Did the Axis have any chance at all in WWII?

[Chris 62]

Misconceptions...

Guys, first, the Me 262 wasn't ready in 40 or 41, the world's first turbo-jet fighter is the He-280, which didn't fly until April 12, 1941.

http://members.tripod.com/Air_Museum_ww2/id45.htm

The Me 262 got off the ground for the first time July 18, 1942, and simply wasn't availible earlier.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap11.htm

The T-34 data is also inaccurate, none were in service in 39 or 1940.
The first prototype wasn't ready till September of 1940, so it wouldn't be availible in Poland or in the battle of France time period.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-34.htm

[David Floyd]

The T-34 data is also inaccurate, none were in service in 39 or 1940.
The first prototype wasn't ready till September of 1940, so it wouldn't be availible in Poland or in the battle of France time period.

Yup, and wasn't even used until Smolensk.

As to the Me-262, you're absolutely right.

[Cavalcadeus]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Cav,

Maybe, but don't forget Britain's chemical weapons which would have been used against any invasion.

With the main British army destroyed at Dunkirk their would be all most no organized resistance to the Germans. The British airfields would quickly be over run. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons because he was afraid that England would respond in kind. If England used chemical weapons Germany would retaliate. I don't think that Churchill would want London to suffer chemical attacks.

On the subject of of a peace treaty with England: What if Germany had taken Dunkirk before the evacuations had started and Hitler had used the BEF as a bargining chip? "Surrender or I'll wipe put the BEF"

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Not necessarily. Germany held over 40% of the Russian population, including much of their breadbasket, by the end of 1941. If they had taken Moscow in Operation Typhoon (which is reasonable if they had a couple more weeks of good weather given that they wiped out about 7/8s of Moscow's defenders in Typhoon), they would have been capable of taking Leningrad, Stalingrad, and the Caucasus in 1942, and pushing further into Russia.

No, frostbite decimated their army. Machines not designed to work in subfreezing temperaures broke. Failing to provide for the winterization of the troops and their equipment meant that the Germans had to virtually replace both before mounting any subsequent serious operations after Typhoon.

Suggesting that a few more weeks of good weather in December in central Russia might have helped the Germans along is like suggesting that a couple of weeks of a really good long jungle killing dry spell would have been real nice for General Westmorland in Vietnam. Russia is an icy hell in the winter. Southeast Asia is jungle all the time. This is just the way things are.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yup, and wasn't even used until Smolensk.

As to the Me-262, you're absolutely right.

*Faints flatout*

OK, is Higgsy using your logon again?

I can't believe you agree with me!

[David Floyd]

Cav,

If England used chemical weapons Germany would retaliate.

Yes, but against a small bridgehead, British chemical weapons would have been devastating, and the Germans could not invade or supply a large bridgehead.

On the subject of of a peace treaty with England: What if Germany had taken Dunkirk before the evacuations had started and Hitler had used the BEF as a bargining chip? "Surrender or I'll wipe put the BEF"

Churchill would never have surrendered, period.

DS,

No, frostbite decimated their army. Machines not designed to work in subfreezing temperaures broke. Failing to provide for the winterization of the troops and their equipment meant that the Germans had to virtually replace both before mounting any subsequent serious operations after Typhoon.

Yes of course - but the Russians, assuming a Typhoon defeat and the loss of Moscow, would have lost their transportation network and an additional 100-150,000 very good troops. Sure, they could have counterattacked, but with what? Half-trained conscripts and T-26s?

Suggesting that a few more weeks of good weather in December in central Russia might have helped the Germans along is like suggesting that a couple of weeks of a really good long jungle killing dry spell would have been real nice for General Westmorland in Vietnam. Russia is an icy hell in the winter. Southeast Asia is jungle all the time. This is just the way things are.

No no, I'm suggesting that started 6 weeks EARLIER would have resulted in Moscow falling in October or November.

[David Floyd]

OK, is Higgsy using your logon again?

I can't believe you agree with me!

On WW2 history, we're both gonna be very much in agreement on most subjects I think

[Chris 62]

And now I have to agree with Floyd, the 6 weeks lost in the Balkans effectivly lost the Russian campaign.

Another sign of the apocolyspe.

[David Floyd]

Just goes to show that honest historical evaluations transcend politics

[TCO]

Originally posted by Chris 62
And now I have to agree with Floyd, the 6 weeks lost in the Balkans effectivly lost the Russian campaign.

Another sign of the apocolyspe.

Getting soft, groundpounder. You and Mitty living in "coulda, woulda, shoulda" land...

[David Floyd]

Isn't that what this whole thread is about?

Begone, ya pansy submariner

[Dr Strangelove]

Supposedly it was very muddy in western Russia until the end of May in 1941, so at best the operation could only have started 2 weeks earlier. The axis also absolutely had to have Yugoslavian roads and rails in order to extend their offensive start line south into Rumania, because the few roads and rails that passed directly from Hungary to Rumania were inadequate. Using Rumania as the southern start area was essential to the offensive in the south. If the axis had to attack the Ukraine from Hungary alone the southern offensive could have been very easily bottlenecked and blocked.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by GP


Getting soft, groundpounder. You and Mitty living in "coulda, woulda, shoulda" land...

Best way to gut a guy is if he doesn't expect it.

[David Floyd]

If the axis had to attack the Ukraine from Hungary alone the southern offensive could have been very easily bottlenecked and blocked.

Yes, but I argue that this would have been beneficial to the Germans - the Russians would have reinforced "success" in a theater that didn't matter. Taking Moscow was key because of the transportation network.

Supposedly it was very muddy in western Russia until the end of May in 1941, so at best the operation could only have started 2 weeks earlier.

2 weeks could easily have made the difference.

[Cavalcadeus]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Cav,

Yes, but against a small bridgehead, British chemical weapons would have been devastating, and the Germans could not invade or supply a large bridgehead.

Churchill would never have surrendered, period.

Using chemical weapons against the bridgehead would also be using them against their own population. There wouldn't be much of a British army to contain the Germans. I don't think that England would risk German retaliations against their cities.