WWII starts on Dec. 7 1941

You know how to build a ship better then the designers, show it here.
Joined: June 16th, 2012, 4:15 am

September 23rd, 2017, 12:01 am #21

wabpilot wrote: The Germans had 57 submarines available in September 1939. They built 50 in 1940 and 199 in 1941. Assuming no war in 1939, there would be no losses. Thus the Germans start the war with 306 submarines. Their surface fleet is still inadequate to the task. They would have two full size battleships, Tirpitz and Bismark, two modern but smaller battleships, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and three obsolete pre-war dreadnaughts. This small surface force would be arrayed against the seven to eight British battleships of the home fleet, plus the British Mediterranean and Pacific fleet battleships. Further, the RN would have ten aircraft carriers with two building against just one, incomplete, German CV. The British Home Fleet had more cruisers and many more destroyers than the German navy. The British were just barely able to defend their skies in 1940. By December 1941, the Royal Air Force would be much larger and better armed than it was in 1940. The Hurricanes would probably have been sent out to the empire and completely replaced at home with Spitfires. The British would have 20mm guns and ammo that worked by 1941. 

Blockading Britain with 306 submarines looks a lot more effective at the onset of a war than trying to do so with 57. The Germans were inflicting real pain on Britain in 1943 with their submarine blockade. However, the Germans still lacked an effective surface force that could protect a channel crossing. Gaining air superiority over the Channel, and southeast England is not so likely in 1941-2. Mounting an invasion looks even more daunting for the Germans. Chamberlain's deal at Munich looks a lot better if it holds off war until 1941 when Britain has mostly completed the motorization of its entire army. The French are still probably not ready to fight a mobile war, but with any luck, the time from 1939 to 1941 makes them more like the French army that fought well once they were behind the Somme. Lots of variables, but I don't think time favors the Germans in the west.
http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/index.html
http://navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_index.htm
Germany will be building the Capital ships with a date line of 1946 as the finishing date for the Z plan
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

September 23rd, 2017, 1:11 am #22

wabpilot wrote: The Germans had 57 submarines  . . .
That sounds about right.  The only thing I would quibble about is the number of submarines built in 1941.  I don't think they'd build as many in peacetime.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

September 23rd, 2017, 1:21 am #23

don4331 wrote: GZ would be working up in N. Sea; B&T would be fully commissioned, S&G might be down for 38cm upgrades, 1st 2 - H class BBs would be in final stages before launch.
It took four year from laying down to completion for Bismarck and Tirpitz.  "H" and "J" were laid down in 1939.  They likely wouldn't be ready until 1943 - assuming work continued on them during wartime.  Of course, the first two Lions would similarly not be ready until 1944.  Three KGVs would be ready by December 1941 with the other two following within the year.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 1st, 2007, 9:13 am

September 23rd, 2017, 3:13 am #24

Dave AAA wrote:
Force H wrote: Has Italy come to its sences and and regrouped its divisions into the triad formation?  Do they succesfully talk Germany into lincense building Mk III's IV's and STG III's, and the Daimler(?) aircraft engine they want, or is the corruption eliminated enough to get the proper contemporary designs of France Germany and Great Britain?
Were they planning on changing their divisional organization or asking Germany for licenses for AFVs and aeroengines?  Why would the Allies sell designs to Fascist Italy?  They may not have been at war, but Italy was seen as a potential enemy.
I see I left some words out.  It should have read '...on par with those of the designs...'
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 1st, 2007, 9:13 am

September 23rd, 2017, 4:09 am #25

Dave AAA wrote:
Force H wrote: Has Italy come to its sences and and regrouped its divisions into the triad formation?  Do they succesfully talk Germany into lincense building Mk III's IV's and STG III's, and the Daimler(?) aircraft engine they want, or is the corruption eliminated enough to get the proper contemporary designs of France Germany and Great Britain?
Were they planning on changing their divisional organization or asking Germany for licenses for AFVs and aeroengines?  Why would the Allies sell designs to Fascist Italy?  They may not have been at war, but Italy was seen as a potential enemy.
Binary infantry division

After a reorganization in 1938, Italian infantry division was known as "binary" division (divisione binaria). This is because Italian infantry divisions were based on two regiments instead of the three that prevailed prior to the reorganization. By comparison, German divisions had three infantry regiments. In addition to the two infantry regiments, the Italian infantry division included an artillery regiment, a mortar battalion, an engineer battalion, and a pack gun company. The division also had some division-level services and could have a division-level reserve infantry battalion. 

Mollo p. 83  I believe Andrew Mollo from his book on uniforms and unit organizations of WWII.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 1st, 2007, 9:13 am

September 23rd, 2017, 4:24 am #26

"All the nations are as mobilized as they were when they Went to War and have the Army and air force of the size they had when they went to war ,"

I forgot that when I started the reply.  But outside of maybe better trained armies and air forces with better doctines, and a little bit bigger navies, what's the point of keeping the other two services the same.

And man there could be a hell of a winter war in parts of Europe, or maybe another phony war in those same parts till late spring or early summer.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 10:32 pm

September 23rd, 2017, 5:21 pm #27

Do the Russians get to invade Finland?

Because that could shift the focus.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

September 23rd, 2017, 5:50 pm #28

Force H wrote: Binary infantry division

After a reorganization in 1938, Italian infantry division was known as "binary" division (divisione binaria). This is because Italian infantry divisions were based on two regiments instead of the three that prevailed prior to the reorganization.
OK, but if they had just changed to a two regiment division, why would they change to a three regiment one without lessons learned from combat against a peer power?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 1st, 2007, 9:13 am

September 23rd, 2017, 6:50 pm #29

Dave AAA wrote:
Force H wrote: Binary infantry division

After a reorganization in 1938, Italian infantry division was known as "binary" division (divisione binaria). This is because Italian infantry divisions were based on two regiments instead of the three that prevailed prior to the reorganization.
OK, but if they had just changed to a two regiment division, why would they change to a three regiment one without lessons learned from combat against a peer power?
They changed to a binary formation for the only reason that Il Duce wanted more divisions.  Combat in Africa and Spain had nothing to do with it.  Thats why I stated 'come to their sences'.  I got nothing to back that up anymore.  Their was site about the Royal Army, but it has disappeared.  To bad cause it was really good. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 12th, 2017, 1:16 pm

January 13th, 2018, 2:41 am #30

Dave AAA wrote: Germany cannot defeat Britain.  Britain alone might not be able to defeat Germany. Britain and France have a good chance at it if they can prevent a German breakthrough.  Britain, France, and the US would win.  Indeed, any alliance that includes the US would win.  Their is a small chance Germany could have defeated an alliance that included the Soviets but excluded the Americans.
This is not true at all. Germany can defeat Britain if it dedicates the resources to it. Given that as late as 1943, the Germans were launching successful Amphibious Operations in the face of the RN and winning (WTF), Seelowe had a high chance of success. Especially when one realizes that the Home Fleet's deployments meant they could not intercept the Invasion Barges before they landed as they had inaccurate intelligence reports indicating East Anglia was the intended target. So the British concentrated their forces there and considered the Channel buildup a diversionary force.

Factor in night visibility conditions, smoke laying, the 100 German Coastal Escorts, the fact all the transports and barges were well supplied with light Flak, AT guns, and Infantry Guns for use in defense, the British would be lucky to intercept and stop one convoy.

I recommend "We March Against England: Operation Sea Lion, 1940–41," by Dr. Robert Forczyk, Lieutenant Colonel US Army Reserves, Ret. You should also read his books on the East Front as well, his 20 years as a Tank Commander brings new insights to why the Soviets served largely as target practice to German Soldiers as he picks up on things the classical Historians missed. Combine it with Dr. Nigel Askey's "Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation," series and you'll get a much better picture of why only the US was able to win WW2.

The answer to why only the US could win: Better Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence (C3I). This was the dominant factor more so than anything as it made possible everything else to matter. Germany got as far as it did solely because it had better C3I than the early Allies and the Soviets. But once the US weighed in, handing out radios and telephones like no tomorrow, the operational shocks to Allied forces ceased and their artillery started to become effective at smashing the Germans.
Quote
Like
Share