Whats your favorite what-if wartime scenario?

98,525 Views | 370 Replies | Last: 1 min ago by nortex97
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I can't recommend enough the "guns of august" book as so many of those linked chain of events could have been broken.
Smeghead4761
How long do you want to ignore this user?
July 1914 by Sean McMeekin is a very thorough examination of the political and diplomatic maneuverings and blunderings that went on between the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the start of the shooting. It's amazing what a clusterf*** that whole thing was.

I'm pretty sure I posted a similar "what if" in this thread a while back: what if the Germans had stood on the strategic defensive in the West against France, and instead turned their primary focus on the Russians?

The results of the Battle of the Frontiers - where the French army was bloodily repulsed attempting to attack into Alsace-Lorraine while the German right wing marched through Belgium - show that the Germans could hold off the French with only a small portion of their army. And the Battle of Tannenberg show what the Germans could do to the Russians with another secondary effort. So how badly could the Germans have thrashed the Russians if they had made that their main effort in 1914?

Meanwhile engaging in focused diplomatic efforts pointing out that Germany is only fighting Russia because Russia attacked Austria-Hungary, with whom Germany had a defense treaty. Russia had no treaty obligation to defend Serbia, which means Russia was the aggressor.* The focus of this being to keep England out of the war entirely, and hopefully convince France that it's not worth the cost of bashing their heads against the German defenses.

*It's worth noting that Russia made no move to help Serbia when Serbia got involved in a war with Turkey a few years prior. Russia mainly saw the spat between Austria-Hungary and Serbia as an opportunity to grab the Austro-Hungarian province of Galicia.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What if Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife had survived the assassination attempt in Sarajevo?
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
HillCountry15
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More of a broad stroke, but always wondered what the European Theater would look like if the US took a "Pacific first" instead of "Europe first" approach to the war, since it was Japan that actually attacked us.
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

What if Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife had survived the assassination attempt in Sarajevo?

Germany was going to war one way or another.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Even more Russians would have died
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HillCountry15 said:

More of a broad stroke, but always wondered what the European Theater would look like if the US took a "Pacific first" instead of "Europe first" approach to the war, since it was Japan that actually attacked us.


We didn't have the Navy or resources in 42 for a sustained campaign against the Japanese that would have been much larger than what we did. So if we largely ignored Europe, I don't think you see the end of the Pacific War that much quicker given the geography and you strongly risk blowing up problems in Europe if the Soviets decide to sue for a separate armistice.
YZ250
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Pacific was initially only receiving 15% of the supplies for the war effort. While both the Army and Navy agreed that Germany must be defeated first Admiral King argued for increasing resources for the Pacific to 25-30% when talking with the British. General Marshall also echoed this with increasing it to 30%. But with the low allocation we had to take a defensive position in the Pacific. The Army agreed to Europe first with the understanding that we would attack Germany soon. General Marshall wanted to build up forces for the invasion of Germany at the earliest possible moment. But this did not happen as the British kept delaying it. If we had doubled the resources to 30% or at least to 50% you most certainly speed up the war in the Pacific and may still be able to invade Europe in 1944. If the invasion is delayed another year maybe we use the bomb on Germany instead.
ja86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If the invasion was delayed another year, it could be argued that the Russians would have controlled all of Germany and Austria. Post-war politics would be very interesting.

The pacific war logistcally wouldn't have progressed much faster than it did until the Essex class carriers hit the fleet in early 43.
Smeghead4761
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

HillCountry15 said:

More of a broad stroke, but always wondered what the European Theater would look like if the US took a "Pacific first" instead of "Europe first" approach to the war, since it was Japan that actually attacked us.


We didn't have the Navy or resources in 42 for a sustained campaign against the Japanese that would have been much larger than what we did. So if we largely ignored Europe, I don't think you see the end of the Pacific War that much quicker given the geography and you strongly risk blowing up problems in Europe if the Soviets decide to sue for a separate armistice.
The long pole in the tent for the Pacific was shipbuilding, most importantly carriers and to a lesser extent battleships (the new, fast battleships, North Carolina class and newer, mostly served as escorts for the carriers*), but also cargo ships to move troops and supplies. They take time to build, especially the carriers and battleships.

The North Carolina and South Dakota class battleships, which first saw action during the Guadalcanal campaign in the fall on 1942, were ordered starting in the late 1930s. The first 3 Essex class carriers were ordered in 1940, and reached the fleet in late 1943 - in time for the invasion of Tarawa.

It is interesting to note, as well, that even with 'Germany first', the US military had more men in the Pacific than Europe-Atlantic until the pre-Normandy build up really got going in January 1944.

*No US carrier was sunk by enemy air action while it was escorted by a fast battleship. They were fantastic anti-aircraft escorts. In one of the carrier battles off Guadalcanal, muzzle flashes from the AA guns onthe USS North Carolina were so intense that Enterprise signaled to ask if she was on fire.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
After the Romans lost 60,000 in a day at the battle of Cannae, it was a mess and Hannibal marched up and down Italy looking for a way to finish them off in battle in the 2nd Punic war. What if…he had succeeded, before being recalled to Carthage, and actually took Rome?



He lacked the logistics most would agree to pull off such a siege but it's still an interesting question.

nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I suppose this is mentioned up thread but what if the Germans hadn't blown it at Stalingrad?



Of course, not necessarily a pleasant scenario, thank goodness Paulus was…who he was.
Smeghead4761
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It probably depends on what is meant by the Germans 'winning' at Stalingrad. Taking the city, probably on the march, without that long, grinding battle? Or the failure of Operation Uranus, and 6th Army not being trapped in the city?

In any case, Army Group A is still highly unlikely to make it across the Caucasus mountains to take Baku and the oil fields there, which was the real objective of the German summer 1942 offensive. That means they would still be badly overextended and vulnerable to a Red Army counteroffensive.

So, the Red Army's winter 42/43 offensive probably would have retaken much less territory, but it would just be a delay in Germany's eventual defeat. Possibly even enough that the Western Allies take Berlin.

I think the Battle of France still goes much the same as it does in actual history. Germany may have more troops available for the Ardennes offensive, but they'd still be in trouble with fuel and transport, with Operation Point Blank having ground the Luftwaffe into near impotence and Germany's fuel production and internal transport system being pounded by British and American bombers.

One of the things that I think is underappreciated about the Anglo-American bomber offensive is the amount of resources Germany devoted to trying to stop it. By the spring of 1943, roughly 70 percent of the Luftwaffe's strength was facing west, with most of that devoted to stopping the bombers. Then there's this, from Richard Overy's Why the Allies Won :
Quote:

By 1944 one-third of all German artillery production consisted of anti-aircraft guns; the anti-aircraft effort absorbed 20 percent of all ammunition produced, one-third of the output of the optical industry, and between half and two-thirds of the production of radar and signals equipment. . . by 1944, an estimated two million Germans were engaged in anti-aircraft defense. (pg 131)


In the first five months of 1944, roughly 2300 of the approximately 2500 fighter pilots that the Luftwaffe had available in January had been killed or otherwise put out of action, mostly in air battles over Germany.

One interesting possibility is that a German victory at Stalingrad, whatever it looked like, might have extended the war enough for the first A-bomb to be dropped on Berlin, not Hiroshima. Would that have made any difference in persuading Japan to surrender?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great points, certainly can't reach any conclusions there. Hitler really was so stupid as a commander that even without Paulus' surrender he probably would have ordered some other military idiocy somehow, imho.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Long form discussion as to 'what if' WW1 could have been avoided.

Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What if Hannibal was able to conquer the city of Rome.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I dunno, I think the issue he was trying to press at that point was to get a direct in the field confrontation with the primary Roman army. That's why he was parading up and down the Italian peninsula. He probably could have taken Rome itself but didn't want to then get locked into a defensive siege there.
Quote:

His strategic aim was not the destruction of Rome itself, but the break- up of the confederation it had established throughout Italy by conquest. The cohesive power of Rome lay in its army. If this could be destroyed, then a general uprising might follow, but the problem Hannibal faced was, how to achieve this when the Romans were so much stronger?

In developing his operational plan, Hannibal rejected the time-honoured custom of besieging cities as this would allow the Romans to concentrate against him, while should the cities fall they would have to be defended, leading to a wide dispersion of his force and so its piecemeal destruction. Instead he adopted a manoeuvre-based concept whereby he would fight the Roman army at a time and place of his own choosing.
Ultimately, of course, his mission/plan failed to stoke an uprising, and as well to destroy the Roman Army, so I do respect there are folks even today who see the strategy as a mistake.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sort of a war what-if...what-if the Marshall Plan had extended to the Soviet Union? Who it have warmed things between the two governments at all?
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Smeghead4761
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

Sort of a war what-if...what-if the Marshall Plan had extended to the Soviet Union? Who it have warmed things between the two governments at all?
Marshall Plan aid was offered to the USSR and the other countries occupied by the Red Army after the war. The Soviets rejected it and forced their client states to do likewise.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Smeghead4761 said:

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

Sort of a war what-if...what-if the Marshall Plan had extended to the Soviet Union? Who it have warmed things between the two governments at all?
Marshall Plan aid was offered to the USSR and the other countries occupied by the Red Army after the war. The Soviets rejected it and forced their client states to do likewise.
Extended was the wrong choice of words. What if they had accepted it?
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They stridently rejected it though, it wasn't really a consideration of theirs. They'd been attacked 3 times in the past 30 or so years and really didn't want to see a rebuilt Germany, or further threats. There was basically no chance they'd have cooperated. The Soviet-Russian mindset was driven by a fear at least going back to the Crimean war (if not Napoleonic) of invasion by 'the west.' Some of this persists even through to today in their attitude toward Nato expansion and Ukraine etc.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.