Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 4th, 2013, 04:30 PM   #31

Emperor Trajan's Avatar
Rome's best Emperor
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Ohio
Posts: 2,594
Blog Entries: 1

Germany would also invade Spain,Britian,Irland,Turkey,Portugal,Switzerland,S weden and Cyprus. While Germany controls many countries there would be uprisings in Stalingrad,Moscow,Minsk,Warsaw,Paris,London,Rome,M adrid,Tripoli,Athen,Istanbul and Jerusalem

Japan would also face many uprisings in Bangkok,Soul,Shanghai,Hong Kong,New Delhi,Beijing,Singapore,Kuala Lumpur,Manila and Ho Chi Minh City
Emperor Trajan is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2013, 07:38 PM   #32

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 2,659

Quote:
Originally Posted by Temujin View Post
Japan would have ultimately come out on top for the following reasons:

Germany relied on land advance, that is why it did not manage to conquer Britain, which had a superior fleet, leading to Germany resorting to asymmetrical warfare utilizing U-Boats in the Atlantic.

The Japanese had a better navy, and a superior naval aviation, distingiushed by unbelievably long-range airplanes. Japan probably had a better navy than Britain during World War II, meaning they could easily establish naval dominance in the Atlantic and establish naval bases from which great bombing raids could be conducted on German strongholds.
Germany was perfectly capable of building very good capital ships. Germany's problem in terms of surface ships was the fact that Hitler had to start over from scratch after Germany had been disarmed after WWI. Japan was not under any such limitation, and would go around the Washington Naval Treaty by converting the battleships/battlecruisers lost in that treaty into Aircraft Carriers. Germany was playing catch up and actually began WW2 five years too early, and as a result, many of the ships expected to participate in the European War were not yet built...

Much of this came because the limitations that hit Germany ran across the board after WWI. They couldn't have U-boats, dreadnoughts, military aircraft of any type, and I think heavy land weapons (tanks and heavy artillery). As a result, the Kriegesmarine battled with the Heer and Luftwaffe for material for shipbuilding as Germany built up the German war machine.

Even with this, however, Germany had built capital ships that were plenty effective against the Royal Navy. The British would deploy a fleet of warships with help from the French to hunt down the Admiral Graf Spee. When found off the River Platte, the German Pocket Battleship severely damaged all three British Cruisers before fleeing into Uraguay. Even with that though, the British never sank the German ship. Believing the Britsh had recieved massive reinforcements, the Graf Spee was scuttled.

Most of the British home fleet was deployed to hunt the Bismarck and Prince Eugen. And the opening battle of this fight involved a lucky hit that sank the Hood in six minutes and put the Prince of Wales out of action.

Had Germany won in Europe and been given time to recover, Germany could have very well replaced its WW2 and completed the H plan, which would have put battleships into service that would outweigh the Yamato. The turning to asymetrical warfare was not because the Royal Navy was "better," it was because the Royal Navy was larger when the war began in Europe. If Hitler had the fleet he wanted, he might have been far more willing to risk a Jutland-like engagement intended to sweep Britain from the sea.

And even if not, the use of submarine tactics would have devastated the Japanese. Just because it's asymetrical does not mean it is ineffective. Ton for ton, the submarine is the deadliest ship of war, and Japan neglected anti-submarine tactics badly.

And in terms of aircraft, I would not rate their aircraft as superior. Their pilots may have done better with carrier take off and landings, but one must remember that the Zero's range was mostly due to the fact that it had no armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks. Most German aircraft had those things. And assuming an Axis victory, you'd be matching largely piston engined aircraft from Japan against Me 262s and other German jet fighters after being given time to work the kinks in the engines out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Temujin View Post
Another thing that would greatly boost the Japanese war effort is its possession of China and India, the greatest industrial powerhouses in the world. Using this, Japan could extend its already massive navy to create a presence in the Indian Ocean, as well as build up its army and equip it with tank forces which could match the Germans.
I'm not sure, but I don't think India or China were all that industrially developed at that time. Much of that industrial development came later. The industrial match up would between the Japanese factories on Honshu against the Ruhr and other heavily industrialized areas of Germany.

And Japanese tanks could not even face the Sherman. It is doubtful that they'd have anything that could take on a German Tiger tank...

And even if they did, remember that if given the time to develop it, Germany would have ultimately come out with a massively enlarged V-2 to serve as the first ICBM, possibly even nuclear armed.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old January 5th, 2013, 05:16 AM   #33

Temujin's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Martian Protectorate of Earth
Posts: 213

Quote:
I'm not sure, but I don't think India or China were all that industrially developed at that time. Much of that industrial development came later. The industrial match up would between the Japanese factories on Honshu against the Ruhr and other heavily industrialized areas of Germany.
India and China were and are capable of large-scale industries because of their massive manpower. Anyway, there had been some major industrial development under the British Raj. Engineers from the British Raj could help the Japanese technology. Japanese technology is underrated anyway, because most of the war was conducted after the Battle of Midway, when Japan suffered from under-equipment and other woes. However, this would not happen if the Battle of Midway had resulted in a Japanese victory as is presented in this scenario. With British engineers, Japan could definitely acquire technology to match the Germans, for the British were among the best engineers in the world at the time.
Quote:
And in terms of aircraft, I would not rate their aircraft as superior. Their pilots may have done better with carrier take off and landings, but one must remember that the Zero's range was mostly due to the fact that it had no armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks. Most German aircraft had those things. And assuming an Axis victory, you'd be matching largely piston engined aircraft from Japan against Me 262s and other German jet fighters after being given time to work the kinks in the engines out.
I never said that the Japanese air force in general was superior, I said that the naval aviation was superior. It would take the Germans a long time to catch up with the naval aviation technology of the Japanese, who had acquired it both from the British and the Americans. Concerning the Zero, there are many instances when Zero aircraft defeated Spitfires in the Pacific, a considerable feat. Zeros were truly impressive aircraft, and no German aicraft of the time could match the Zero or even the Spitfire at the time.
Temujin is offline  
Old January 5th, 2013, 11:33 AM   #34

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 2,659

Quote:
Originally Posted by Temujin View Post
I never said that the Japanese air force in general was superior, I said that the naval aviation was superior. It would take the Germans a long time to catch up with the naval aviation technology of the Japanese, who had acquired it both from the British and the Americans.
On this I would agree. Germany's naval plan would include four carriers (I think), but as was the case with the rest of the German navy, they had to compete heavily with the army and air force, and by the time the war ended, only one carrier was near close to completion, the Graf Zepplin, and by that time, Germany's military position was so desperate that using the carrier was out of the question.

Assuming an Axis victory in WW2, while I'd imagine the Germans would return to the "H-Plan," they would still face intense compitition between the services and would as such delay any serious German development of carrier air groups.

In that, Japan would have a clear advantage, but even with that, Germany's use of submarines was far superior to Japan's and any realistic chance for Japan to win in the Pacific and in Asia would have meant that the US would have never gotten the chance to unleash their Gato class submarines on Japan's merchant marine. As such, Japan's submarine defenses would have never been tested, and against the Germans, they would be facing the masters of U-boat warfare...

As such, Japan's carrier advantages would be negated, and considering the success of the raid on Scapa Flow, even harbors would not be safe from German U-boats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Temujin View Post
Concerning the Zero, there are many instances when Zero aircraft defeated Spitfires in the Pacific, a considerable feat. Zeros were truly impressive aircraft, and no German aicraft of the time could match the Zero or even the Spitfire at the time.
This is incorrect.

In combat, the Messerschmidt Bf 109 in its various models had proved in many instances that it was at least equal to the Supermarine Spitfire in many instances. The general reason why the Spitfire ultimately gained advantages over the Bf 109 was due to the fact that the British had pilots that were equal to the skills of the pilots of the Luftwaffe. There were areas where the 109 lagged behind the Spitfire and areas where the Spitfire lagged behind the 109 and these differences were behind the upgrades that were made for each aircraft throughout the war.

Overall, the reason why the Spitfire would be considered a better fighter then the Bf 109 has nothing to do with the head to head matchup in the air, but other characteristics that became major flaws on the ground (or going to the ground). The Bf 109 was seriously flawed in its landing and taking off. Because the fighter was engineered to be the cheapest possible fighter witht he maximum ammount of firepower and manuverability for its cost, the Bf 109 was complex and difficult to operate. As such a pilot had to do a lot to get the plane into the air and onto the ground safely. As such, the Bf 109 was plagued by accidents and crashes when the pilot failed to follow the processes necessary to land or take off, or is simply poorly trained.

The Bf 109's accident rate is also why many would consider the Focke Wulf 190 a better fighter.

And even if the Spitfire was to be considered far superior to Germany's best fighter, it still wasn't the plane that won the air war in Europe. In history, the plane that did that was the North American P-51D Mustang, which was a joint US/UK ventutre. Originally it was a British order, with a us design and airframe, and the model that did the best had a British engine.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
germany, italy, japan


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What if...Germany lost WWII but Japan had won? JohnnyH General History 16 January 9th, 2014 03:35 PM
Italy in wwi hisstory European History 2 January 3rd, 2007 10:05 AM
Italy declares war on Germany WWII Commander European History 2 October 17th, 2006 01:28 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.