How could Germany have won the war?


  • I don’t know how other armed forces work, but we probably had someone on our Submarine from at least 40 different states.  Everyone is rotated to other boats or shore facilities every 3-5 years.  Officers rotate 2-3 years.  There is so much crew turnover that it would be impossible for an entire crew to support the Captain- they just aren’t together long enough.  Not like hundreds of years ago when armies tended to be loyal to their commander and followed blindly.

    My point is thus- if the Captain told us that California is in open revolt, or terrorists have taken over LA, etc- do you think that the dozen or so Californians on the boat would go along with a strike on civilians?  I sure as hell would not want my submarine to send tomahawks on South Carolina right now - knowing my wife and kid are here.  I wouldn’t want them to fire on Dallas, TX because my parents are there.  I have family in Washington, DC too.

    There is also free press here- with varying degrees of liberal/conservative bias, but they are there.  I don’t think the public could be duped into thinking the state of California are all terrorists if they were defending themselves from the US Army.

    If there was a Civil War, all branches of the government would split.  You have congressmen from different states; Supreme court justices from different states; a president from another country ( :-D… ok Hawaii).  Every military unit would have to decide which side they are on.

    A handgun can still kill a man, even wearing body armor; so yes the ‘farmer’ with a shotgun could fight in a civil war; perhaps not against a tank battalion, but in the streets, in his home, etc.


  • @BJCard:

    My point is thus- if the Captain told us that California is in open revolt, or terrorists have taken over LA, etc- do you think that the dozen or so Californians on the boat would go along with a strike on civilians?  I sure as hell would not want my submarine to send tomahawks on South Carolina right now - knowing my wife and kid are here.  I wouldn’t want them to fire on Dallas, TX because my parents are there.  I have family in Washington, DC too.

    this is sorta the point, if you have a gun then you are not a civilian, you are among the “terrorists”. The captain would not say that valifornia was in open revolt, he would say that terrorists hating our democracy have launched terrorist attacks against the capitol. He would say that you where going in to restore order and arrest the terrorists, the plan would be just like the plan the national guard had when it went into LA during the LA riots, and it would get crushed exactly like they where the moment the shooting started.

    you can also look at the coup attempt against chavez to see what happens when protestors starts to shoot, the TV images of chavez supporters shooting was almost enough to make chavez loose the presidency.

    It is very difficult to gather enough momentum to get to a civil war. to get enough people to join the decenting people, the protests needs to be nonviolent. even the american revolution wasn’t violent until it had gathered enough support and momentum to start a “civil war”.


  • Well, I guess my point is that all of government, including the armed forces will fracture.  Every state has a national guard and the country has military forces all over the world.  Every military unit has people from many different states and ‘walks of life.’

    Anyway, I’m not sure what we are arguing right now-  back to topic…

    Germany using chemical and biological warfare to win WWII?  Could have dropped devastating biological/chemical agents on the UK and the US and to a lesser extent Russia…


  • @BJCard:

    Germany using chemical and biological warfare to win WWII?  Could have dropped devastating biological/chemical agents on the UK and the US and to a lesser extent Russia…

    It depends on the type, but some chemical weapons are quite localized in their effects and soon become diluted in the atmosphere to a point where their effectiveness is reduced.  They can be regarded more as tactical-level harassment tools than war-winning strategic weapons.  Nerve gases (like Sarin, Tabun and Soman, which Germany experimented with) are particularly nasty in their effects, so they might have had some use as a terror weapon against enemy cities (given the assumption of a proper delivery system), but the conventional bombings campaigns (using explosives and incendiaries) against Britain and Germany and Japan showed that civilians could endure some pretty devastating attacks without cracking.  As for biological warfare, one of its problems is that can be hard to control and thus potentially dangerous to your own side if the disease is communicable and can propagate on its own.  Germany was also probably aware that Britain had a weaponized anthrax program and was in a position to hit back at Germany if Britain was the target of a biological attack.


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

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


  • @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.

    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.  Perhaps during this year they could press the war in the Mediterranean, maybe even seizing the Suez Canal and linking up with Iraq.


  • @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.


  • @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.


  • @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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 82
  • 12
  • 16
  • 52
  • 14
  • 11
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

41

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts