How could Germany have won the war?

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @aequitas:

    If you Blitz then there is no need and time for gas!!

    By the way, an early theorist of aerial bombing – I think it was Douhet – advocated the combined use of three types of bombs against cities: high explosive bombs to demolish buildings and fill the streets with rubble, incendiary bombs to set the ruins on fire and cause additional destruction, and gas bombs to kill not only the population in general but the firefighters in particular (thus maximizing the effects of the fires).  A combined explosive / gas bombing attack (minus the incendiaries) is shown in an early scene of the 1936 film Things to Come.

  • '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @BJCard:

    @aequitas:

    and as a add - on to CWO´s explanation is to say:

    If you Blitz then there is no need and time for gas!!

    I was thinking more along the lines of:

    Gasing London via V1/V2 rocket or bomber delivery
    Using biological agents in the US via submarine delivery

    Sure, these are reprehensible tactics, and Germany may be asking for their return in kind, but ultimately Germany was destroyed anyway- perhaps the UK would have cut a deal with them or maybe not. Â

    A few years ago ,the Germans found a huge amount of stocked Gas barrels in some of the Tunnels in Berlin.
    They figured it was stocked there during the time of WWII and was forgotten.
    The Germans were sooo Fast

    @BJCard:

    As far as Russia was concerned, the Germans could have been more prepared for the poor roads and winter.  They could have spent the better part of a year consolidating their gains and developing better motorized vehicles to be used in Russia- not to mention supplying their men with winter gear.  Â

    Right ,they could have, but they overestimated them selfs, OK the ignorant part of the OKW and the Führer.
    :roll:

  • Customizer

    Even the Japanese we afraid to gas enemy troops at the end of the war. Gas was a terrifying weapon to both sides after the experience of the first world war.

  • '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @Zooey72:

    the topic went in a weird direction, to  bring it back I would like to see someone argue the point I made with how Germany could have won the war.

    If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?  I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no army, and in 41 Russia would have fallen before winter.  Even if it didn’t fall I am sure Moscow would have fallen, and the following spring offensive would have ended the war in the East.

    The difference between this and other ‘miracle weapons’ is that an assault weapon is practical.  Jets and really big tanks take up too many resources even if they had been produced earlier or in greater numbers.  Ammunition would have been a factor, but that would have been it.

    Imagine it, an army equipped with assault rifles opposed by armies who are equipped with what is basicaly now a hunting rifle.

    Fortunately for the world Hitler didn’t like the concept until it was too late.Â

    I found out, that it may have been allready implemented to German Soldiers way earlier, like 1942 as the Mkb-42.
    It happend for tests that those Mkb`s 42 were sometimes dropped off for encircled infantry groups in russia to test run it. (weird)
    but actually came to positive results of the Mkb-42 aka StGW '44.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 25
  • 31
  • 3
  • 8
  • 15
  • 18
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

34
Online

16.4k
Users

38.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts