yes, the Japanese refuse the Bf-109 offer by the germans, so maybe what you say is true. But to say on contrary, the Japanese Zero were indeed superior then the early war American design. for some time, IJN pilots enjoy unchallenged air superiority over the pacific. only after the appearance of Corsair and the Hellcat, the table was even out somehow. But you can't say that Japanese design board was idle. by the second half of the war, several new design indeed came out of the factory, like N1K-J fighter aircraft which could effectively challenged the Hellcat. of course, just like Me-262, the design came out too few and too late to have any lasting effect on the war.
A different outcome to WW2
- Thread starter long live usa
- Start date
Germany was in the process of shipping a tiger and Panther to Japan, I wonder if either tank made it out of port. Also it is still a controversal issue on how Michael Wittman met his death in Tiger 007, some still insist that he ran into a Allied bombing run.:unknown
There are three possible scenarios surrounding Wittmann’s death on the August 8, 1944, during a counterattack near the town of St.Aignan de Cramesnil, as follows:
1. Ambushed by A Squadron, 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry, Sherman Firefly of number 3 Troop (commander - Sergeant Gordon; gunner - Trooper Joe Ekins);
2. Major Sidney Radley-Walters tanks of A Squadron, Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment, 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade equipped with Sherman III and 2 Sherman VC positioned parallel with the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry tanks.
RAF Rocket firing Typhoons
Having read ‘Tiger Ace/the Life Story of Panzer Commander Michael Wittmann by Gary L. Simpson and several eye witness accounts I tend to lean towards Gordon’s Sherman Firefly.
1. Ambushed by A Squadron, 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry, Sherman Firefly of number 3 Troop (commander - Sergeant Gordon; gunner - Trooper Joe Ekins);
2. Major Sidney Radley-Walters tanks of A Squadron, Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment, 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade equipped with Sherman III and 2 Sherman VC positioned parallel with the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry tanks.
RAF Rocket firing Typhoons
Having read ‘Tiger Ace/the Life Story of Panzer Commander Michael Wittmann by Gary L. Simpson and several eye witness accounts I tend to lean towards Gordon’s Sherman Firefly.
Yes - this is a excellant book that I have also read, If you havent had a chance to read Armor Battles Of The Waffen SS by Will Fey I would highly recommend it, excellent reading material. Experts that have studied the wreck of 007 back in 1983 have stated that there wasn`t any type of side penetration found but there was a top penetration from the engine deck, air intake grill was ripped open.
Shadow Fighter
New Member
if germandy/Japan
if Germandy would have won the air battle i think they would have took brittan aith no problam but thats just me no when i came to russa they would have had a fight on there hands they wherent the best but had man power and the power and the know how to use it.
now if japan would have had a land attack alot of are ships where there so are navy was wreacked you know so they would have took the island and i think would would have pulled all are troops out of europe and attcked japan
if Germandy would have won the air battle i think they would have took brittan aith no problam but thats just me no when i came to russa they would have had a fight on there hands they wherent the best but had man power and the power and the know how to use it.
now if japan would have had a land attack alot of are ships where there so are navy was wreacked you know so they would have took the island and i think would would have pulled all are troops out of europe and attcked japan
Germany made alot of critical mistakes during WW2 such as not focusong on strategic bombers, not switching economy to war economy till later in the war , not finishing off allies at Dunquirke , changing attacks on British airfields to city's , Not focusing on africa and sending reinforcments to Rommel aswell as lack of supply's , even attacking Soviet Union in the first place and opening 2 fronts , Dividing his army before moscow , overextending the army at stalingrad and not properly defending flanks , and many of the mistakes came from Hitler trying to be a military genius which he was clearly not instead of letting his professionals to do the tactics , but even without the mistakes Germany was incapable of invading the world , they lacked much strategic assets and industry to do so.
Some of these were real mistakes (like economic) , some were not mistakes as anything else was impossible in reality.
For example, 2 things what was NOT mistakes (despite common myths): Stategic bombers and dividing before Moskow.
Lets look closer at them: Strategic bombers. Realistically, Germany couldnt employ them in 1939-40. Germany laked: time to build enouth, it laked fighter ecscort, resources to build them without major setbacks in other vital programs - like for example Navy program , which is also very essencial for war aganst GB, or very important land army program. So, bombers was no-go for Germany in 1939-40. May be later, IF Germany didnt attacked USSR, could find enouth time & resources for such program.
Lets now discuss "dividing before Moskow": Very common myth what it would have helped Hitler. In reality, if anything, it would helped USSR much more. You just forget what huge Soviet armies which was destroyed by this dividing would end up defending Moskow otherwise. And believe me, they would end up much more orginized there, and Wermacht would suffer much large casualities while trying to destroy them near Moskow. Or even worse, these huge armies could cut german flanks and cause havoc within greater than Stalingrad.
The WHOLE idea of Blitzkrieg was to destroy enemy army as fast as possible, and NOT to capture Moskow as fast as possible (even IF possible at all- debatable). Captured Moskow without destroyed Soviet army would be catastrophe for Hitler. In reality, even after mildly successfull Blitzkrieg (e.g. Germany successed to destroy the core of Soviet army), USSR found enouth forces to counterattack at Moskow. Imagine how much worse it would be if USSR had 2 times large army during counterattack....
Actualy I disagree , we both know if Germany would not focus on development of such unimportant " superweapons " they would have the resources or time to focus on developing strategic bombers ,and allthought it was not crusial during the initial stage Germany could have never conquered Russia combined with whole Europe and even less the whole world without such strategic assets.
About the dividing , precisely stopping the attack and dividing the army gave Soviets CRUSIAL time to regroup and focus on the defence and counterattack, I agree that dividing had the benefits but the Soviets were very weak at that moment and the time dividing the army gave them much more time to greatly focus on the defence and also counterattack.
They would undoubtly have resources to DEVELOP such bomber & fighter. But they still didnt had resources & time to BUILD them. And i mean here 1939-1941 timeframe. Tell me, what "superweapon" consumed so much resources what would allow Germany to develop & build thousand of strategic bombers by the end of 1940? And also thousands of new ecscort fighters, what even rich USA obtained only by 1944, with all technological progress?
As for dividing... AGAIN, you just dont understand simply thing - without dividing Soviets just WOULD NOT NEED to regroup. The would have enouth forces to draw back wermacht as is. Tell me, why would Red Army need to regroup and be overall weaker IF it would have completely intact 1.5 million army on German flanks, and thats 2 months earler than in reality???
Please, describe the course of events if German army wouldnt devide. I decribed my views - undefeated USSR army would either counterattack or relocated under Moscow. In both cases Wermacht would suffer much greater casualities and time setback than due to simply dividing and eliminating that large chunk of Soviet military.
Please, dont suppose what such large group of soviet army would perish by itself. It wouldnt.
Smolensk counterattack was already pretty bad for Wermacht. And you suggest much worse step...
1.OK thats true , during the initial phase Germany did not have time or resourses to develop strategic bombers , but what stopped them later?
Like I said the focused on so much unimportant projects and superweapons that they destroyed any chance of that.. For example why did they subject themself to develop and build Tiger tanks? They saw how many problems they had, when they would have concentrated on Panthers instead of Tigers and strategic bombers instead of useless projects that never saw daylight and superweapons , they would be much better off in the end and you have to agree with me on this.
2.Well if Panzer Group 3 wouldn't go north and if Panzer Group 2 wouldn't go south then they AG's would rush towards moscow, since PG2 and PG3 were battle warry from Smolensk and had them follow they would have to wait for refiting etc and would normaly had to catch up , the following would most possibly follow a huge city battle for moscow.
Of course the Army Group Center would not able to cover flanks towards moscow so 4th and 9th army would extend their flank guard which I agree would be very hard for them to maintain a line with the north and south army's which would lead to 2nd and 3rd beeing trown in from the reserves.
Early Panthers (first 250 or so) were highly unreliable, and their production expensive at the early stages due to specialized production machinery.
The Tiger is a whole year older than the Panther, by start of design. 'nuff said.
Also, they did concentrate on Panthers. Some 5,987 Panthers were built (842 D, 2,192 A, 2,953 G) as opposed to only 1,355 Tiger I and 489 Tiger II (50 P-turret, 439 H-turret).
Well, Tiger still played very vital part - and while i agree what resources spend on them probably be better applied to upgraded PZ-IV and Panthers - that still didnt free up reservers for strategic bombers. Same with other projects - Germany just didnt have enouth resources and time to build sizeable strategic bombers AND ecscort fighters airfleet by 1943 without major setbacks in other , much more important, weapon areas. The resourses to build such large airfleet are undoubtly comparable to resources spend on whole Luftwaffe during WW2.
Moreover, starting from early 1944 addidional air-related resources would be better spend on fighters for Reich defence against USA/UK strategic bombers. And even in 1943 Luftwaffe already started to lose superiority in East Front - so even here simply fighters and frontline bombers would be much more usefull than overexpencive strategic forces with unknown effectivity.
Keep in mind, Germany didnt even managed to develop effective day-light frontline bomber. Ju-87 was obsolete even in 1942 (and degenerated to night bomber in 1943), Ju-88 and He-111 was much too heavy for that job. FW-190 could be called fighter-bomber - but it is still not the same as bomber.
And again, keep in mind vast distances of USSR. Most vital industry was already either destroyed in Ukraine during 1941 or already relocated out of any imaginable bomber reach behind Ural.
The most important Hitler mistake was later industrial mobilization. On the other hand, i somewhat doubt it was ideologically possible to fully mobilize civilian industry much soone than in reality - i mean, if Hitler personally and german high command generally even remotely expected such troubles, they wouldnt attack USSR in first place.
Morever, the major selling point of the war was "new lebensraum and slaves for everyone", and not "yet another WW1 massacre". So it would be very hard to convince german peoples work harder without major threat from enraged barbaric communist horders, which was direct result of failed blitzkrieg.
Morever, the major selling point of the war was "new lebensraum and slaves for everyone", and not "yet another WW1 massacre". So it would be very hard to convince german peoples work harder without major threat from enraged barbaric communist horders, which was direct result of failed blitzkrieg.
Last edited:
Indeed arguable mistake on history by itself.
Coming out of the factory and workers got to realize the world was gone.
When walls are falling, conception of the world is shaking down,
try to convince first place reason to work. Horrific troubles and
because USSR was listening intellictually sounding music, the
barbaric music didn't fall the attackers arse, spreading like WW2
assacre.
CPL.Laffoon
New Member
it is called hard water
it is called hard water and if what the europeans called the doughboys(americans) didnt show up they would be saluting hitler. i hate to be one sided but if it wasnt for marine france would have fell why i love marines is because my uncles regiment is who faught in belleu woods,france but he wasnt in there he was in korean war so was his twin my grandpaw. my grandpaws brother died in the punchbowl area in korean war my grandpaw and his friends where in the next fox hole from him when he was killed on his papers it said he was defending a key hill position with alight machine gun
it is called hard water and if what the europeans called the doughboys(americans) didnt show up they would be saluting hitler. i hate to be one sided but if it wasnt for marine france would have fell why i love marines is because my uncles regiment is who faught in belleu woods,france but he wasnt in there he was in korean war so was his twin my grandpaw. my grandpaws brother died in the punchbowl area in korean war my grandpaw and his friends where in the next fox hole from him when he was killed on his papers it said he was defending a key hill position with alight machine gun
France did fall, in 1940, before the USA joined the war.
Belleau Wood was a WW1 battle, not WW2, and the USMC contribution was minor in the grand scheme of things.
The USMC did not fight in Europe in WW2, except for detachments on board ships, & for training US army units in amphibious landings. A small number participated in the landings in N. Africa, I think.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Touche!
nfloorl:I thought that they may of also has a small number involved in the Normady beach landings.
The USMC had protection detachments aboard all USN capital ships, and of course at the embassies, operating in the European theater.
The only major operation was from July 1941 to May 1942, the Occupation of Iceland after the British Operation Fork, by the 1st Marine Brigade (Provisional), consisting of 6th Marines (Reinforced) and 5th Defense Battalion.
Beyond that, there was:
Operation Torch (North Africa): the USMC provided about 30 men for training USN boat crews for the landing, and advising them during the actual landing.
Operation Overlord (Normandy): the USMC had two officers at Omaha Beach (observing NGS from the ships), one correspondent with the Royal Marines (aboard a LCG), one officer with Assault Force J, Canadian 3rd Division.
Operation Dragoon (South France): one interpreter for the French II Corps commander, one NGS observer aboard Nevada; plus landing parties of USMC detachments from cruisers Philadelphia and Augusta to formally accept German surrenders on three islands.
Operation Avalanche (Salerno): five USMC officers, each posted on a LST with British troops, one staff officer
Londonderry, UK detachment: from August '44 to November '45, 80 men were stationed in Londonderry to protect a Naval Radio Station, replacing the original "battalion" stationed there (which provided USMC support for the above operations).
London, UK detachment: varying between about 30 and about 60 men, joint ComNavEu and US Embassy protection.
There were also various "Marine Barracks" (company-sized FOBs) stationed around the Atlantic on British islands, e.g. in Bermuda or also Newfoundland.
And, afaik, there was a group from some Marine Nightfighter Group training with RAF pilots that later participated in Operation Avalanche.
The only USMC men to have actually come into a firefight in Europe would be the five men at Salerno and the one with Assault Force J in Normandy.
The only major operation was from July 1941 to May 1942, the Occupation of Iceland after the British Operation Fork, by the 1st Marine Brigade (Provisional), consisting of 6th Marines (Reinforced) and 5th Defense Battalion.
Beyond that, there was:
Operation Torch (North Africa): the USMC provided about 30 men for training USN boat crews for the landing, and advising them during the actual landing.
Operation Overlord (Normandy): the USMC had two officers at Omaha Beach (observing NGS from the ships), one correspondent with the Royal Marines (aboard a LCG), one officer with Assault Force J, Canadian 3rd Division.
Operation Dragoon (South France): one interpreter for the French II Corps commander, one NGS observer aboard Nevada; plus landing parties of USMC detachments from cruisers Philadelphia and Augusta to formally accept German surrenders on three islands.
Operation Avalanche (Salerno): five USMC officers, each posted on a LST with British troops, one staff officer
Londonderry, UK detachment: from August '44 to November '45, 80 men were stationed in Londonderry to protect a Naval Radio Station, replacing the original "battalion" stationed there (which provided USMC support for the above operations).
London, UK detachment: varying between about 30 and about 60 men, joint ComNavEu and US Embassy protection.
There were also various "Marine Barracks" (company-sized FOBs) stationed around the Atlantic on British islands, e.g. in Bermuda or also Newfoundland.
And, afaik, there was a group from some Marine Nightfighter Group training with RAF pilots that later participated in Operation Avalanche.
The only USMC men to have actually come into a firefight in Europe would be the five men at Salerno and the one with Assault Force J in Normandy.