The US was already at war with Germany by proxy... Destroyer's for bases, Lend Lease, escorting convoys partway to the UK with US warships, etc. All of this was in direct support of a country that Germany was at war with, so a DoW allows the Uboats to interdict the sea lanes. By the time the US military became a real factor, the main front in the war against Germany had been pretty much decided (Eastern Front). During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships for the loss of 22 Uboats, that pretty much makes 1942 a win for them...Erwinn wrote:Okay, you leave British on their island. Force Middle East into a stalemate and do not make any OTL mistakes. For example, wait at El Agheila or at Tobruk, rather than trying to capture Suez.
Still, you will lose the war because of a show off in politics - DoW on USA while Britain is still standing. Giving them a huge island base in the process.
Germany winning on the Eastern Front
- Appleknocker27
- Member
- Posts: 648
- Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
- Location: US/Europe
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
This is meaningless,because the parameters you are using are meaningless :Appleknocker27 wrote: During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships for the loss of 22 Uboats, that pretty much makes 1942 a win for them...
Allied shipping loss figures are meaningless:what about Allied shipping construction, what about Allied shipping needs ? During 1942 British oil imports increased from 13.1 million GRT to 16.2 million GRT .
German U Boat losses also are meaningless :what about German U Boat construction, what about German U Boat needs ?
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
it cant be a win because the allies didn't quit the war
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
IIRC the sinkings of 1941 1942 barely accounted for the Norwegian shipping fleet, bequeathed in toto to the AngloFrench Imperial cause by Unternehmen Weserubung.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion
- Appleknocker27
- Member
- Posts: 648
- Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
- Location: US/Europe
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
What about zero shipping losses as opposed to 600+ in American waters?ljadw wrote:This is meaningless,because the parameters you are using are meaningless :Appleknocker27 wrote: During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships for the loss of 22 Uboats, that pretty much makes 1942 a win for them...
Allied shipping loss figures are meaningless:what about Allied shipping construction, what about Allied shipping needs ? During 1942 British oil imports increased from 13.1 million GRT to 16.2 million GRT .
German U Boat losses also are meaningless :what about German U Boat construction, what about German U Boat needs ?
- Appleknocker27
- Member
- Posts: 648
- Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
- Location: US/Europe
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
600+ losses and millions of tons for 22 Uboats is a good trade off and a "win" for a protracted industrial war. US shipments of free war materials to the UK was going to happen regardless, so the Germans decided to slow the flow...steverodgers801 wrote:it cant be a win because the allies didn't quit the war
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
What about zero merchant shipping production as opposed to the production in the OTL?Appleknocker27 wrote:What about zero shipping losses as opposed to 600+ in American waters?ljadw wrote:This is meaningless,because the parameters you are using are meaningless :Appleknocker27 wrote: During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships for the loss of 22 Uboats, that pretty much makes 1942 a win for them...
Allied shipping loss figures are meaningless:what about Allied shipping construction, what about Allied shipping needs ? During 1942 British oil imports increased from 13.1 million GRT to 16.2 million GRT .
German U Boat losses also are meaningless :what about German U Boat construction, what about German U Boat needs ?
What about zero U Boat production as opposed to the production in the OTL ?
How many of these 600 ships that were lost were carrying war materials with as destination Britain ?
There was no chance to hurt the US significantly by the U Boats;the only that could be hurt was Britain,that's why Drumbeat was a mistake .
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
Other point is that there were NO 600 + ships lost in American waters in 1942: Drumbeat happend in the first 6 months of 1942,after june it was over:in these 6 months 628 ships were lost by U boats in the mediterranean, the Atlantic,on the way to the SU and in the American waters,but these were only a part .
Exemple ; 66 ships were lost in january,of which 32 in convois thus outside the US waters .
In the first 6 months of 1942 110 ships were lost on the East Coast of which 54 tankers,of which 40 US tankers and 125 ships were lost in the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribean .
If 11O ships were lost in 6 months, it was impossible that 628 would be lost in 12 months .
Exemple ; 66 ships were lost in january,of which 32 in convois thus outside the US waters .
In the first 6 months of 1942 110 ships were lost on the East Coast of which 54 tankers,of which 40 US tankers and 125 ships were lost in the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribean .
If 11O ships were lost in 6 months, it was impossible that 628 would be lost in 12 months .
- Appleknocker27
- Member
- Posts: 648
- Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
- Location: US/Europe
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
I said all of 1942, your attempt to reframe my statement and then prove it wrong is clumsy (and wrong) as usual...
