1:1. As you pointed out, actually capturing the city was unnecessary. But having captured the city, Hitler was very determined to hold onto it. Abandoning it would have presumably meant having to recapture it later; and once again suffering that same 1:1 ratio during the recapture. Germany’s pre-war population was 69 million; as opposed to 169 million for the Soviet Union. It simply could not afford anything close to a 1:1 exchange ratio!

    The flanks of the Stalingrad force were protected by soldiers from non-German Axis nations (Romania, Italy, etc.). After the Soviets overcame those soldiers and surrounded the German force at Stalingrad, Goering promised Hitler that he could resupply it by air until the siege had been broken. Hitler believed Goering’s promises because Goering said exactly what Hitler wanted to hear. A better leader (such as Frederick the Great) would have known better than to trust Goering’s promises.

    On the other hand, there’s something to be said for all those type XXI U-Boats in '42. The United States was making massive deliveries to Germany’s enemies: tanks, planes, trucks, and machinery to the Soviet Union, fighters and bombers to Britain. Type XXIs were very difficult to detect via radar or sonar (rubber-coated hulls). They could have sent a large portion of that aid to the bottom of the sea. Not only would that have weakened the Soviet Union’s ground war against Germany. It would also have lessened the Anglo-American ability to conduct their air war. (Planes were being delivered via transports.)


  • @KurtGodel7:

    As you pointed out, actually capturing the city was unnecessary. But having captured the city, Hitler was very determined to hold onto it. Abandoning it would have presumably meant having to recapture it later; and once again suffering that same 1:1 ratio during the recapture.

    One thing I’m wondering: why would Germany have to (or even want to) recapture at great cost a city that it was unnecessary (and indeed counterproductive) to capture in the first place?

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts