yes italy did fight germany while the allies where slowly taking control of the country and italy didnt win the war the allies did. but italian troops did fight very well when under german leadership. i think the italian leardership in ww2 wasent very good but thats just my opinion.
Germany vs Japan vs Italy
- Thread starter Son of Cathal
- Start date
yes italy did fight germany while the allies where slowly taking control of the country and italy didnt win the war the allies did. but italian troops did fight very well when under german leadership. i think the italian leardership in ww2 wasent very good but thats just my opinion.
Germany takes out Italy, but Japan is the maritime power. More often than not sea power beats land power, so the odds are in Japan's favour. Germany's advantage in the air certainly adds flavour, but, in the long run, I can't see a land power beating a maritime power, especially with as much vulnerable coastline as Germany would have to protect. It would take at least a decade for Germany to build up the land-based logistics needed for large scale operations in East Asia and, even then, they'd be far more vulnerable than maritime communication. They'd have similar problems in Africa, and there's no way they could hold Britain in the face of superior naval power, leaving open the German heartland to strategic attack.
This assumes Germany doesn't buck all historical trends to become capable of challenging Japan on the high seas. But with Japan's initial maritime advantage and control of all the world's strategic islands, it would be quite a pit for them to dig themselves out of. Just as it was in the first and second world wars.
This assumes Germany doesn't buck all historical trends to become capable of challenging Japan on the high seas. But with Japan's initial maritime advantage and control of all the world's strategic islands, it would be quite a pit for them to dig themselves out of. Just as it was in the first and second world wars.
Joined Jun 2012
7,405 Posts | 485+
At present SD, USA
Donitz's U-boats in history had Britain on the ropes up until 1943, and by 1945 German U-boat design became even more advanced, and only the end of the war prevented the new U-boats from entering service.
Japan is very much like Britain. It was a maritime power because it was based around an island or chain of islands. If it didn't have a good navy, it wouldn't be able to project its power anywhere. But, while this meant Japan would have a strong navy, it would also mean that it would be highly vulnerable, particularly to submarine warfare. The US Navy in history would use the same tactics Donitz was using in the Atlantic to devastating effect in the Pacific against the Japanese. And from what I've seen, despite being an island empire and utterly dependent on its merchant marine, Japanese submarine defenses were much weaker than Britain's was at the start of World War II.
Against the masters of U-boat warfare, and given that Germany would have time to fully develop the Type XXI U-boat, Japan would have been hard pressed to both supply the home islands and its troops on far flung battlefronts.
You're right, Japan was not especially good at anti-submarine warfare and, for some reason I still don't understand, they never really adopted the convoy system, which allowed American submarines, despite their substantial problems early in the war, to take a surprisingly heavy toll on Japanese shipping. Had they not learned their lessons, they certainly would have been vulnerable to U-boat attacks. Of course, in order to have won the second world war, they would have certainly needed to get their logistics in better order than they did. But, America also had a stronger position in the Pacific than Germany would have. Logistics would have made if virtually impossible to get a U-boat base any closer to the pacific than India and, likely, any closer than the middle east. Which would serve to limit their effectiveness. They'd be more trouble for operations in the Atlantic, but in this scenario with Japan controlling the industry and resources of America, I have to wonder if German maritime power could catch up. There's also the issue that, towards the end of the war, radar, sonar, and other advances had made sub hunting much easier for the dominate naval power, I question how effective they would have been from 1945 until the development of the first nuclear submarine.
Joined Jun 2012
7,405 Posts | 485+
At present SD, USA
The development of supply submarines, "Milk Cows" had helped Germany greatly in the Battle of the Atlantic, allowing U-boats, mostly Type VII and Type IXs to be resupplied and refueled while at sea. I would generally think that Germany would both expand and improve the system while still relying on diseal powered engines. And how long those would still be used is questionable. The Type XXI was used by the US, UK, and the USSR to upgrade their existing subs after WW2 and many of the Type XXI's design elements were added into the first nuclear powered submarines. And given that Germany did have physicists working on various nuclear related projects, it would not be impossible for them to have developed nuclear weapons and nuclear powered engines in the years after 1945... though everything I've read on that end would indicate that the Germans were still a few years away from even having a nuclear bomb when the war ended...
And one must remember that the development of the anti-submarine weapons that defeated the U-boats in the Atlantic had to coordinate with tactics and strategies already in place. In 1939 the British thought that the use of sonar would prevent U-boat attacks all together. They rapidly found that they didn't work well near the surface and that detection wouldn't mean much without the right weapon or tactical system to sink the sub. It took the Allies until 1943 to develop these things and use them effectively, and they were beginning with at least some basic building blocks of anti-submarine warfare...