And....your un-sourced facts are incorrect as well:
"During the first 6 months of the German U-boat offensive out of the US east coast some 397 ships totalling over 2 million tons were sunk, costing roughly 5000 lives. In the process only 7 U-boats (U-85, U-352, U-157, U-158, U-701, U-153 and U-576) were lost." http://uboat.net/ops/drumbeat.htm
As usual, you attempt to insert your own brand of logic to extrapolate statistics instead of using fact based citable statistics that are readily available.
During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships on for the loss of 22 Uboats, as stated above: FACT
And....your un-sourced facts are incorrect as well:
"During the first 6 months of the German U-boat offensive out of the US east coast some 397 ships totalling over 2 million tons were sunk, costing roughly 5000 lives. In the process only 7 U-boats (U-85, U-352, U-157, U-158, U-701, U-153 and U-576) were lost." http://uboat.net/ops/drumbeat.htm
As usual, you attempt to insert your own brand of logic to extrapolate statistics instead of using fact based citable statistics that are readily available.
During 1942 the Germans sank 600+ merchant ships on for the loss of 22 Uboats, as stated above: FACT
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
NO : you said : 600 ships in American waters :397 ships OUT of the US east coast are NOT 600 ships in American waters .
There were NO 600 ships lost in American waters .
There were NO 600 ships lost in American waters .
Last edited by ljadw on 03 Jun 2016, 22:21, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
NO : you said : 600 ships in American waters :397 ships OUT of the US east coast are NOT 600 ships in American waters .
There were NO 600 ships lost in American waters .
Besides, your second claim is also wrong : there were NO 600 ships lost in 1942, but 1300 +
There were NO 600 ships lost in American waters .
Besides, your second claim is also wrong : there were NO 600 ships lost in 1942, but 1300 +
- Appleknocker27
- Member
- Posts: 648
- Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
- Location: US/Europe
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
As usual your posts are just another adventure in distortion and manipulation to avoid conceding a point. You bring no analysis and never post a source, just a very odd brand of logic that makes sense to no one but you.
I rarely put anyone on the ignore list but I just made an exception. Time is valuable and I'm not wasting anymore...
I rarely put anyone on the ignore list but I just made an exception. Time is valuable and I'm not wasting anymore...
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
This is only an attempt to hide the fact that you are still living in the Cold War (the good Germans/the bad Soviets) and that you refuse to leave this logic.
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
Back to the original question, not sure what people have said before, but for the Germans to have won the war, I would say they needed some or all of the following:
1. More incompetence on the Soviet side. The reason they did as well as they did in the opening stages of Barbarossa was sheer Soviet incompetence, at all levels. The Russians had almost 10 times as many tanks as the Germans, for starters.
2. Supporting invasion by the Japanese to tie down the eastern troops that were shifted to defend Moscow.
3. Switch to a total war economy well before 1943. Clearly, 1941 or earlier would have been best.
4. Start the invasion earlier. The Yugoslavia/Greece campaign meant that the bad weather kicked in just as they were within striking distance of Moscow. Another two weeks or a month and they could have been 20 miles east, not west of Moscow when the weather went to hell.
With some or all of the above its quite easy to envisage Leningrad and Moscow falling, which might not have ended the war, but would certainly have greatly improved the Germans' chances.
1. More incompetence on the Soviet side. The reason they did as well as they did in the opening stages of Barbarossa was sheer Soviet incompetence, at all levels. The Russians had almost 10 times as many tanks as the Germans, for starters.
2. Supporting invasion by the Japanese to tie down the eastern troops that were shifted to defend Moscow.
3. Switch to a total war economy well before 1943. Clearly, 1941 or earlier would have been best.
4. Start the invasion earlier. The Yugoslavia/Greece campaign meant that the bad weather kicked in just as they were within striking distance of Moscow. Another two weeks or a month and they could have been 20 miles east, not west of Moscow when the weather went to hell.
With some or all of the above its quite easy to envisage Leningrad and Moscow falling, which might not have ended the war, but would certainly have greatly improved the Germans' chances.
Re: Germany winning on the Eastern Front
The soviets have 35.000 tanks in June 1941?steevh wrote::
1. More incompetence on the Soviet side. The reason they did as well as they did in the opening stages of Barbarossa was sheer Soviet incompetence, at all levels. The Russians had almost 10 times as many tanks as the Germans, for starters.