Assuming that somehow the Axis won WWII, it is not likely that Japan would have made serious research and effort into anti-submarine warfare. The only way they could have really won in reality was for their blows immediately after Pearl Harbor being so devastating that the US was forced to surrender. As such, they would never have had to deal with the US submarine campaign.
And that is where the original poster hits some flaws in what is reasonable speculation in my opinion. While Japan might have liked to occupy the entire US, they wouldn't have the manpower or fuel to do so. And in 1941, Japan was actually trying to get OUT of the war it started with China in the 30s. It obviously couldn't surrender and return to the borders prior to the invasion of Manchuria, so it needed to find a way to get the Chinese to surrender, and with Britain occupied with the Nazis and the US in isolation, they figured the attack on Pearl Harbor and rapid conquest of the western Pacific would not only isolate China, but also encourage the US to surrender.
And even if such a scenerio DID occur, one has to remember that Germany wouldn't need to wage a U-boat war on the same scale as it did against Britain until after it had pushed the Japanese out of India and Southeast Asia or out of Siberia, which were all within striking range of German troops on the ground. It might take them time, but once done, Germany would secure bases close enough to strike at Japan's trade in the pacific...
After all, if such a scenario occurred, you'd have Japanese Type 95s (which proved completely ineffective against even the lightly armored US Sherman tank) squaring off against Panthers and Tigers in Siberia. There the advantage would clearly be on Germany's side.
I guess I had assumed, based on the scenario given, that Japan would have had to get it's maritime logistics in line to be capable of supplying an army on the North American continent as it conquered the US. Though I agree that this would have been virtually impossible.
A better scenario might be German and Italy dominating Europe and Africa and US victory in the Pacific, leading to a coalition in the Pacific between the US, China, and the remnants of the USSR. It's largely the same scenario (since we're assuming conquered peoples will cooperate, though in reality the US lead alliance would be stronger than a North American continent under Japanese Occupation), but at least it had an outside chance of occurring during the war.
I question the ability of Germany to conduct operations in east Asia for years, the trans-siberian railroad does not have the capacity to support a full-fledged offensive and it would have likely been destroyed by the retreating Russians in any case. In reality, Moscow and Stalingrad were too far for effective supply and those problems encountered would have been trivial to the problems with operating in Siberia. Without years, or even decades, of preparation and infrastructure development, East Russia would have been beyond the reach of the Germans. Any offensive would likely have to go through India, but the Germans would still have the jungles of SE Asia and the mountains of China to deal with and very little existing infrastructure to take advantage of. Even with modern advances I don't know that such land-based operations would be possible without control of and open access to the seas.
Joined Jul 2012
2,600 Posts | 0+
Somewhere
Italy would loose first leaving Germany with more of Africa. Germany would also use POWs and troops from Italy and Africa as well as troops from every nation they took over to build up an even bigger army than when the war started. Germany would beat Japan. Japan would invade India,Sri Lanka,Tibet and some more provencese in China. Japan would also add more Pacific and Oceanin Islands to their Empire
Joined Jun 2012
7,405 Posts | 485+
At present SD, USA
Most would generally agree, and generally why I think the original theory was unrealistic.
However, the Germans did have good engineers and given time they could repair and improve damaged railways. They'd had to do it in history as the US and UK frequently bombed railroad yards to try and stop the movement of supplies. The greatest problem the Germans would face in Siberia would not be the damage to the Trans-Siberian railway by retreating Soviets but the lack of any real economic development beyond that railway.
Russia, even before the rise of the Soviet Union was burdoned with economic difficulties. The Ukraine was a great breadbasket that could feed all of Russia's people, BUT Russian roads and rail links were so poor that Ukrainian grain commonly went bad before it could be processed. The violence of the Bolshevik Revolution and Stalin's paranoia didn't help anything later, and as such, if the Germans had won in Europe and at least occupied European Russia, they would probably have five years worth of work to not only gather supplies for any sort of trans-Siberian campagin, but to also improve the infrastructure of the western parts of the Soviet Union.
As such, I'd argue that Germany could realistically conduct a lengthy campaign across Siberia, particularly if they gained access to the Caucasus and Middle Eastern Oil fields, but I would agree that it would take time and would require a fair amount of time and would probably require Hitler to be more than a novice with regard to military strategy and tactics... or maybe Heydrich survives the assassination attempt in Prague, Hitler dies in 1946 from Parkinson's Disease and Heydrich replaces him as Fuhrer...
A route through India would be tougher. Unlike Siberia which would have a railway that went the length of Asia, there was no good route, and the terrain of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, and Southeast Asia were unsuitable for German armored warfare. The jungles of India, Burma, Bangladesh, and other areas would be too thick, and the Pakistan and Afghanistan areas were too mountaneous to effectively use armor as anything other then infantry support strongpoints... It's why I'd think if Germany and Japan won, Germany's wisest strategy would be to wait to build up Russian infrastructure and go through Siberia. Going through India and Southeast Asia would not only require a great deal of supply work, but would also require the Germans to change their tactical doctrines completely. Siberia would at least allow the Germans to opporate under the styles that they knew.
True, the southern route would have created a whole host of problems, but at lest they could establish industry in India and shorten their supply line, something that would be less viable in Siberia. And the Germans would certainly have started building up infastructure. I agree that 5 years is a good estimate, just to make western Russia's infrastructure adequate for supply purposes. But once they advanced east, supply would be incredibly difficult until multiple rail lines were built, only a handful of rail lines would have been too susceptible to air attack and pose a very vulnerable line of supply. Because of this, the idea of Blitzkrieg carrying them from the Urals to the Pacific is simply impossible, they'd have to go a few hundred miles, stop, entrench, and wait for the supply infrastructure to catch up. They would not have been able to keep up the initiative they enjoyed during the conquest of Europe and would open up numerous opportunities for Japanese counter attack. Of course the Japanese would encounter similar problems near the Urals, but Japan's supply problems would diminish as Germany advanced whereas Germany's would have increased. For the same reasons I don't think Japan could have attacked across Siberia either, but as a maritime power they could have taking the Atlantic islands, followed by Britain, and could have had access to Europe from the west. Especially assuming the controlled the Americas.
Armies have been over rated, probably because of their traditional strength on the continent of Europe, before Trafalgar, in any case, it's ultimately the merchant marine that's the backbone of any great power...and the navy's just there to make sure they're safe.
Joined Aug 2012
213 Posts | 0+
Martian Protectorate of Earth
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. In turn, its land advance stagnated in Russia not just because of Russian resistance but also because of major logistical problems. The thing is that even with Germany owning Western Russia, the industrial capacity of this region had been greatly diminished because of Operation Barbarossa, and thus the industry had been rebuilt in Siberia which was now split between Germany and Japan. Thus, while I cannot see the Imperial Japanese Army advancing very far into German Siberia, the same problem rests with Germany. The proportions of Siberia are just too massive, especially now that the railways are destroyed on an immense scale, meaning that it would take a long time before they could be rebuild to a point when an invasion of Japanese Siberia is realistically feasible.
Now that we have asserted that the time of big land advances is over, warfare would now depend on the navy. 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. 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.
In short, Japan had a much greater capacity of waging war over big distances, and would also possess more industrially valuable regions.
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. In turn, its land advance stagnated in Russia not just because of Russian resistance but also because of major logistical problems. The thing is that even with Germany owning Western Russia, the industrial capacity of this region had been greatly diminished because of Operation Barbarossa, and thus the industry had been rebuilt in Siberia which was now split between Germany and Japan. Thus, while I cannot see the Imperial Japanese Army advancing very far into German Siberia, the same problem rests with Germany. The proportions of Siberia are just too massive, especially now that the railways are destroyed on an immense scale, meaning that it would take a long time before they could be rebuild to a point when an invasion of Japanese Siberia is realistically feasible.
Now that we have asserted that the time of big land advances is over, warfare would now depend on the navy. 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. 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.
In short, Japan had a much greater capacity of waging war over big distances, and would also possess more industrially valuable regions.
Joined Jul 2012
2,600 Posts | 0+
Somewhere
Germany would also invade Spain,Britian,Irland,Turkey,Portugal,Switzerland,Sweden and Cyprus. While Germany controls many countries there would be uprisings in Stalingrad,Moscow,Minsk,Warsaw,Paris,London,Rome,Madrid,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
Japan would also face many uprisings in Bangkok,Soul,Shanghai,Hong Kong,New Delhi,Beijing,Singapore,Kuala Lumpur,Manila and Ho Chi Minh City
Joined Jun 2012
7,405 Posts | 485+
At present SD, USA
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.
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.
Joined Aug 2012
213 Posts | 0+
Martian Protectorate of Earth
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.
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.
Joined Jun 2012
7,405 Posts | 485+
At present SD, USA
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.
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.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-